AI's rise could reshape money markets, leaving traditional players behind as crypto gains traction.

The post Jordi Visser: AI and crypto will disrupt existing market structures, stablecoins are processing more volume than Mastercard, and Bitcoin’s performance is closely tied to software ETFs | The Wolf Of All Streets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The tariff hike may strain international trade relations, potentially leading to retaliatory measures and impacting global economic stability.

The post Trump declares global tariff hike to 15% following court setback appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Trove's token sale raised $11.5 million, focusing on real-world assets like collectible cards. The ICO process for Trove was oversubscribed, leading to incomplete refunds for investors. The token sale process lacks the structure needed for success, highlighting a gap in support for token founders.

The post Luca Netz: Trove’s $11.5 million token sale highlights flaws in ICO structure, liquidity issues threaten NFT market, and the rise of echo groups over traditional VC | Unchained appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The incident highlights the critical need for robust security measures in blockchain platforms to maintain user trust and market stability.

The post IoTeX confirms token safe incident, says situation ‘under control’ appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Nasdaq's move into tokenization could accelerate blockchain adoption in traditional finance, potentially reshaping asset management and trading.

The post Nasdaq hires product manager to lead tokenization innovation appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Nakamoto Inc. ($NAKA) Completes Acquisition of BTC Inc. and UTXO Management

Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) announced today that it has completed its acquisitions of BTC Inc. and UTXO Management GP, LLC (“UTXO”), finalizing merger agreements previously announced earlier this month.

The transaction was structured entirely through the issuance of Nakamoto common stock. BTC Inc. and UTXO securityholders received 364,795,104 shares of Nakamoto stock, at a combined value of $81,632,852 based on Nakamoto’s closing price on February 19, 2026, of $0.248. In a form 8-K filing yesterday, Nakamoto disclosed that the two businesses reported a combined revenue of $80.5 million, $34.2 million in EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Amortization), and $40.1 million in net income for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2025.

The deal followed the terms of Nakamoto’s call option under its Marketing Services Agreement, which was previously approved by shareholders.

BTC Inc. is a global Bitcoin media company that produces Bitcoin Magazine, one of the longest-running publications covering the cryptocurrency industry. 

The company also organizes The Bitcoin Conference, a series of events held across the U.S., Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, which attracted over 67,000 attendees in 2025. BTC Inc. also operates Bitcoin for Corporations, a membership platform for companies using Bitcoin as a treasury asset.

UTXO Management serves as an adviser to a hedge fund focused on Bitcoin and related investments. Its team allocates capital across public and private markets in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The firm’s integration into Nakamoto expands the company’s investment and advisory capabilities.

Nakamoto: A portfolio of bitcoin adjacent companies 

David Bailey, Chairman and CEO of Nakamoto Inc., said earlier this week that the “acquisition aligns with our plan to operate a portfolio of companies across media, asset management, and advisory services. BTC Inc. and UTXO provide recurring earnings and institutional capabilities that support our growth strategy.”

Brandon Green, CEO of BTC Inc., added, “Joining Nakamoto allows us to scale our media and event platforms and extend our reach to a wider audience of companies and investors in Bitcoin.”

Tyler Evans, Chief Investment Officer of Nakamoto and UTXO, said the combination provides an opportunity to reinforce Bitcoin’s role in modern capital markets and to develop new investment strategies.

With the acquisition complete, Nakamoto now operates a diversified portfolio of Bitcoin-native enterprises spanning media, events, asset management, and advisory services. 

The company intends to use the combined platform for future strategic initiatives, including additional Bitcoin accumulation and potential acquisitions.

Bitcoin Magazine is published by BTC Inc, a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA)

This post Nakamoto Inc. ($NAKA) Completes Acquisition of BTC Inc. and UTXO Management first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nik and Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Core Issue: Cluster Mempool, Problems Are Easier In Chunks

Cluster Mempool¹ is a complete reworking of how the mempool handles organizing and sorting transactions, conceptualized and implemented by Suhas Daftuar and Pieter Wuille. The design aims to simplify the overall architecture, better align transaction sorting logic with miner incentives, and improve security for second layer protocols. It was merged into Bitcoin Core in PR #33629² on November 25, 2025. 

The mempool is a giant set of pending transactions that your node has to keep track of for a number of reasons: fee estimation, transaction replacement validation, and block construction if you’re a miner. 

This is a lot of different goals for a single function of your node to service. Bitcoin Core up to version 30.0 organizes the mempool in two different ways to help aid in these functions, both from the relative point of view of any given transaction: combined feerate looking forward of the transaction and its children (descendant feerate), and combined feerate looking backwards of the transaction and its parents (ancestor feerate). 

These are used to decide which transactions to evict from your mempool when it’s full, and which to include first when constructing a new block template. 

How Is My Mempool Managed?

When a miner is deciding whether to include a transaction in their block, their node looks at that transaction, and any ancestors that must be confirmed first for it to be valid in a block, and look at the average feerate per byte across all of them together considering the individual fees they paid as a whole. If that group of transactions fits within the blocksize limit while outcompeting others in fees, it is included in the next block. This is done for every transaction.

When your node is deciding which transactions to evict from its mempool when it is full, it looks at each transaction and any children it has, evicting the transaction and all its children if the mempool is already full with transactions (and their descendants) paying a higher feerate. 

Look at the above example graph of transactions, the feerates are shown as such in parentheses (ancestor feerate, descendant feerate). A miner looking at transaction E would likely include it in the next block, a small transaction paying a very high fee with a single small ancestor. However, if a node’s mempool was filling up, it would look at transaction A with two massive children paying a low relative fee, and likely evict it or not accept and keep it if it was just received. 

These two rankings, or orderings, are completely at odds with each other. The mempool should reliably propagate what miners will mine, and users should be confident that their local mempool accurately predicts what miners will mine. 

The mempool functioning in this way is important for:

• Mining decentralization: getting all miners the most profitable set of transactions
• User reliability: accurate and reliable fee estimation and transaction confirmation times
• Second layer security: reliable and accurate execution of second layer protocols’ on-chain enforcement transactions

The current behavior of the mempool does not fully align with the reality of mining incentives, which creates blind spots that can be problematic for second layer security by creating uncertainty as to whether a transaction will make it to a miner, as well as pressure for non-public broadcasting channels to miners, potentially worsening the first problem. 

This is especially problematic when it comes to replacing unconfirmed transactions, either simply to incentivize miners to include a replacement sooner, or as part of a second layer protocol being enforced on-chain. 

Replacement per the existing behavior becomes unpredictable depending on the shape and size of the web of transactions yours is caught in. In a simple fee-bumping situation this can fail to propagate and replace a transaction, even when mining the replacement would be better for a miner. 

In the context of second layer protocols, the current logic allows participants to potentially get necessary ancestor transactions evicted from the mempool, or make it not possible for another participant to submit a necessary child transaction to the mempool under the current rules because of child transactions the malicious participant created, or the eviction of necessary ancestor transactions. 

All of these problems are the result of these inconsistent inclusion and eviction rankings and the incentive misalignments they create. Having a single global ranking would fix these issues, but globally reordering the entire mempool for every new transaction is impractical. 

It’s All Just A Graph

Transactions that depend on each other are a graph, or a directed series of “paths.” When a transaction spends outputs created by another in the past, it is linked with that past transaction. When it additionally spends outputs created by a second past transaction, it links both of the historical transactions together. 

When unconfirmed, chains of transactions like this must have the earlier transactions confirmed first for the later ones to be valid. After all, you can’t spend outputs that haven’t been created yet. 

This is an important concept for understanding the mempool, it is explicitly ordered directionally. 

It’s all just a graph. 

Chunks Make Clusters Make Mempools

In cluster mempool, the concept of a cluster is a group of unconfirmed transactions that are directly related to each other, i.e. spending outputs created by others in the cluster or vice versa. This becomes a fundamental unit of the new mempool architecture. Analyzing and ordering the entire mempool is an impractical task, but analyzing and ordering clusters is a much more manageable one. 

Each cluster is broken down into chunks, small sets of transactions from the cluster, which are then sorted in order of highest feerate per byte to lowest, respecting the directional dependencies. So for instance, let’s say from highest to lowest feerate the chunks in cluster (A) are: [A,D], [B,E], [C,F], [G, J], and last [I, H]. 

This allows pre-sorting all of these chunks and clusters, and more efficient sorting of the whole mempool in the process. 

Miners can now simply grab the highest feerate chunks from every cluster and put them into their template, if there is still room they can go down to the next highest feerate chunks, continuing until the block is roughly full and just needs to figure out the last few transactions it can fit. This is roughly the optimal block template construction method assuming access to all available transactions. 

When nodes’ mempools get full, they can simply grab the lowest feerate chunks from every cluster, and start evicting those from their mempool until it is not over the configured limit. If that was not enough, it moves on to the next lowest feerate chunks, and so on, until it is within its mempool limits. Done this way it removes strange edge cases out of alignment with mining incentives. 

Replacement logic is also drastically simplified. Compare cluster (A) to cluster (B) where transaction K has replaced G, I, J, and H. The only criteria that needs to be met is the new chunk [K] must have a higher chunk feerate than [G, J] and [I, H], [K] must pay more in total fees than [G, J, I, H], and K cannot go over an upper limit of how many transactions it is replacing. 

In a cluster paradigm all of these different uses are in alignment with each other. 

The New Mempool

This new architecture allows us to simplify transaction group limits, removing previous limitations on how many unconfirmed ancestors a transaction in the mempool can have and replacing them with a global cluster limit of 64 transactions and 101 kvB per cluster. 

This limit is necessary in order to keep the computational cost of pre-sorting the clusters and their chunks low enough to be practical for nodes to perform on a constant basis. 

This is the real key insight of cluster mempool. By keeping the chunks and clusters relatively small, you simultaneously make the construction of an optimal block template cheap, simplify transaction replacement logic (fee-bumping) and therefore improve second layer security, and fix eviction logic, all at once. 

No more expensive and slow on the fly computation for template building, or unpredictable behavior in fee-bumping. By fixing the misalignment of incentives in how the mempool was managing transaction organization in different situations, the mempool functions better for everyone. 

Cluster mempool is a project that has been years-long in the making, and will make a material impact on ensuring profitable block templates are open to all miners, that second layer protocols have sound and predictable mempool behaviors to build on, and that Bitcoin can continue functioning as a decentralized monetary system. 

For those interesting in diving deeper into the nitty gritty of how cluster mempool is implemented and works under the hood, here are two Delving Bitcoin threads you can read:

High Level Implementation Overview (With Design Rationale): https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/an-overview-of-the-cluster-mempool-proposal/393 

How Cluster Mempool Feerate Diagrams Work: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/mempool-incentive-compatibility/553 

Don’t miss your chance to own The Core Issue — featuring articles written by many Core Developers explaining the projects they work on themselves!

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

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27677 

[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629 

This post The Core Issue: Cluster Mempool, Problems Are Easier In Chunks first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Shinobi.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Pops After Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs

The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariff regime, ruling 6-3 that he exceeded his authority by imposing broad import duties under a national emergency law.

The decision invalidates tariffs Trump levied in early 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a statute enacted in 1977 and historically used to sanction foreign adversaries during crises. Trump cited persistent trade deficits and national security concerns, including fentanyl trafficking, to justify duties ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from nearly every major trading partner.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Constitution leaves little ambiguity about who controls the taxing power.

“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Roberts wrote, adding that no previous president had used the statute to impose tariffs “of this magnitude and scope.”

The ruling marks the first major test of Trump’s second-term economic agenda before the high court, which includes three justices he appointed during his first term. Lower courts had already found that the administration overstepped, emphasizing that Article I of the Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress.

President Trump said he has a backup plan to pursue tariffs following the court ruling, according to various sources.

Bitcoin jumps on the news 

In financial markets, the reaction was swift and unsettled. Bitcoin rose about 2% within minutes of the decision, briefly climbing above $68,000 before retreating toward $67,500. The move reflected a familiar pattern in digital asset markets, where headline-driven rallies have struggled to hold.

The mixed response underscored the ambiguity surrounding the ruling’s economic impact. For some investors, the invalidation of tariffs removes a source of policy uncertainty that has weighed on global trade. 

For others, it introduces new questions about fiscal gaps, refund obligations and next steps from the White House.

Reuters has reported that more than $133 billion in tariff revenue collected under the emergency authority could be subject to refunds. Trump has said his broader tariff program generated roughly $600 billion, though that figure has been disputed. If significant sums must be repaid, Treasury financing needs could shift at a delicate moment for bond markets.

Earlier Friday, economic data painted a complicated picture. The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at a 1.4% annualized rate in the final quarter of 2025. 

Core personal consumption expenditures, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, rose 3% year over year, above expectations. 

Annual growth for 2025 slowed to 2.2%, the weakest pace since 2020.

Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth, described the data as sending a “messy message” of firmer inflation alongside cooling growth, according to CoinDesk. That backdrop has reinforced expectations that the Federal Reserve will proceed with caution on rate cuts.

Is this ruling good for bitcoin?

For Bitcoin traders, the tariff case has been less about trade flows than about liquidity and risk appetite. During prior episodes of trade escalation, digital assets tended to move in tandem with equities as investors reassessed growth and inflation risks. 

A court decision that removes tariffs could ease cost pressures over time, yet the near-term effect hinges on how Washington fills any fiscal hole.

Stephen Coltman, head of macro at 21Shares, said before the ruling that a negative outcome for the administration could pressure the dollar and Treasuries while favoring stocks and bitcoin. 

Others, including VanEck’s Matthew Sigel, have argued that reduced tariff revenue could widen deficits, increasing the appeal of assets like bitcoin viewed as hedges against currency debasement.

Online prediction markets had assigned high odds to the court striking down the tariffs, suggesting traders were prepared for the headline. 

For now, the court’s decision narrows presidential authority over tariffs and returns leverage to Congress. Whether lawmakers move to codify elements of Trump’s trade agenda or chart a different course remains unclear.

Bitcoin is trading near $67,600.

This post Bitcoin Pops After Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin’s 50% Slide: Quantum Scare or Capital Rotation?

Bitcoin’s 46% decline from its October peak near $126,100 to roughly $67,000 has triggered debate over what is driving the pullback. Some market participants have pointed to quantum computing as a looming threat to the network’s cryptographic security. Others argue the explanation lies elsewhere, in shifting capital flows, tightening liquidity and changing miner economics.

On a recent episode of the Unchained podcast hosted by Laura Shin, Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo rejected the idea that quantum fears are behind the downturn. If investors were pricing in imminent quantum risk to Bitcoin’s cryptography, he said, Ether would likely be outperforming rather than falling in tandem.

Bitcoin is down roughly 46% from its all-time high, while Ether has fallen roughly 58% since an early-October market break. Corallo argued that this parallel weakness undercuts the claim that quantum computing is uniquely weighing on Bitcoin. He added that some holders may be looking for a scapegoat to explain weak price action.

The quantum debate has gained visibility as researchers explore post-quantum cryptography and as asset managers update disclosures. Last year, BlackRock amended the registration statement for its iShares Bitcoin ETF to flag quantum computing as a potential risk to the network’s integrity.

Corallo countered that market pricing does not signal urgency. He framed the current environment as one in which Bitcoin is competing for capital against other sectors, especially artificial intelligence. 

Bitcoin mining and AI infrastructure 

AI infrastructure requires large data centers, specialized chips and significant energy capacity. That capital intensity, he suggested, has drawn investor attention and funding that might otherwise have flowed into digital assets.

Mining data reflects these crosscurrents. Bitcoin mining difficulty recently climbed to 144.4 trillion, a 15% increase and the largest percentage jump since 2021, when China’s mining ban disrupted the network before operations stabilized. 

Difficulty adjusts every 2,016 blocks, about every two weeks, to keep block production near a 10-minute average regardless of hashrate changes.

The latest increase follows a 12% decline in difficulty after a drop in total computational power. In October, when bitcoin traded near $126,500, hashrate peaked around 1.1 zettahash per second. As prices slid toward $60,000 in February, hashrate fell to 826 exahash per second. It has since recovered to about 1 zettahash per second as bitcoin rebounded to the high-$60,000 range.

Even with that recovery, miner economics remain tight. Hashprice, a measure of daily revenue per unit of hashrate, sits near multi-year lows around $23.9 per petahash per second. Lower revenues have pressured margins, particularly for operators with higher energy costs. Large-scale miners with access to inexpensive power have continued to expand. The United Arab Emirates, for example, is estimated to hold roughly $344 million in unrealized profit from mining operations.

At the same time, several publicly listed mining firms are reallocating energy and computing resources toward AI and high-performance computing data centers. Bitfarms recently rebranded to remove explicit bitcoin references as it increases its focus on AI infrastructure. 

Activist investor Starboard Value has urged Riot Platforms to expand further into AI data center operations. The shift underscores Corallo’s point that bitcoin now competes directly with other capital-intensive technologies.

Bitcoin is consolidating in ‘extreme fear’

Onchain data suggests the market remains in a compression phase. Analytics firm Glassnode reports that BTC has broken below its “True Market Mean,” a model that tracks the aggregate cost basis of active supply and currently sits near $79,000. 

The firm identifies the Realized Price, around $54,900, as a lower structural boundary. Bitcoin has traded between roughly $60,000 and $70,000 in recent sessions, within that corridor.

Sentiment remains fragile. The Crypto Fear and Greed Index has registered “extreme fear” for weeks. Yet some analysts see valuation support. 

Bitwise’s head of European research, André Dragosch, said bitcoin appears undervalued relative to global money supply growth, gold and exchange-traded product flows. He expects consolidation rather than a rapid recovery, noting that sharp capitulations rarely produce immediate V-shaped rebounds outside crisis events.

Macro data may shape the next move. Traders are watching U.S. core PCE inflation figures for signals on Federal Reserve policy. Higher inflation could support scarce assets in theory, but a hawkish response could strengthen the dollar and pressure risk markets.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading near $67,000. 

This post Bitcoin’s 50% Slide: Quantum Scare or Capital Rotation? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Fed’s Kashkari: Crypto “Utterly Useless,” Stablecoins No Match for Venmo

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari delivered another pointed criticism of crypto while defending the Federal Reserve’s independence during remarks in Fargo, North Dakota, today.

Speaking at the 2026 Midwest Economic Outlook Summit, Kashkari questioned the practical value of digital assets, stating that “crypto has been around for more than a decade and it’s utterly useless,” according to Bloomberg. 

He contrasted crypto with artificial intelligence tools, which he said have demonstrated clear, everyday utility for consumers and businesses.

Kashkari also dismissed the promise of stablecoins, arguing they offer little improvement over existing payment systems. “I can send any one of you $5 with Venmo or PayPal or Zelle,” he said during a question-and-answer session. “So what is it that this magical stablecoin can do?”

While acknowledging claims that stablecoins could make cross-border transfers faster and cheaper, Kashkari argued that recipients must still convert digital tokens into local currency for everyday purchases, creating additional friction and cost. He said advocates have yet to present a compelling use case for U.S. consumers.

Beyond digital assets, Kashkari addressed criticism from National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett regarding a New York Fed study on tariffs. The Minneapolis President characterized the remarks as “another step to try to compromise the Fed’s independence.”

“Over the last year, we’ve seen multiple attempts to try to compromise the Fed’s independence,” he said, referencing a December subpoena from the Department of Justice to the Board of Governors related to building expenses.

The Minneapolis President emphasized that central bank independence underpins effective monetary policy. “Every advanced economy in the world has an independent central bank,” he said, arguing that policy decisions serve the public best when based on data and analysis rather than short-term political considerations.

On the economy, Kashkari noted inflation has eased to between 2.5% and 3%, while unemployment has risen from roughly 3.5% to 4.3%. 

He said the Fed is “pretty close to neutral” after cutting interest rates multiple times over the past two years.

Kashkari: Crypto is like the ‘Beanie Babies’ bubble

Last November, Kashkari had a similar criticism, comparing the sector to the 1990s Beanie Babies bubble and arguing it still lacks meaningful economic use. 

Speaking on CNN, Kashkari said he was more confident in the utility of AI, which he sees as delivering real economic value, whereas crypto fails to demonstrate a compelling purpose. 

He questioned the everyday use of digital assets in the U.S., noting that the main application he hears is to bypass banking regulations like know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering rules — a use he described as “lousy” for a Federal Reserve policymaker.

This post Fed’s Kashkari: Crypto “Utterly Useless,” Stablecoins No Match for Venmo first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

A set of new ETF filings wants to turn election outcomes into brokerage-account tickers.

If approved, they’d also make “political risk” a tradable product on the same rails that already carry spot Bitcoin ETFs, pulling attention, liquidity, and regulatory pressure into the same lane.

Roundhill, GraniteShares, and Bitwise’s PredictionShares brand propose funds that track binary “event contracts” tied to US political outcomes, such as which party wins the presidency and which party controls the House or Senate. These contracts trade between $0 and $1 in a way that resembles a probability, then settle at $1 for “yes” and $0 for “no” once the outcome is resolved.

The filings state the obvious consequence: a fund that tracks “Party A wins” can lose almost all of its value if “Party B wins.” Roundhill’s prospectus uses direct language about the possibility of losing “substantially all” of the fund’s value when the outcome goes the other way.

The biggest point here isn't the event contracts, because they already exist and trade in huge volumes. The most important thing here is the wrapper these event contracts sit in.

This is the attempt to sell election exposure through the most familiar distribution rail in finance: ETFs. ETFs have, by now, become a very old and very recognizable format that lives inside institutional portfolios as well as ordinary brokerage apps next to index funds and stocks.

All of these proposals aim to package election-linked event contracts into listed funds that investors can buy and sell like other ETFs.

That convenience changes the scale and tone of the activity: a specialized prediction market account is a deliberate choice to participate in what's essentially gambling. But a ticker in a brokerage app is ambient. Once election odds turn into a listed product category, the market will no longer see it as people betting on political odds, but as brokers distributing a product where election outcomes map into gains and losses.

Another important facet of these filings is their timing. The tug-of-war around event contracts between the SEC and the CFTC is getting more intense, and these filings put that fight inside an ETF wrapper, putting it directly under the umbrella of the SEC.

The fine print that turns this from novelty into a market fight

Each issuer has its own flavor, but the core structure repeats throughout all of these filings.
The funds all seek exposure to an election-linked binary contract either by holding the contracts directly or by using swaps that reference them, while holding collateral in cash-like instruments.

Roundhill, for example, makes the product feel concrete by filing a full set of partisan outcome funds in one package, including the president, House, and Senate versions. The names and intended tickers (BLUP, REDP, BLUS, REDS, BLUH, and REDH) act as a translation layer between cable news and brokerage rails. That matters because many investors interact with ETFs through ticker symbols and simple narratives, and these proposals are designed to be instantly legible.

The most consequential details, though, sit in definitions and timing.

One detail is the “early determination” mechanism. Roundhill’s filing describes a process where extreme pricing sustained over a window can serve as a practical signal that the market has converged, allowing the fund to begin exiting or rolling its exposure before a final settlement event occurs.

The thresholds cited in the prospectus cluster near certainty, with prices near $1 on the winning side and near $0 on the losing side for several consecutive trading days, serving as a practical signal that the market has decided.

That clause turns the market price itself into a timing anchor. It also creates a clean dividing line between two ideas that people tend to blur together: the political system’s timeline and the market’s timeline. In practice, an ETF built on event contracts can treat the fact that the market considers something decided as a key input, even while news cycles keep arguing about the remaining procedural steps.

Another detail is the definition of control. The filings frame “control” in ways that can track leadership selection rather than simple seat counts. Roundhill’s House-control framing ties the outcome to the party of the person elected Speaker, and the Senate-control framing ties the outcome to the party of the President pro tempore, with an explanation that incorporates tie mechanics.

That design choice brings procedural power into the payout definition. But it also creates edge cases that many will recognize from recent political history: leadership votes can involve intra-party bargaining, delays, and unexpected coalitions.

When an ETF’s payoff references leadership selection, the financial instrument starts tracking internal power resolution as part of who controls Congress, which can feel intuitive to political insiders and confusing to everyone else. In other words, you can be right on seats and still be wrong on payout if leadership drags, flips, or deadlocks.

GraniteShares adds a structure that finance readers have seen in other derivatives-heavy ETFs: a wholly owned Cayman Islands subsidiary used to obtain exposure while meeting regulated fund constraints.

The Cayman subsidiary detail matters for two reasons. First, it adds an additional layer between the investor and the underlying exposure, which increases the need for clear disclosure and investor understanding. Second, it also adds political optics to what is otherwise routine fund-structure engineering, especially in a product category tied to elections.

What this could do to markets, regulators, and crypto

These ETFs will affect attention and liquidity first.

An ETF wrapper invites a much larger audience than a niche venue, because it sits inside familiar broker workflows, retirement-account menus in some cases, and the broader ecosystem of ETP research tools. That distribution channel can pull speculative energy toward whatever can be typed into the search bar fastest, and election tickers usually don't require much explanation.

That has consequences for how election odds enter everyday market talk.

Polling narratives already shape headlines, and prediction market prices added a second scoreboard that people treated as a money-weighted belief. Election-outcome ETFs would make that scoreboard even more visible, because ETF charts and tickers naturally fit into the way people already track their holdings. In a tight race, a price that reads like 52% versus 48% can become its own storyline, updated minute by minute.

The policy and regulatory implication sits at the seam between the SEC and the CFTC.

The ETF wrapper is an SEC-registered product, but the underlying event contract venue and contract oversight are all under CFTC jurisdiction.

Even though sports and elections trigger different public reactions, the underlying question repeats: when does an event-linked contract become a regulated financial instrument, and when does it look like gaming that states want to police so hard?

The jurisdictional tension here matters for crypto because crypto-native prediction markets already live under a cloud of enforcement risk and political controversy.

If election-outcome exposure becomes available through a regulated ETF product that references CFTC-supervised venues, a portion of demand that once flowed toward Polymarket can migrate to the mainstream wrapper. That shift would reduce one of crypto’s cultural on-ramps during election cycles, since fewer people would need a wallet to bet on election odds.

At the same time, the ETFs could tighten the link between politics and crypto pricing in a different way. Election outcomes shape enforcement priorities, regulatory appointments, and the odds of market structure legislation, all of which filter into how exchanges, stablecoins, and crypto ETF products get treated.

A liquid election-outcome ETF gives traders and funds an accessible way to hedge or express political risk alongside their crypto exposure.

The human consequence follows from the payoff shape.

Traditional ETFs train people to expect diversification and limited downside relative to a single security. These election funds offer a payoff that behaves like a binary claim: a contract can drift around the middle range for months and then converge toward an endpoint rapidly as consensus forms. In the final window, small changes in perceived probability can move the price materially, and the final resolution produces an all-or-nothing settlement at $1 or $0.

That shape rewards timing and risk tolerance, and amplifies the emotional link between political identity and portfolio outcomes, because the instrument itself ties gains and losses to partisan outcomes.

But the most important consequence sits in the fine print about control definitions and early determination. Those clauses define when the product treats the outcome as resolved and what “control” means in contract terms. If public discourse focuses on seat counts while a contract’s definition focuses on leadership selection, a gap opens between what people think they bought and what the contract actually pays for.

That’s why these filings matter even before approval. They’re an attempt to turn elections into an ETF category, using the same distribution power that made thematic ETFs a cultural product.

And they force regulators to answer, in public, what prediction markets have been circling for years: is a market price on democracy a useful hedge and signal, or a tradable spectacle that changes incentives in ways people won’t accept?

The post Election odds, but with an ETF wrapper: the “ambient gambling” shift coming to brokerage accounts appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Supreme Court's Feb. 20 decision striking down President Donald Trump's IEEPA-based tariff program as illegal creates a massive fiscal overhang that could function as an unintended liquidity injection.

The Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating a program that collected at least $133.5 billion through Dec. 14, 2025, with Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimates suggesting total receipts reached approximately $179 billion by the ruling date.

Markets reacted immediately: stocks jumped, the dollar weakened, and Treasury yields edged higher as traders began pricing what could become one of the largest unplanned fiscal transfers in recent memory.

The refund question now sits in legal limbo. The Court declined to address how refunds should work, punting that issue back to the Court of International Trade.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed seeking refunds, and importers generally have two years under US trade law to sue for recovery.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters that Treasury held roughly $774 billion in cash and projected an $850 billion balance by the end of March, noting any refunds would likely be paid over weeks to months, possibly extending to a year.

That timeline matters because the mechanism through which refunds flow back determines whether this becomes a measurable liquidity event or a drawn-out administrative process.

The plumbing behind the liquidity story

When Treasury makes a refund payment, the accounting is straightforward, but the implications are not.

Fed Governor Chris Waller has explained the mechanics: when the Treasury disburses funds, the Federal Reserve debits the Treasury General Account and credits the recipient bank's reserve account.

Treasury outflows raise bank reserves, which are the raw material of financial liquidity.

If Bessent uses existing cash balances to fund refunds rather than replacing that cash through heavier borrowing, the private sector ends up with more reserves while the TGA balance shrinks.

That reserve injection doesn't require “money printing,” since it's a transfer from public to private sector balance sheets.

However, the directional effect matters for asset prices, particularly those sensitive to funding conditions.

Bitcoin has increasingly traded as a high-beta liquidity asset, responding to shifts in financial conditions alongside equities. The tariff refund overhang could create a multi-month liquidity pulse, depending on execution speed and funding choices.

The counterpunch exists. If Treasury maintains elevated cash balances by issuing more bills to fund refunds, that issuance can tighten front-end funding markets.

The immediate market reaction hints at this tension: yields edged higher even as the dollar weakened.

For Bitcoin, the distinction between refunds via cash drawdown and refunds via new issuance is between a liquidity tailwind and a real-yield headwind.

Deficit optics and the debasement narrative bid

The fiscal implications extend beyond the mechanics of immediate liquidity.

The IEEPA tariff program was projected to generate substantial revenue, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated roughly $300 billion annually over the next decade.

The Court's decision removes that revenue stream, even if the administration attempts to reimpose tariffs through other legal pathways. Penn-Wharton's estimates put the receipts in context: $175 billion to $179 billion exceeds the annual budgets of major federal departments.

Matthew Sigel framed the crypto angle bluntly: “In the absence of tariff revenues, money printing and debasement will accelerate.”

The claim is rhetorically aggressive, since refunds aren't the creation of money. However, the tradeable piece isn't whether the claim is technically precise, but whether the narrative gains traction.

Larger deficit projections, combined with headlines about $133 billion to $179 billion in refund checks, can rekindle Bitcoin's anti-fiat positioning, particularly if paired with actual reserve increases reflected in bank balance sheets.

The “debasement bid” operates less through direct causation and more through reinforcing stories investors tell about fiscal sustainability.

If refunds coincide with other signs of fiscal looseness, such as higher deficits, elevated spending, or accommodative Fed policy, the combination can strengthen Bitcoin's value proposition as a hedge against fiat dilution.

Litigation timing and the distribution problem

The refund process won't resemble a single stimulus check hitting accounts simultaneously.

Tariffs are finalized through a “liquidation” process, typically occurring around 314 days after entry, and refunds depend on how each entry was liquidated.

Reuters reports uncertainty about whether broad class-action settlements are feasible, suggesting many importers may need to sue individually.

The Court of International Trade ruled in December that it can reopen final determinations and order refunds with interest, but case-by-case litigation takes time.

That timeline changes the shape of Bitcoin's potential response.

A fast refund scenario, with meaningful payments starting within weeks or months, funded through Treasury cash drawdowns, creates a concentrated liquidity impulse.

Bank reserves rise, front-end funding conditions ease, and Bitcoin benefits from both liquidity mechanics and the debasement narrative.

A slow refund scenario, litigation-heavy with payments trickling out over quarters or years, mutes the immediate liquidity effect but keeps the narrative alive. Refund headlines recur as major cases settle, reinforcing the story about lost tariff revenue and fiscal expansion.

Bitcoin's response is likely more tied to the debasement narrative than to direct liquidity transmission.

The worst-case scenario involves refunds financed through new Treasury bill issuance while maintaining elevated cash balances. That path can push front-end yields higher and tighten funding conditions, creating a headwind even as the debasement narrative theoretically supports Bitcoin.

The asset's risk-beta behavior often dominates in the near term when real yields spike.

Three refund paths and Bitcoin implications

The bullish liquidity scenario assumes the Treasury executes refunds quickly using existing cash balances, with the TGA declining while bank reserves rise.

Front-end funding conditions ease, and Bitcoin benefits from both improved liquidity and the anti-fiat narrative. The tells would show up in reserve growth at banks, lower overnight funding rates, and risk assets rallying together.

The muddled middle case involves moderate refund speed with mixed funding sources, where some cash drawdown, some new issuance, and substantial legal delays.

Liquidity effects stay muted, but the narrative persists as cases resolve over months. Bitcoin's response is likely to track broader risk appetite and macro conditions more than the specifics of refunds.

The challenging scenario has Treasury maintaining high cash balances through heavy bill issuance, pushing yields higher and tightening conditions. Bitcoin faces competing forces: the debasement narrative argues for strength, but rising real yields favor weakness.

Historical patterns suggest risk-beta behavior wins in the near term, with Bitcoin selling off alongside equities when yields spike.

What to watch

Court of International Trade guidance and settlement patterns will signal whether refunds accelerate or drag through multi-year litigation.

Treasury's actual cash management decisions matter more than statements: if the TGA balance declines meaningfully while the refund payment process is underway, that confirms the liquidity-positive path.

If Treasury keeps cash elevated through aggressive bill issuance, markets should price tighter conditions.

Real yields and dollar direction provide the macro overlay. The ruling triggered immediate dollar weakness, but yields edged higher, a mixed signal suggesting uncertainty about funding paths.

Bitcoin's sensitivity to real yields has increased as institutional positioning has grown, and sustained yield increases can overwhelm narrative support from deficit concerns.

The $133 billion to $179 billion overhang isn't guaranteed to boost Bitcoin, since timing, funding choices, and macro conditions determine whether this becomes a measurable liquidity catalyst or background noise.

However, the setup exists for crypto to benefit if the Treasury executes refunds quickly using cash balances, injecting reserves while deficit headlines support anti-fiat positioning.

The next few months of CIT decisions and Treasury funding choices will determine which scenario plays out.

The post Supreme Court nukes Trump tariffs — up to $175B in refunds could hit Bitcoin market next appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin just got ~15% harder to mine as hashrate falls—pushing miner revenue back into the $30 stress zone

Bitcoin’s mining economy has tightened again, but its undertones could pave the way for a price recovery in the top crypto.

Over the past weeks, the network difficulty jumped, while the hashrate has shown signs of softening. At the same time, BTC miner margins have come under increased pressure as their revenue slipped back toward stress levels.

That combination has repeatedly materialized near major inflection points in previous market cycles.

While market analysts caution that this is not a magic buy signal for investors, the structural setup matters deeply because it has the potential to flip miner behavior from a desperate need to sell in order to survive into a scenario where they sell less of their accumulated holdings.

This subtle shift in behavior can effectively turn what is normally a steady, predictable source of incoming market supply into a significantly lighter headwind for Bitcoin's price.

Related Reading

Bitcoin difficulty just printed a historic -11.16% — if the next epoch stays red, miners are in trouble

The biggest drop since 2021 is backward-looking, and CoinWarz’s projected 12% snapback will confirm if miners are returning.

Feb 13, 2026 · Gino Matos

A lagged difficulty jump landed after the rebound

Bitcoin’s difficulty adjusts every 2,016 blocks, roughly every two weeks, meaning the metric is always reacting to events that have already occurred on the network.

That timing explains the apparent contradiction in the latest move.

After a storm and curtailment period knocked machines offline, the network saw a difficulty cut of about 11.16% to about 125.86T on Feb. 7.

As miners came back online and block production normalized, the next adjustment moved in the opposite direction. On Feb. 19, difficulty rose about 14.73% to about 144.40T.

The key point is simple. The network became harder to mine because earlier hashrate recovered, not because miner economics improved in real time.

That distinction is important for interpreting miner behavior. A rising difficulty print can look bullish on the surface because it signals network strength.

However, it can also be a margin squeeze if that increase arrives after a temporary recovery, when fees are weak, and BTC's price is not doing enough to offset higher mining costs.

Related Reading

Bitcoin hits price level it always defend and the current BTC mining cost matters

Plan C’s production cost hook is clean, yet on-chain clusters, flows, and miner stress suggest no single “floor.”

Feb 7, 2026 · Gino Matos

A short-term recovery in hashrate is masking a broader decline

Short-term measures of BTC network hashrate did indeed show notable improvement heading into the middle of February.

Data compiled from Luxor’s Hashrate Index demonstrated the 7-day SMA rising from ~1,003 EH/s to ~1,054 EH/s during the immediate storm recovery phase.

However, if one zooms out a bit to view the broader trend, the picture becomes noticeably less comfortable for the industry.

VanEck’s latest ChainCheck report describes a ~14% decline in hashrate over the past 90 days, a metric that is notable because sustained drawdowns of this magnitude are uncommon in the mature phases of the Bitcoin network.

Furthermore, day-to-day estimates consistently show meaningful volatility, a factor that complicates any single-point narrative pushed by market observers.

In light of this, the broader trend shows sustained pressure on hashrate over the last several months. A sharp increase in mining difficulty layered on top of that pressure can intensify margin stress at a particularly fragile point for the industry.

Related Reading

Bitcoin mining profit crisis hits as difficulty to drop by 14% this weekend while block time spikes to 20 minutes

The projected drop in mining difficulty marks the sharpest relief since the China ban as profitability hits a breaking point.

Feb 4, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Hashprice is the real pressure point, and it has tightened again

Difficulty and hashrate describe the network. Hashprice describes the business.

Miners pay expenses in fiat and fund those costs through BTC production and, in some cases, sales of the flagship digital asset. That is why hash price, typically quoted in dollars per petahash per day, is a more practical measure of stress.

Following the Feb. 19 difficulty increase, BTC hashprice dropped back below about $30/PH/day. That level is widely viewed as a stress zone, depending on machine efficiency, debt obligations, and power costs.

This is because some operators can withstand it, while several marginal operators often cannot.

Fees are not offering much relief. Hashrate Index data for the same period showed that transaction fees accounted for only about 0.48% of block rewards, indicating miners rely almost entirely on the subsidy and Bitcoin’s spot price.

The result is a familiar compression. Difficulty moved higher, fee support remained thin, and hash price weakened.

That is the combination that tends to shut off older rigs first and push higher-cost miners closer to forced selling.

In practice, this is how a network that looks technically strong can produce economic stress in the mining sector. The protocol is doing what it is supposed to do. The problem is timing.

Why miner stress can become a bullish setup over 90 days

The bullish argument surrounding this phenomenon centers on structural shifts within the mining industry and their impact on supply dynamics.

The mechanism at play is structural, rooted in how sustained miner pressure reshapes issuance, balance sheets, and market liquidity.

Difficulty acts as a lagging squeeze on the market. When the network actively hikes difficulty after a brief operational rebound, it can easily overshoot what the miners can actually sustain at the current price and fee levels.

Hashrate then adjusts in real time as operators react to the new economic reality. Marginal rigs are forced to power down almost immediately when their daily profitability drops below the break-even point.

If that persistent weakness carries over into the next epoch, the protocol’s built-in relief valve kicks in, and the difficulty inherently falls.

A decline in difficulty mechanically improves the underlying economics for the surviving miners.

If the difficulty drops 10% to 12% and the price of Bitcoin remains entirely flat, the miner revenue per hash rises by a very similar mathematical magnitude.

While that adjustment does not guarantee a massive market rally, it can significantly reduce the overall probability of aggressive, forced selling from financially stressed miners.

That mechanism forms the absolute heart of the capitulation-then-recovery thesis popularized by various miner-cycle frameworks (such as traditional Hash Ribbons-style analysis).

VanEck adds a compelling quantitative hook to this theory. In a published table tracking 12 notable hashrate contraction periods, the financial firm notes that extended hashrate declines have often been followed by remarkably strong 90-day forward returns for Bitcoin.

Excluding the very early history of the network, which lacked a defined price, and the current, still-unresolved episode, VanEck’s listed periods skewed highly positive, delivering a median forward return around the high-40% range and a heavily skewed mean.

The ultimate takeaway for traders centers on the broader signal rather than the specific percentage gain.

Peak miner stress often signals late-stage supply pressure, and once the underlying protocol resets the difficulty or the asset price stabilizes, that supply pressure can fade quickly.

The next catalyst is the next difficulty print, but ETFs and macro still set the tone

The most immediate variable is already on the calendar. Forecasting tools are pointing to another double-digit decrease in difficulty, around 11%, in early March if current block timing holds.

If that estimate is directionally right, the effect is straightforward. Hashprice would improve without requiring BTC to rally first, which could ease sell-to-fund operations pressure across weaker miners.

That is why the current snapshot, difficulty up and hashrate slipping, can sometimes be read as peak tightness rather than a fresh warning. In prior periods, that has been the point just before network conditions loosened.

Still, miner signals do not operate in a vacuum, and the post-ETF market has made that even more obvious.

In early February, US spot BTC ETFs posted wide swings in daily flows, including a net inflow of about $562 million on Feb. 3 and a net outflow of around $545 million on Feb. 5.

Later in the month, daily moves remained choppy, with one day at about $166 million in outflows and another $88 million in inflows.

When ETF buyers are active, miner sell pressure matters less. When ETF demand weakens or turns negative, miner stress can add to downside momentum.

Meanwhile, macro positioning also remains a major filter for the market.

Reuters reported heavy put interest around the $50,000 to $60,000 strike levels during the same period, a sign of hedging demand and caution toward risk assets.

If risk sentiment worsens or liquidity tightens, Bitcoin can still trade like a high-beta macro asset, even if mining conditions improve.

Three paths for Bitcoin over the next 90 days

The most constructive scenario is a mining reset with steadier demand. In that path, hashrate stays soft enough to support a meaningful difficulty cut, hashprice improves, and ETF flows stop swinging sharply negative.

Under those conditions, BTC has room for a 10% to 35% move higher over 90 days as miner-related supply pressure eases.

A middle path is what could be called a capitulation-lite outcome. Hashprice stays near breakeven, hashrate continues to bleed gradually, and difficulty adjusts lower in steps, but spot price remains choppy.

That kind of setup could leave BTC in a range of -5% to 20% over 90 days, with miner stress hurting near-term sentiment before the protocol reset starts to help.

The bearish path is a signal failure, where demand and macro dominate. In that case, ETF outflows persist, risk-off positioning deepens, and even a lower level of difficulty is not enough to offset weak demand.

Here, the digital asset could see returns of up to -30% over the next 90 days as BTC revisits major downside zones and miners are forced to sell into a falling market.

The post Bitcoin miners face a margin crunch that historically precedes strong returns within 90 days appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Stablecoin supply is crypto’s deployable cash. With a total stablecoin market cap of around $307.92 billion and down -1.13% in the past 30 days, the pool has stopped growing month over month.

When supply stalls, price moves get sharper, and Bitcoin feels it first in thin depth and bigger wicks.

Stablecoins sit in a strange middle ground in the crypto market. They behave like cash, yet they arrive there through private issuers, reserve portfolios, and redemption rails that look more like a money-market complex than a payment app.

For trading, though, they play one role so consistently that it earns a macro comparison: stablecoins function as crypto’s closest proxy for deployable dollars.

When the pool of available stablecoins expands, it makes risk-taking easier to finance and easier to unwind. When the pool flattens out or shrinks, the same price move can travel farther and faster.

When the stablecoin supply stops growing, the price can travel farther on the same flow.

Related Reading

This is how M2 money supply and the dollar REALLY move Bitcoin price – The truth influencers aren't telling you

Social media oversimplifies M2 and dollar charts. Bitcoin’s drivers are far more complex.

Nov 23, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The stablecoin backdrop in two numbers

Total stablecoin market cap sits around $307.92 billion, and is down -1.13% in the past 30 days.
A 1% to 2% drawdown might look small on its face, but in practice, it changes the market sentiment because it shows cash leaving, staying idle, or being reallocated.

A 1% supply dip also shifts market microstructure. Less fresh stablecoin collateral means less immediate absorption during liquidation bursts, which leads to price traveling farther to find size.

For Bitcoin, that matters as microstructure, because stablecoins are the default quote asset on major venues.

They're the base collateral for a large share of crypto leverage, the bridge asset that moves fastest across exchanges, chains, desks, and lenders.

They have become central to the way the crypto market functions, providing depth to the market and gas for trading activity.

The M2 analogy

M2 is a broad money measure in TradFi.

It adds more liquid forms of money on top of narrow money, including retail money-market fund shares and short-term deposits.

Stablecoin supply maps to a trader-useful question: how many dollar tokens exist inside the crypto perimeter to settle trades, post collateral, and move between venues?

That's why a stall in supply can matter when the price looks calm, which means it frames what kind of liquidity the market is operating with.

For traders, supply describes how much collateral the system can recycle before slippage rises and liquidation risk increases.

How supply moves: mint, burn, reserves

Stablecoin supply changes through a simple loop: minting adds tokens when dollars enter the issuer’s reserve stack, and burning removes tokens when holders redeem for dollars.

The market sees the token count, and behind it sits the reserve portfolio, invisible to most.

For the largest issuers, that portfolio has increasingly resembled a short-duration cash management book.

Tether publishes reserve reports and keeps daily circulation metrics, alongside periodic attestations.  Circle publishes reserve disclosures and third-party attestations for USDC, with a transparency page that outlines the reporting cadence and assurance framework.

This reserve design creates a mechanical link between crypto liquidity and short-term dollar instruments. When net issuance rises, issuers tend to add cash, repos, and Treasury bills.

When net redemptions rise, issuers fund those outflows by drawing down cash buffers, letting bills roll, selling bills, or tapping other liquid holdings.

Kaiko tied stablecoin usage to market depth and trading activity. BIS research added a second anchor: stablecoin flows interact with short-term Treasury volumes, using daily data and treating stablecoin inflows as a measurable force in safe-asset markets.

This means that stablecoin supply is connected to how reserves are managed in traditional instruments and how depth behaves on crypto venues.

What changed: the pool stopped expanding

We can split the “why” behind the current stablecoin market cap decline into two broad buckets:

• Bucket one: net redemptions. Money leaves stablecoins for dollars, often due to risk reduction, treasury management, or conversion into bank balances and bills outside the crypto perimeter.
• Bucket two: redistribution. Money stays inside crypto, yet it moves between issuers or chains. That can flatten the headline total even when activity stays strong.

A simple tripwire helps separate a wobble from a real shift: a 30-day decline that persists for two consecutive weeks, paired with weakening transfer volume.

21Shares used a similar discipline in stress-window framing. Its note described a period where total stablecoin supply fell by roughly 2% during peak stress and then stabilized, while transfer volume stayed large, including a cited figure of roughly $1.9 trillion in USDT transfer volume over 30 days. The value of that framing lies in the separation of dimensions: supply is one dimension, operational usage is another.

Broad contraction vs redistribution

The question is broad contraction versus redistribution across issuers and chains.

Crypto has a lot of different dollar products. USDT dominates the total stablecoin set by market cap. Trailing closely behind is USDC, with its own reporting cycle and mint and burn rhythm. Beyond those, there are a number of other smaller, faster-moving stablecoins whose supply can swing with incentives, bridges, and chain-specific activity.

Rotation takes a few common forms:

• Issuer mix shifts: Traders move between USDT and USDC based on venue preferences, perceived reserve risks, regional rails, or settlement constraints. That can keep total supply flat while changing where liquidity feels deepest.
• Chain distribution shifts: Liquidity migrates between Ethereum, Tron, and other chains when fees, bridge incentives, or exchange rails change.
• Bridging artifacts: Bridges and wrapped representations can create temporary distortions in where balances appear, especially around large migrations.

A 30-day decline becomes more informative when it shows up across issuers and across major settlement hubs. A 30-day decline becomes less informative when it's paired with high velocity, steady exchange inventories, and steady leverage pricing.

The “Slack Check” dashboard

If stablecoin supply is the balance sheet, the market still needs a cash flow view. Three checks do most of the work, and they fit into a small weekly dashboard.

• Velocity: Is the cash still moving?

Stablecoins exist to settle transfers and trades. When supply contracts while transfer volume stays large, the rails can stay liquid even as the pool shrinks. The 21Shares note cited large USDT transfer volume during a stress window, which is one way to ground this check.

Quick read: Supply down plus velocity steady often signals recycling through a smaller base.

• Location: Where do balances sit?

Stablecoins sitting on exchanges and prime venues behave differently from stablecoins parked in passive wallets or DeFi pools. Exchange inventory often serves as immediate buying power and collateral. Off-exchange holdings can be idle liquidity, long-term storage, or DeFi working capital.

You can interpret a supply dip very differently depending on where balances move. A supply dip paired with rising exchange balances can indicate traders are preparing to deploy. A supply dip paired with falling exchange balances can indicate a pullback in risk appetite.

Quick read: Rising exchange balances often point to deployable collateral building.

• Leverage price: Are longs paying up?

Perpetual swap funding and futures basis act like the market’s interest rate on leverage. When stablecoin supply tightens, leverage can become more expensive to carry and more fragile to hold. The exact mechanism varies by exchange, collateral type, and margin regime.

Quick read: Funding and basis pressuring longs often signal fragility rising in a shrinking-supply backdrop.

This is also where broader liquidity conditions show up. Thin liquidity contributes to sharper crypto moves during selloffs and is often the main cause of volatility.

What it means for Bitcoin price action

Bitcoin can rally in a flat-supply environment, and it can also chop for weeks while stablecoin supply falls quietly in the background. The difference shows up when the price moves fast.

In an expanding-supply environment, dips tend to meet more immediate buying power across venues and desks. Spreads can stay tighter, and liquidation waves can find natural counterparties sooner.

In a contracting-supply environment, the market has less fresh collateral to absorb forced flows. Spot depth can thin, execution can worsen, and liquidations can travel farther before they find real size.
In drawdown regimes, the book feels thinner, and wicks get longer because counterparties show up later.

That's why a 30-day change of just 1% matters. It's a map of the terrain. Traders still need catalysts and positioning data to forecast direction. Supply helps set expectations for how violent the path can get.

A simple weekly rule-set

A workable dashboard uses a small set that you update the same day each week.

Start with the total stablecoin market cap and 30-day change. Add chain distribution from the chain view to see whether shifts are broad-based or concentrated. Add a velocity series, which can be as simple as stablecoin transfer volume on major rails, using a consistent source and a consistent lookback. Use funding and basis as the leverage price.

Then apply three simple rules:

1. Supply down for over 30 days
2. Velocity down across the same window
3. Leverage cost worsening for longs, with execution quality deteriorating

That combination is when caution earns its keep. It serves as a risk regime signal, and it shows when the market is operating with less slack. When slack disappears, the price starts moving fast on smaller headlines.

What to watch this week

• Stablecoin supply (30-day): Does the drawdown persist?
• Transfer volume and velocity: Steady recycling versus broad cooling
• Exchange balances: Deployable collateral building versus risk appetite fading
• Funding and basis: Leverage cost rising and fragility building

The final discipline is to separate issuer mechanics from market mood.

Stablecoin supply is a balance sheet measure. When the balance sheet stops growing, the market becomes more dependent on genuine inflows, cleaner catalysts, and tighter risk management. That's a lesson worth repeating, especially with stablecoins sitting above $300 billion and the pool no longer growing month over month.

The post Bitcoin’s native M2 money supply is falling and killing crypto liquidity appeared first on CryptoSlate.

European Central Bank President, Christine Lagarde, runs an institution that trades in certainty, and she does it in a moment that rewards ambiguity.

Earlier this week, the story around her took on a familiar European shape: official silence wrapped around very specific timing.

The FT reported Lagarde is expected to step down before her term ends in October 2027, with the timetable linked to France’s April 2027 presidential election and the succession politics that follow. Markets watch those puzzles closely because the next name at the microphone can change the texture of every decision.

The ECB, via a spokesperson, kept the public line simple: Lagarde has taken no decision on finishing her term and remains committed. That set of headlines would usually sit in the “personnel” bucket.

It lands differently this week because it arrives alongside a second story with dates, budgets, and a clear sense of momentum: the digital euro.

Central banks speak in long arcs, and this is one of those arcs turning into a schedule.

The ECB says it has moved into the next phase of the project, with workstreams that include system setup and piloting, in its phase update. In the pilot materials, the ECB points to a call for expressions of interest for payment service providers in Q1 2026.

It flags March 2026 as the publication month, with the call expected to run around six weeks, according to the pilot deck. When an institution like the ECB puts months on a slide, the ecosystem reacts in human ways.

Banks schedule meetings, payments companies assign teams, and compliance departments start drafting. Politicians ask staff for language that can survive a debate on privacy and control.

Lagarde’s visibility has mattered here because she has acted as the public translator for a project that touches daily life.

A leadership calendar is colliding with a payments calendar, and the next few weeks could turn the digital euro from a concept people argue about into a process companies have to respond to.

Two clocks move together, and both shape the mood

Let's start with the leadership clock. Lagarde’s term ends in October 2027, and FT reporting ties early-exit expectations to France’s April 2027 election window. That timing matters in Europe because institutions share an atmosphere with national politics, and careers and coalitions often move on the same track.

That tells you what markets want from this moment: a smooth handover, a clear narrative, and no surprises. Then there is the project clock, and it is easier to pin down.

The pilot materials sketch an on-ramp that begins with provider selection in Q1 2026, with a call published in March 2026 that is expected to run about six weeks. The same materials set expectations for a pilot starting in the second half of 2027 and running for 12 months.

They describe real-world transactions inside a controlled environment. This is where Lagarde’s personal timeline becomes more than gossip. The ECB also ties its bigger promise to a political hinge.

It works from an assumption that legislation is adopted in 2026, and it aims for readiness for potential issuance in 2029 on that basis.

Leadership matters here in the way it always matters in big public projects: through tone, persuasion, and the ability to keep multiple capitals aligned with one calendar.

The pilot is designed to feel real, and stay controlled

The word “pilot” can sound like a warm-up lap. The ECB’s version looks more like an infrastructure test with guardrails.

The pilot materials point to a start in H2 2027, running 12 months, with real-world transactions in a controlled environment. They also offer a scale clue as about 5,000–10,000 Eurosystem staff are reportedly involved, alongside a small merchant set of about 15–25.

That scale hints at what the ECB wants from this phase. It wants proof the plumbing works and a pressure test for how intermediaries fit into the system.

It also wants to shape public expectations without triggering a broad shift in behavior before the legal framework is settled.

That helps explain why leadership turnover reads as a question of continuity and messaging more than a question of whether the project survives.

The ECB describes a governance structure designed to keep this moving through institutions.

Digital euro work is steered by a Eurosystem High-Level Task Force that reports to the Governing Council, as outlined on its governance page.

That structure keeps the machine running, and it leaves the biggest variable where it belongs: politics and persuasion.

A successor can keep the plan on track and still change the public framing, especially around privacy, control, and how hard the ECB pushes lawmakers to stay aligned with the 2026 legislative assumption.

The money numbers make the stakes easier to feel

The digital euro debate can float above daily life, framed as strategy and sovereignty. Numbers bring it back to households. The ECB has put a price tag on the build.

It estimates total development costs around €1.3 billion, and annual operating costs around €320 million from 2029, according to its cost estimates.

That is public money aimed at creating a new layer of payments infrastructure. It also comes with a promise that the end result will serve the public, not just the industry. Set that next to the baseline the ECB is trying to protect: public money people can hold.

Euro banknotes in net circulation sit around €1.6 trillion as of January 2026, based on the ECB’s banknotes data.

Cash still exists at enormous scale, even as the habit of using it shifts across countries and generations. Zoom out again and you reach the wider pool of liquid money that frames every conversation about deposits and stability.

Euro area M2 is around €16.07 trillion as of December 2025, based on the ECB’s M2 data.

This is the backdrop for concerns about bank funding, arguments over holding limits, and political lines about protecting savers. These figures also help explain why stablecoins hover around the edges of this story.

A central bank moving toward a public digital instrument shifts how Europe defines safe digital money. That definition feeds into regulation, partnerships, and how payment rails compete for real users.

Markets price committee decisions, and people still shape the tone

The immediate market reality is likely to stay calm, even if the longer-term story still matters.

Monetary policy in the euro area is set by the Governing Council, and the president shapes how those decisions are communicated and understood.

That communication premium shows up most during transitions. It shows up first in the language markets trade: confidence, caution, and the implied reaction function. The macro backdrop also matters for tone.

On Feb. 5, 2026, the ECB held the deposit facility rate at 2.00% and reiterated a data-dependent approach in its decision statement.

Inflation is also easing. Annual inflation was at 1.7% in January 2026, down from 2.0% in December 2025.

That context shapes how a leadership story lands. In a calmer rate regime, communication carries more weight, and the personality at the top becomes a signal people look for even when votes are spread across many hands.

The cleanest forward-looking map sits with the digital euro’s legal gate, because the ECB ties readiness to legislation. If lawmakers adopt the regulation in 2026, the ECB’s working plan targets readiness in 2029. If the law slips into 2027, that logic pushes readiness toward 2030.

That also opens more room for private rails, including regulated euro stablecoins, to position themselves as an everyday bridge.

If the law drifts further, readiness drifts with it.

The story then shifts toward Europe’s slower pace while global crypto liquidity keeps leaning on dollar-based stablecoin infrastructure. The next tangible milestone sits in March 2026.

The ECB expects to publish its call for expressions of interest then, with a run of around six weeks. That window forces companies to decide whether they want a seat at the table.

It also forces policymakers to treat the digital euro as an active file with deadlines attached.

Lagarde’s status remains an open question in public, as captured by the spokesperson line in the WSJ. The project calendar looks more concrete, and it keeps moving.

People will experience any digital euro through banks, apps, merchants, and the routines that make payments feel invisible. The decisions sit with lawmakers and the ECB.

The moment feels like a hinge because two clocks are advancing together, one personal, one institutional, both pointing toward choices that shape how Europe pays and how crypto fits into that future.

The post Europe puts a €1.3B price tag on the digital euro amid leadership change rumors appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The $XRP Ledger (XRPL) has secured a major institutional victory as Société Générale, the 6th largest bank in Europe with $1.8 trillion in assets, officially deployed its euro stablecoin, EUR CoinVertible (EURCV), on the network. This move marks the third major blockchain for the MiCA-compliant token, following its earlier launches on Ethereum and Solana.

Quick Facts: The Institutional Surge on XRPL

• Société Générale: Launched EURCV on XRPL via its digital arm, SG-FORGE, on February 18, 2026.
• Multi-Chain Strategy: XRPL now hosts EURCV alongside Ethereum (2023) and Solana (2025).
• Network Growth: XRPL reached #2 in 30-day Real-World Asset (RWA) growth at 15.37%, trailing only Arbitrum.
• Institutional Backing: Deutsche Bank and Aviva Investors also announced XRPL-based integrations this month.

Why Société Générale Chose the XRP Ledger

The deployment of EURCV on the XRP Ledger is not a simple experiment. As a systemically important financial institution, Société Générale requires high throughput and low-cost settlement. SG-FORGE cited the scalability and speed of the XRP Ledger as primary reasons for the integration.

Furthermore, the launch is supported by Ripple’s custody solution (formerly Metaco), which provides the bank with the security infrastructure needed to manage reserves and on-chain issuance. This partnership allows EURCV to potentially be utilized as trading collateral within Ripple’s payment products, bridging the gap between traditional finance (TradFi) and digital assets.

Deutsche Bank and Aviva Join the XRPL Ecosystem

The XRP news today follows a series of high-profile institutional announcements in February 2026.

• Deutsche Bank: Revealed plans to integrate Ripple’s technology stack to modernize its cross-border payment rails and FX workflows.
• Aviva Investors: Partnered with Ripple to tokenize traditional fund structures directly on the XRPL, marking Ripple’s first major deal with a UK-based asset manager.

These developments have pushed the total value of tokenized assets on the XRP Ledger to approximately $1.5 billion. While the XRP price has faced headwinds in February—trading near the $1.40 support level amid a broader market correction—the fundamental utility of the network is at an all-time high.

XRP Price Prediction and Market Reaction

Despite the bullish institutional news, the XRP price has remained under pressure, down roughly 30% for the month. Analysts at Standard Chartered suggest that while short-term retail demand has cooled, the long-term structural demand remains intact due to these RWA integrations.

Bitcoin ($BTC) is currently navigating a pivotal consolidation phase following a volatile start to February 2026. After hitting an all-time high of $126,100 in late 2025, the flagship cryptocurrency faced a sharp correction, dropping toward the $60,000 support zone earlier this month. As of today, February 21, 2026, Bitcoin is showing signs of recovery, trading near $68,162. The question for many traders is whether the current momentum is sufficient to propel the $Bitcoin price back above the psychological $70,000 threshold.

Will Bitcoin Price Reach $70,000?

The current technical setup suggests that Bitcoin is testing a significant overhead supply zone. Based on recent price action, the $70,000 to $71,000 range has acted as a "wall" for bulls. However, with the Stoch RSI showing a bullish crossover in the oversold region and price action stabilizing above the $65,000 support, the path toward $70,000 remains the primary short-term target. A sustained break above $68,500 is the immediate prerequisite for this move.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The 4-Hour Chart Outlook

The 4-hour chart reveals several critical layers of price action that traders must monitor:

Resistance and Support Levels

• Immediate Resistance: The first hurdle lies at $68,500, followed closely by a secondary resistance at $69,500.
• The 70K Barrier: The $70,000 mark is not just a psychological level but aligns with previous rejection points seen in mid-February.
• Critical Support: On the downside, $65,077 remains the "line in the sand." If BTC falls below this, a retest of the $60,000 psychological floor becomes likely.

Momentum Indicators

The Stoch RSI (3, 3, 14, 14) is currently trending upward in the upper bounds (around 96.37). While this indicates strong buying momentum, it also suggests the asset is entering "overbought" territory on the short-term timeframe. This typically precedes a minor cooling-off period or a sideways consolidation before the next leg up.

Market Sentiment and Macro Factors

The broader crypto news landscape in February 2026 has been dominated by a mix of "Extreme Fear" and cautious optimism. According to recent data from Santiment, the "Lambo" memes and retail FOMO have largely dried up, which contrarian analysts view as a healthy sign for a sustainable bottom.

Bitcoin Price Prediction: What will Happen to BTC Price?

For those looking to trade the current range, comparing platforms is essential to ensure low slippage during high-volatility breaks. Check our exchange comparison to find the best liquidity providers for BTC/USD.

• Bullish Scenario: A daily close above $69,500 would likely trigger a liquidations-driven spike toward $72,000, effectively reclaiming the $70k handle.
• Bearish Scenario: Failure to breach $68,500 could result in a "double top" on the 4-hour chart, leading back to the $64,000 - $65,000 zone.

Regardless of the direction, securing your assets in hardware wallets is recommended during these periods of high macro uncertainty.

Conclusion: The Road to $70,000

Bitcoin is in a "wait-and-see" mode. While the technicals on the 4-hour chart lean bullish with the recovery from the $64,000 lows, the overhead resistance at $70,000 remains formidable. If the current neutral sentiment shifts toward a relief rally, the end of February could see Bitcoin firmly back in the $70,000 - $75,000 range.

The "Digital Gold" Debate Returns

In the world of finance, Bitcoin has long been touted as "digital gold"—a decentralized asset that thrives when traditional systems falter. However, as the threat of a direct USA-Iran military engagement looms in 2026, the reality of market mechanics often tells a different story.

Investors are currently weighing two opposing forces: the immediate "risk-off" panic that typically triggers a crypto sell-off, and the long-term narrative of Bitcoin as a hedge against currency debasement and sovereign risk. To understand what might happen next, we must look at the data from the 2024 and 2025 escalations.

Will Prices Go Up or Down?

Based on historical data from similar events in 2024 and 2025, the short-term answer is almost always down. Whenever a major missile strike or a declaration of war occurs, $Bitcoin and altcoins typically experience an immediate "flash crash" ranging from 5% to 15%. However, these dips are often followed by rapid recoveries once the initial shock subsides, sometimes leading to new highs within months.

Geopolitical Risk and "Risk-Off" Sentiment

In financial terms, a "Risk-Off" environment occurs when investors move capital away from volatile assets (like stocks and crypto) and into perceived safe havens (like the US Dollar, Gold, or Treasury bonds). Even though Bitcoin is decentralized, it is still categorized by institutional traders as a "high-beta" risk asset, meaning it often moves in tandem with—but more violently than—the stock market during a crisis.

Comparative Crypto Analysis: Lessons from 2024 and 2025

To predict the future, we look at the three most significant escalations between Iran, Israel, and the West in the last two years.

1. April 2024: Iran Attacks Israel

When Iran launched a barrage of drones and missiles at Israel in April 2024, the crypto market reacted instantly.

1. $BTC Movement: Bitcoin fell nearly 8%, dropping from approximately $67,000 to $61,000 in a single Saturday night session.
2. Altcoin Impact: Ethereum ($ETH) and Solana ($SOL) saw even steeper declines, with some altcoins losing up to 20% in value within hours.
3. Recovery: The market stabilized within 48 hours as it became clear the escalation would not immediately lead to a full-scale regional war.

2. June 2025: Israel’s "Operation Midnight Hammer"

In mid-2025, Israel conducted direct strikes on Iranian soil. This event was particularly notable because Bitcoin was trading at much higher levels (above $100,000) at the time.

1. BTC Movement: The price dipped from $110,000 to $103,000—a sharp but relatively contained 6% correction.
2. Market Sentiment: According to data from Coinglass, over $1 billion in long positions were liquidated in 24 hours.
3. The "Springboard" Effect: Surprisingly, within two months of this conflict, Bitcoin rallied 62% to hit new all-time highs, proving that war-related volatility can often act as a local bottom.

3. Early 2026: The Current Landscape

As of February 2026, the market is more fragile. Following a massive liquidation event in late 2025, Bitcoin has been struggling to hold the $65,000–$70,000 range. A US strike on Iran now would likely be a "de-risking" event, where investors seek immediate liquidity.

Why Crypto Drops During War Headlines

There are three primary reasons why crypto prices nosedive when the USA or its allies attack Iran:

• Liquidity Crises: Large hedge funds often sell their most liquid winners (like BTC) to cover margin calls on other failing positions or to move into cash.
• Oil and Inflation: Conflict with Iran often leads to spikes in oil prices. This raises inflation fears, which in turn leads the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates high—a major bearish factor for crypto.
• Regulatory Fears: During wartime, governments often tighten controls on capital flows to prevent "sanctions evasion," which can lead to crackdowns on exchanges.

The Case for the Upside: When Does Bitcoin Rise?

While the initial reaction is bearish, Bitcoin often rises in the medium term during geopolitical conflict for several reasons:

• Capital Flight: In countries directly affected by war or sanctions (like Iran), citizens often turn to Bitcoin to preserve their wealth as their local currency collapses.
• Alternative Financial System: If the conflict leads to the "weaponization" of the US dollar (e.g., cutting countries off from SWIFT), the narrative for a neutral, decentralized currency grows stronger.
• Safe Haven Maturity: As the market matures, more institutional investors may begin to treat Bitcoin like gold, especially if the traditional banking system shows signs of stress during the crisis.

Navigation Strategy for Traders

If the USA attacks Iran in 2026, history suggests we should expect a sharp, painful dip followed by a period of extreme volatility. For long-term holders, these dips have historically been excellent buying opportunities. However, for those using high leverage, such events are often account-ending.

The 2026 Market Context: A Sea of Red

The first two months of 2026 have been a reality check for many investors. Following a volatile 2025, $Bitcoin has struggled to maintain its momentum, currently trading down 23% since the January 1st open. This bearish pressure has permeated the crypto news cycle, as liquidations and neutral-to-negative funding rates signal a defensive shift.

Despite this, the "decoupling" of specific utility-driven assets is more apparent than ever. Investors are moving away from speculative "beta" plays and towards projects with "Expertise" and "Experience" in their respective niches.

Top 5 Altcoins that are UP in 2026

1. Kite ($KITE): +165% YTD

In the intersection of AI and blockchain, Kite has outperformed nearly every other token in the segment. Kite focuses on providing the "plumbing" for autonomous AI agents.

• The Catalyst: The imminent launch of the Kite AI mainnet on Avalanche and record-breaking daily agent interactions (over 1 million).
• Performance: Leading its sector, KITE has rallied 165% YTD, holding strong even as other AI tokens like Bittensor face headwinds.
• Why it's winning: Whale activity on-chain suggests coordinated capital movement ahead of the PoAI (Proof of Artificial Intelligence) consensus activation.

2. Stable ($STABLE): +117% YTD

While not a traditional "volatile" altcoin, the STABLE ecosystem (referring to the governance/yield layer of new-gen compliant stablecoins) has grown as institutional liquidity shifts.

• The Catalyst: The "structural bifurcation" of the market into regulated vs. offshore liquidity.
• Performance: The token has appreciated 117% as its underlying vaults capture record yields from tokenized RWA (Real World Assets) on Morpho and LayerZero.
• Why it's winning: 2026 is the year stablecoins "go to work," transitioning from crypto plumbing to essential payment infrastructure.

3. Morpho ($MORPHO): +46% YTD

The DeFi lending sector has seen a resurgence in 2026, led by Morpho. Unlike monolithic lending protocols, Morpho’s "isolated markets" approach has finally caught the eye of institutional curators.

• The Catalyst: On February 13, 2026, the Morpho Association announced a cooperation agreement with Apollo Global Management, allowing the firm to acquire up to 90 million tokens.
• Performance: Currently trading near $1.51, MORPHO has gained over 46% this year.
• Why it's winning: The anticipation for Morpho V2, which allows markets to price risk externally rather than through fixed protocol formulas, is driving accumulation.

4. Decred ($DCR): +45% YTD

A surprise veteran performer, Decred has capitalized on its hybrid PoW/PoS governance model as users seek "sovereign" assets during market uncertainty.

• The Catalyst: Renewed interest in privacy-focused, community-governed protocols that resist centralizing forces.
• Performance: DCR has seen a steady climb, currently sitting at 45% YTD gains after a significant mid-January breakout.
• Why it's winning: As regulatory scrutiny on "event contracts" and prediction markets intensifies (notably with platforms like Kalshi), Decred's decentralized decision-making is seen as a safer haven for long-term holders.

5. LayerZero ($ZRO): +31% YTD

LayerZero has emerged as a top performer following the announcement of its new Layer 1 blockchain, Zero. The project made waves in mid-February by revealing a modular architecture capable of 2 million transactions per second (TPS).

• The Catalyst: Strategic backing from Wall Street giants like Citadel Securities and ARK Invest.
• Performance: ZRO surged from a local low of $1.69 during the February crash to over $2.50, maintaining a YTD gain of roughly 31%.
• Why it's winning: The integration with Google Cloud to facilitate AI agent micropayments has positioned ZRO as a leader in the infrastructure race.

In a historic 6-3 decision delivered today, February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the sweeping "emergency" tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The court ruled that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to bypass Congress was an unlawful expansion of executive authority. This decision immediately invalidates billions in ongoing duties and triggers a massive fiscal scramble as corporations seek up to $175 billion in potential refunds.

A "Tax Cut" for Markets

For investors, this is an immediate bullish signal. The ruling effectively acts as a retroactive, large-scale tax cut for U.S. importers. As billions in capital are slated to return to corporate balance sheets, analysts expect a surge in market liquidity. Assets like $BTC are already showing sensitivity to the news, as increased dollar liquidity historically flows into high-growth, digital assets.

The Ruling: Why SCOTUS Sided Against the President

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that while the President has broad powers in national emergencies, the power to levy taxes—including tariffs—resides strictly with Congress.

• The "Emergency" Loophole Closed: The court rejected the administration's argument that trade deficits and fentanyl flows constituted a "national emergency" sufficient to trigger IEEPA for tariff purposes.
• Refund Mechanisms: While the court didn't outline a specific repayment timeline, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) is expected to oversee the refund process, which could see over $130–$175 billion returned to the private sector.

Market Impact: Why Crypto and Stocks are Reacting

The removal of these tariffs provides a dual-engine for a market rally:

• Inflation Relief: Removing the "tariff tax" eases upward pressure on consumer prices. This gives the Federal Reserve more breathing room, potentially sustaining a "risk-on" environment for crypto news and equities.
• Corporate Margins: Major retailers and tech firms (heavy importers) will see an immediate improvement in margins. This excess cash is frequently diverted into stock buybacks or diversified into liquid reserves like $Bitcoin.

Risks: Government Revenue Gap and "Backup Plans"

Despite the euphoria, the U.S. government now faces a $175 billion revenue hole. President Trump has already hinted at a "backup plan," potentially utilizing Section 232 (National Security) or Section 301 (Unfair Trade) to keep some levies in place. Furthermore, Treasury rates may rise as the government is forced to borrow more to cover the refund liabilities.

Ethereum developers scheduled a controversial upgrade for later this year. Buterin said it reinforces the network’s cypherpunk principles.

Researchers built AdGazer, a machine learning tool that predicts whether you'll actually look at a digital ad—before it's ever shown to you.

At ETH Denver, developers warned that advances in quantum computing could threaten Bitcoin’s digital signatures as the industry continues to debate how to prepare.

Bitcoin is down 46% from its October peak—and the largest holders keep depositing to exchanges, presumably to sell, says CryptoQuant.

Eric Trump called the offering a balance against meme coins, as the tokenization project has a lengthy timeline.

XRP is seeing rising optimism as its price begins to move to the positive side of the market, sparking a decent surge in its futures activity.

BlackRock has set to offer 83% staking rewards to investors amid plans to launch a new Ethereum staking ETF to boost Ethereum adoption.

This week's top stories: Ripple Ex-CTO criticizes Logan Paul; $2 Billion in BTC scooped up by whales; Ripple partners with Deutsche Bank; SHIB price enters consolidation.

SBI Holdings has announced the launch of on-chain security token bonds that offer XRP payments to investors while utilizing XRP Ledger.

XRP's volatility has dropped to levels last seen in 2024, with analysts signaling that a major move might be brewing.

TLDR:

• Algorand warns that smart contract vulnerabilities cause immediate, irreversible fund loss with no legal recovery path available. 
• AI tools may store user data in LocalState, a flawed pattern where ClearState drains critical accounting data permanently. 
• Algorand recommends using Plan Mode and agent skills to design secure contract architecture before writing a single line of code. 
• Private keys must stay out of AI reach entirely, with OS-level keyrings handling all transaction signing away from the agent.

Algorand is urging blockchain developers to adopt disciplined, AI-assisted practices before deploying smart contracts to MainNet.

The blockchain platform has drawn a clear line between reckless AI-generated code and responsible agentic engineering.

With AI agents now capable of building and deploying contracts in a single conversation, the stakes have never been higher. Deploying vulnerable smart contracts means immediate, irreversible loss of funds with no path to recovery.

The Risk of Unreviewed AI-Generated Code

Algorand developers have identified a growing problem in the broader web3 space. AI coding tools allow developers to ship products faster, but unchecked code carries serious risk.

Unlike web2 breaches, smart contract vulnerabilities cannot be patched after the fact. Funds drained from a poorly written contract are gone permanently, with no legal recourse available.

The Algorand team shared a concrete example of how AI can mislead developers. An AI might store user balances in LocalState, which appears to be the correct pattern.

However, users can clear local state at any time, and ClearState succeeds even when a program rejects it. This means critical accounting data can disappear without warning. Developers who do not understand the code they ship are exposed to exactly this kind of subtle failure.

Algorand’s developers formalized this concern through a public post from the @algodevs account. The post draws from Addy Osmani’s distinction between “vibe coding” and “agentic engineering.”

Vibe coding means accepting all AI output without review. Agentic engineering means the developer remains the architect and final decision-maker throughout the process.

The platform advises developers to use BoxMap instead of LocalState for data that cannot be lost. This kind of nuance is what separates a working contract from a broken one.

AI tools trained on outdated patterns will not flag these issues automatically. Developers must bring their own understanding to every deployment.

How Algorand Recommends Building Safely With AI

Algorand outlines several practices to keep AI-assisted development secure and maintainable. Developers should use Plan Mode before writing any code, allowing the agent to design architecture first.

This produces a spec covering state schema, method signatures, and access control. Reviewing this plan catches design flaws before any implementation begins.

Agent skills play a major role in guiding AI toward correct Algorand patterns. These are curated instructions that encode current best practices directly into the development workflow.

Without them, AI is likely to use deprecated APIs or outdated patterns. Structured prompts reduce hallucinations and produce more reliable contract code.

Private keys must remain completely out of reach of AI agents at all times. Tools like VibeKit use OS-level keyrings so that AI requests transactions without ever accessing signing credentials.

Additionally, developers should use algokit task analyze and simulate calls to catch edge cases. Testing should mirror how an attacker would approach the contract, not just how a user would.

The post Algorand Warns Developers Against “Vibe Coding” Smart Contracts to MainNet appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin’s capitulation hits critical levels with $643M in realized losses and 46.08% of supply underwater.

• Short-term holders with SOPR at 0.98 and MVRV at 0.73 are systematically selling BTC below entry price.

• Medium whales offloaded 91,580 BTC in 30 days while the Whale Ratio climbed to a telling 74% reading.

• Bitcoin ETFs recorded $404M in outflows Feb 17–19 as miners and retail quietly accumulated the sold supply.

Who is behind the selling pressure currently gripping the Bitcoin market? On-chain data now points to three specific groups driving the capitulation.

A total of $643 million in realized losses has been recorded, with 46.08% of the Bitcoin supply sitting underwater. The evidence is clear, this is not a broad market selloff.

Identifiable cohorts are responsible, and their behavior is trackable through on-chain metrics.

Short-Term Holders Are the Primary Source of Panic Selling

Short-term holders (STHs) sit at the center of the current capitulation. These are buyers who entered the market within the last six months, largely near cycle highs.

The STH-SOPR reading of 0.98 confirms they are selling consistently below their purchase price. Every transaction below 1.0 on this metric represents a realized loss being locked in by this group.

The STH-MVRV ratio adds further weight to this picture, currently reading at 0.73. That number reflects a cohort that is deeply underwater and actively exiting positions.

Rather than holding through the drawdown, these participants are choosing to sell at a loss. Their collective behavior is one of the clearest signs of active capitulation in the current cycle.

GugaOnChain’s on-chain analysis confirms that STH behavior is systematic, not isolated. The losses are being realized repeatedly across multiple sessions, not in a single spike.

This pattern suggests that fear, not strategy, is driving their exit decisions. It is the textbook behavior of speculative participants caught on the wrong side of the market.

Beyond the metrics, the timing of their entries matters here. Buyers from the last six months purchased Bitcoin when sentiment was elevated and prices were near local highs.

They are now facing significant paper losses that many are unwilling to hold through. That psychological pressure is directly translating into consistent sell-side volume on exchanges.

Medium Whales and ETF Institutions Are Amplifying the Pressure

Medium whales holding between 1,000 and 10,000 BTC have offloaded 91,580 BTC over the past 30 days. This is the most aggressive distribution coming from any single cohort in the current period.

Whales holding above 10,000 BTC have also reduced exposure by 22,280 BTC during the same window. Together, these two groups represent a coordinated and large-scale exit from the market.

The Whale Ratio currently sits at 74%, reinforcing that large players are routing significant volume toward exchanges.

This metric measures large transactions as a share of total exchange inflows. A reading this elevated has historically preceded continued downward price movement. It confirms that whale distribution is active and ongoing, not yet exhausted.

Institutional Bitcoin ETFs recorded $404 million in net outflows between February 17 and 19, 2026. These outflows directly translate into spot market selling pressure from regulated vehicles.

Institutions reducing exposure during periods of stress add a layer of selling that retail markets struggle to absorb. Their exit compounds the pressure already created by STHs and medium whales.

While these three groups lead the capitulation, a separate set of participants is moving in the opposite direction. Miners, small whales, and retail buyers are steadily accumulating the supply being offloaded.

This dynamic; where distressed sellers transfer coins to patient accumulators: is a recurring feature of Bitcoin’s correction phases. The identity of the sellers is now clear, and so is the identity of those stepping in to buy.

The post Who Is Behind Bitcoin’s Selling Pressure? On-Chain Data Exposes the Groups Leading Capitulation appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin has recovered to a new all-time high after every 40–50% correction recorded between 2014 and 2026. 
• The average trough-to-cycle-high multiple across nine correction events sits at approximately 3.4 times the low. 
• Recovery time within this correction range averages 9 to 14 months, far shorter than full bear market timelines. 
• Bitcoin’s maximum drawdown severity has declined each cycle, dropping from 84% in 2018 to roughly 50% today.

Bitcoin’s historical price behavior shows a consistent pattern that long-term analysts have tracked for over a decade.

When the asset drops between 40% and 50% from a cycle peak, it has recovered to new all-time highs in every recorded instance since 2014.

As of February 21, 2026, Bitcoin trades near $67,707, down roughly 47–50% from its October 2025 peak of $124,700. That places the current drawdown squarely within this historically notable correction range.

What Defines a 40–50% Correction in Bitcoin’s Cycle

A 40–50% correction refers to a drawdown from a running cycle peak to its lowest trough, with the maximum decline falling between those two percentages.

The peak is measured as the running high before a new high is set. The trough marks the deepest point of the pullback before recovery begins.

According to an analysis by market commentator Adam Livingston, the dataset covers daily Bitcoin price history from 2014 through February 20, 2026.

It identifies roughly nine distinct events fitting this correction definition. Only closed events count, meaning the drawdown period ends only when a new all-time high is confirmed.

This definition deliberately excludes deeper bear market crashes, where losses exceed 70%. Those recoveries typically take much longer. The 40–50% bucket behaves differently, and the data treats it as a separate category of market behavior.

Key Data Points From Nine Historical Events

The average multiple from the correction trough to the next cycle high sits at approximately 3.4 times. The range across all events runs from roughly 1.8 times on the lower end to 5.6 times at the top. That range reflects how different each recovery can be in magnitude.

Livingston noted that even the one event that eventually rolled into a deeper bear market still produced a roughly 116% gain and reached a new all-time high just after the 365-day mark.

As he wrote, “Even the ‘bad’ one still embarrassed the skeptics.” That recovery happened despite the correction preceding an extended downturn.

Average recovery time to a prior high within this correction range runs approximately 9 to 14 months. Full bear markets, by comparison, have historically taken 24 to 36 months or longer to recover. That represents a notably faster timeline for this specific correction bucket.

The Current Setup and What History Suggests

As of February 21, 2026, Bitcoin sits around $67,707. The October 2025 peak reached $124,700, placing the current drawdown at approximately 47–50%. That range matches the textbook entry zone identified across the historical dataset.

Livingston also pointed out that Bitcoin has shown early rebound behavior, trading roughly 8% above its February 5 low.

Historically, these initial snapbacks tend to follow a period where forced selling exhausts itself and selling pressure drops. The pattern repeats across multiple cycles in the data.

Beyond the current setup, the analysis also noted that maximum drawdown severity has decreased over successive cycles. The 2018 bear market saw drawdowns near 84%.

The 2022 cycle reached around 77%. The current cycle’s largest drawdown sits near 50%, which suggests growing market depth and stronger structural demand over time.

The post Is Bitcoin Current 47–50% Drawdown the Same Pattern That Has Always Led to New All-Time Highs? appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• STRC faces a major tailwind as U.S. money market funds lose $233.7 billion annually from a projected 300bps rate drop

• STRC pays 11.25% annually with $2.25 billion in cash reserves covering over 2.5 years of dividends at 5.6x overcollateralization

• A 0.5% rotation from money markets into STRC could generate $2–$4 billion, funding the purchase of up to 80,000 Bitcoin

• Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings could grow 13%–34% if STRC scales to $10–$20 billion in notional value by the year 2028

STRC, Strategy’s Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock, is drawing growing institutional attention as the Federal Reserve advances its rate-cutting cycle into 2026.

U.S. money market funds now hold $7.79 trillion, currently yielding between 4.5% and 5%. Analysts project yields on those funds could fall by 300 basis points.

That drop could push hundreds of billions toward high-yield alternatives. Trading near $100 par on Nasdaq and paying 11.25% annually, STRC stands positioned at that crossroads.

Fed Rate Cuts Threaten Hundreds of Billions in Annual Income

U.S. money market fund yields remain elevated from the prior rate-hiking cycle. However, the Fed has already moved 125 basis points into the current easing cycle, with markets pricing in another 75–100 basis points ahead.

Analysts expect front-end yields to compress toward 1%–2%, replicating the post-2008 and 2020 patterns.

A 300-basis-point decline across $7.79 trillion in money market assets equals roughly $233.7 billion in lost annual income.

Pensions, insurers, and corporate treasuries cannot simply absorb that loss. They are historically known to pursue higher-yielding alternatives when safe returns erode.

EPFR and McKinsey data indicate that for every 100-basis-point drop in short-term rates, alternative and high-yield vehicles see 10%–20% accelerated inflows within 12–18 months.

A 5%–10% rotation out of money markets alone could direct $390–$780 billion toward private credit, listed preferred stocks, and similar instruments.

STRC Positioned to Capture Institutional Yield Demand

STRC currently trades at $99.82 with an effective annual yield of 11.27%, paying dividends every month. Its notional value already stands at $3.458 billion. Average daily trading volume runs at approximately $128 million, reflecting growing market participation.

Analyst Adam Livingston wrote on X: “STRC sits at the perfect nexus because it’s liquid, high-yield, and structurally engineered to vacuum up the dumbest, most desperate money on Earth.”

He added that Strategy holds $2.25 billion in cash reserves, covering more than 2.5 years of dividends at 5.6 times overcollateralization.

If only 0.5% of projected capital rotation flows into STRC, that equals $2–$4 billion in new capital. At $100 par, that creates 20–40 million new shares issued. Proceeds from those shares go directly toward Strategy’s Bitcoin acquisition program.

Bitcoin Supply Could Face Pressure from STRC’s Expansion

Each $1 billion raised through STRC issuance allows Strategy to purchase approximately 14,700 Bitcoin at a $68,000 spot price.

A $4 billion capital inflow translates to roughly 58,800–80,000 additional Bitcoin removed from the open market.

Strategy currently holds 717,000 BTC. Analysts project STRC could scale to $10–$20 billion in notional value by 2028.

That growth range would add an estimated 95,000–242,000 Bitcoin to Strategy’s treasury, a 13%–34% increase in total holdings.

That accumulated buying would represent 8%–11% of annual Bitcoin issuance. Livingston noted: “Do that at scale and you’re talking supply-shock math that makes ETF inflows look quaint.”

Post-GFC private credit grew more than seven times as rate cuts redirected capital toward yield-bearing alternatives, and Bitcoin compounded sharply during each of those liquidity-driven periods.

The post STRC Yield Play: How Fed Rate Cuts Could Drive Billions Into Strategy’s Bitcoin Machine appeared first on Blockonomi.

Ever notice how the biggest opportunities show up when most people are too scared to look? That is exactly what is happening in crypto right now.

Robinhood just launched a blockchain testnet that processed 4 million transactions in its first week. Traditional finance is building deeper into crypto, not pulling back. At the same time, roughly $1 trillion was wiped from total crypto capitalization over recent months.

This disconnect between institutional building and retail fear creates a rare setup. And one presale is catching both crowds.

Pepeto: Investors Migrate for Utility and Explosive Upside

Traders and investors are actively moving toward projects that deliver actual usable tools instead of flashy promises. And Pepeto is at the center of that shift.

While most tokens fight to regain any kind of momentum in today’s volatile market, Pepeto offers something almost nobody else does at this stage: three working demo products. A cross chain swap, a bridge, and an exchange. Not concepts. Not wireframes. Working technology backed by dual audits from SolidProof and Coinsult.

Among these tools, the cross chain bridge stands out. Investors can move assets between blockchains without centralized intermediaries. That infrastructure turns Pepeto from a meme coin into something that could power an entire trading ecosystem.

Remember Pepecoin? It went from nothing to a $7 billion market cap. Zero products. Zero audits. Now imagine the same meme power plus working technology and a connection to the original Pepe cofounder.

Pepeto has raised over $7.258M so far at a price of $0.000000185. The presale is over 70% filled. The tokenomics carry a 0% buy and sell tax. And staking at 212% APY means a $20,000 position would generate roughly $42,400 in annual staking rewards.

But here is what really matters for investors thinking bigger. Staking is a holding bonus. The real play is what happens to your position when listings hit. If Pepeto captures even a sliver of the meme coin market that turned PEPE into a multi billion dollar token, the math on a 100x to 300x return is not wishful thinking. It is pattern recognition.

By providing real utility during a period of peak fear, Pepeto positions early investors to benefit from both adoption driven growth and price surges once market conditions flip. The presale window will not stay open much longer.

Avalanche Teases Recovery as AVAX Pushes Above $9

AVAX pushed above $9 this week, climbing from $8.63 to roughly $9.34 by February 20. Not a dramatic surge, but it hints at traders testing the waters after heavy selling.

Solana Investors Eye $100 as SOL Consolidates Around $86

Solana rose modestly from $84 to $86 as it consolidates. A push toward $100 is on investors’ radar. Many are balancing SOL positions with early stage projects offering working tools, which is why Pepeto is drawing attention.

Conclusion

While the altcoin market searches for its footing, capital is flowing toward projects that prove they can deliver. That is where Pepeto stands out. Three demo products live. Dual audits complete. A community growing fast enough to remind you of the early days of every meme coin that went on to create millionaires.

In a market that rewards function over speculation, the presale window at $0.000000185 will not last. Act while it is still open.

Visit the official website to buy into the Pepeto Presale now, and visit X for the latest community updates.

FAQs

Why is Pepeto gaining traction while bigger tokens struggle? Pepeto combines meme coin energy with working infrastructure: a swap, bridge, and exchange. That mix of culture and utility is drawing investors away from tokens that only offer speculation.

How do Pepeto’s demo products work for presale buyers? Presale participants can test the cross chain swap, bridge, and exchange demos. This gives buyers a hands on look at the technology before full public launch.

Is the 212% staking APY the main reason to invest? Staking is a holding bonus, not the primary thesis. The real opportunity is the potential price multiple when Pepeto lists on exchanges and captures meme coin market share.

The post Pepeto Presale Surges Past $7M as Robinhood Tests Blockchain and Major Coins Crumble: Why Investors See a 300x Opportunity Here appeared first on Blockonomi.

Cryptocurrency payments to suppliers of fentanyl precursor chemicals began falling in mid-2023, months before overdose deaths declined.

This pattern suggests that blockchain data may provide an early signal of disruptions in the illicit drug supply, according to a new report from Chainalysis.

Early Disruption in Fentanyl Supply

The blockchain data company observed a measurable drop in on-chain payments linked to vendors of chemicals commonly used in fentanyl production well before official mortality statistics reflected a reduction in fatalities. Because overdose data is typically released with delays due to investigation and certification processes, the earlier contraction in crypto transactions points to a potential three-to-six-month lead time between supply chain stress and public health outcomes.

The findings suggest that tracking blockchain payments to precursor suppliers could give law enforcement and policymakers an early signal of changes in synthetic opioid supply, alongside traditional measures like drug seizures and overdose death data.

The report also documented a sharp rise in cryptocurrency activity tied to suspected human trafficking networks. In 2025, crypto flows to identified services increased 85% year over year, reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. According to Chainalysis, much of that activity is concentrated in Southeast Asia, where trafficking operations overlap with scam compounds, online gambling platforms, and Chinese-language money laundering networks that operate largely through Telegram.

The firm identified four primary categories of suspected crypto-facilitated trafficking – Telegram-based “international escort” services believed to traffic individuals, “labor placement” agents recruiting workers for scam compounds, prostitution networks, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM) vendors.

Payment patterns vary by category. “International escort” services and prostitution networks rely predominantly on stablecoins, which offer price stability and ease of conversion. CSAM vendors have historically favored bitcoin but are increasingly using alternative Layer 1 networks as well as privacy-focused assets such as Monero, and often turn to instant exchangers that allow rapid swaps without know-your-customer requirements. The company said these changes complicate tracing efforts but still leave observable patterns on-chain.

Infrastructure Behind Crypto-Based Exploitation

Transaction size data indicates differing operational structures. Over 48% of transfers associated with Telegram-based “international escort” services were recorded to be more than $10,000, indicating organized operations functioning at scale. Prostitution networks demonstrated a higher concentration of transactions between $1,000 and $10,000, which is consistent with mid-tier agency activity.

Meanwhile, payments to “labor placement” agents recruiting for scam compounds typically fell within the same $1,000 to $10,000 range. This trend aligns with advertised fees for transporting workers across borders. Victims recruited through these channels are often coerced into operating online fraud schemes under threat of violence, according to prior reporting cited in the analysis.

The report also found that some escort and recruitment services are integrated with Chinese-language money laundering networks and “guarantee” platforms that rapidly convert stablecoins into local currencies, thereby reducing exposure to potential freezes.

In the CSAM sector, operators increasingly use subscription-based models, which often charge less than $100 per month, to generate recurring revenue. Chainalysis also observed overlap between CSAM networks and online extremist communities, as well as the use of US-based web infrastructure to host surface websites while operators may be located abroad.

The post Crypto Predicted the Fentanyl Slowdown Months Before Overdose Deaths Fell: Chainalysis appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Crypto venture capital firm Dragonfly Capital has closed its fourth fund at $650 million.

The fund comes as the broader cryptocurrency market faces a severe downturn, with token prices declining and investor enthusiasm weakened.

$650 Million Fund

Dragonfly’s previous fund, its third, deployed $500 million into startups such as Polymarket, Rain, and Ethena. The new $650 million vehicle aims to continue that trajectory and will provide capital for the firm to pursue early-stage investments at a time when the crypto venture sector is experiencing a slowdown as deal activity declines and firms face challenges in raising additional capital from investors, according to Fortune.

Speaking about the latest development, co-founder Haseeb Qureshi commented,

“We talk out loud and we say what we think. In a space that is just completely flooded with bulls**t and with fakers and self-promoters, I think that has actually been a superpower.”

The firm’s investments have included Layer 1 blockchain projects such as Avalanche, financial services firms like Amber Group, and other crypto projects. Besides, Dragonfly’s operations have continued through multiple market disruptions, such as the collapse of the Terra Luna ecosystem, the FTX bankruptcy, and a move away from China amid a local crypto crackdown.

Scrutiny Linked to Tornado Cash Investment

It has also faced regulatory scrutiny from the Department of Justice (DOJ). In July 2025, prosecutors informed a federal judge that they were considering criminal charges against employees of the crypto venture firm, including general partner Tom Schmidt, in relation to the 2020 investment in Tornado Cash.

The statement was made by prosecutor Nathan Rehn to District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York during a break in the trial of Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm, who was later convicted of operating an unlicensed money transmission. Dragonfly co-founder Haseeb Qureshi clarified that the firm has fully cooperated with the government investigation, which began in 2023. He had then stated that if charges are filed, they intend to defend themselves.

The Justice Department later backtracked, and no charges were filed against Schmidt.

The post Dragonfly Capital Launches $650M Crypto Fund Amid Market Turmoil appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The price of Solana’s native SOL token is near $84, after a steep, multi-month slide that erased nearly 67% from its September 2025 all-time high, with new on-chain data and community debates pointing to a network under strain.

The mixed signals matter because they show a split between falling market sentiment and activity metrics that suggest users have not abandoned the chain.

Security Patch Delays and Infrastructure Concerns

A February 19 report from Santiment noted that a significant source of recent frustration for the Solana community stems from a critical security scare in January. Client maintainers urged validators to upgrade to Agave/Jito v3.0.14 after disclosing vulnerabilities that could crash nodes and threaten consensus integrity.

Tim Garcia of the Solana Foundation urged operators to update quickly, but reports at the time said over half of validators were still on older versions, exposing the chain to potential risks.

This operational friction resurfaced in February when a network disruption rerouted U.S. traffic through Europe and Asia. While infrastructure providers like DoubleZero noted that such rerouting is a normal part of internet networking, for validators operating a high-speed chain, milliseconds matter.

These events have forced the market to pay closer attention to how smoothly Solana’s decentralized validator set can respond to pressure, as that response directly affects uptime and the safety of funds moving through DeFi.

The uncertainty is reflecting on SOL’s price, which earlier in the month fell 25% in a week to about $96, with analysts such as Ali Martinez warning that losing the $100 zone could open a path toward $74 or even $50.

At the time of writing, the asset was trading around the $84 level, down about 35% over the past month and more than 51% year-on-year. Shorter time frames show mild relief, with gains near 3% in 24 hours and about 6% in seven days, per CoinGecko data.

Technical indicators remain mixed. Some traders say a breakdown near $80 confirmed a bearish chart pattern, while others see a shorter-term setup that could push prices back toward $114 if resistance clears. Santiment added that deeply negative funding rates suggest many traders are betting against SOL, a setup that sometimes comes right before short squeezes.

Activity Growth Contrasts With Fading Hype

Despite the price pressure, Santiment reported rising daily wallet creation in February. That metric tracks new addresses interacting with the network and suggests ongoing user interest even in the face of weakening sentiment.

Exchange data also shows outflows exceeding inflows in recent weeks, a sign that some holders are moving tokens off trading platforms rather than preparing to sell.

Nevertheless, the current mood contrasts with earlier cycles that defined Solana’s culture. According to Santiment, traders still reference past events such as NFT booms, meme coin launches, and exchange-related shocks that once dominated online discussion.

More recently, app builder Zora shifted a new product from Base to Solana, charging about 1 SOL per creation, which sparked debate about incentives but also signaled ongoing developer interest.

Ultimately, Solana’s is a layered picture, with prices and online attention having fallen since late 2025, yet new wallets, active builders, and crowded short positions showing that participation has not disappeared.

The post Santiment: Solana Growth Signals Hope Despite Woes appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin holds more than 240,000 ETH, currently valued at approximately $467 million, according to blockchain intelligence platform Arkham’s investigation into his on-chain holdings.

The analysis established Buterin as the largest accessible individual holder of Ethereum, though institutional players and exchange wallets dominate the top rankings of ETH ownership.

Buterin’s Portfolio Composition and Recent Transactions

The Arkham investigation, published on February 17, provided a detailed breakdown of Buterin’s known crypto assets. His Ethereum holdings have gradually declined over the years, from 662,810 ETH in December 2015, which represented 0.91% of the total supply, to the current 240,010 ETH, which now accounts for about 0.20% of all ETH in circulation.

This reduction stems from both periodic sales and the network’s inflationary supply increases over time. Beyond ETH, Buterin holds smaller positions in several tokens, including 10 billion WHITE worth about $1.16 million, 30 billion MOODENG tokens valued at about $442,000, and 869,509 KNC tokens.

His portfolio also includes roughly $11,000 in Tornado Cash’s TORN token, reflecting past usage of the privacy mixer for donations, including funds sent to Ukraine. Recent on-chain activity shows Buterin moving significant sums in alignment with his public commitments, including a 16,384 ETH withdrawal in late January 2026, worth around $43 million at current prices, to support open-source infrastructure development.

This followed his announcement that the Ethereum Foundation is entering a period of “mild austerity,” with Buterin personally assuming funding responsibilities for certain projects to ensure the Foundation’s long-term sustainability. Subsequent sales of around 2,961 ETH over three days in early February, valued at about $6.6 million, were routed through CoW Protocol using small swaps to minimize market impact.

Arkham’s assessment of the broader Ethereum holder landscape revealed that institutions and exchanges occupy the top positions. For instance, the ETH2 beacon deposit contract holds over 60% of the total supply, with Binance, BlackRock, and Coinbase ranking among the largest entities.

Notably, the single largest individual holder is Rain Lohmus, who possesses 250,000 ETH worth $786 million. However, these funds are inaccessible due to lost private keys, a situation Lohmus acknowledged publicly in 2023.

Wealth Trajectory and Philanthropic Focus

Buterin’s net worth has followed Ethereum’s volatile price history closely, given that ETH constitutes over 99% of his known portfolio. He briefly achieved billionaire status in 2021 when the token crossed $3,000, with his holdings peaking at $2.09 billion in November of that year.

Nonetheless, the subsequent bear market reduced his wealth by close to 75% by December 2022. In 2025, rising ETH prices again pushed his net worth above $1 billion during August’s all-time high near $5,000, though recent market corrections, which pushed ETH below $2,000, have brought valuations back to current levels.

His wealth originated primarily from the 2014 Ethereum pre-sale, where 16.53% of the initial 72 million ETH supply was allocated to founders. A $100,000 Thiel Fellowship grant that same year allowed Buterin to leave the University of Waterloo and dedicate himself fully to Ethereum development.

Unlike many crypto founders who have accumulated substantial stakes in centralized companies, Buterin’s wealth remains almost entirely liquid and tied directly to the network he helped create.

The post Inside Vitalik Buterin’s Wallet: How Much Ethereum (ETH) Does He Actually Own? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ripple’s cross-border token became one of the most volatile assets in the cryptocurrency space after the 2024 presidential elections in the US, going from $0.60 to over $3.60 within less than a year, before it crashed to $1.11 earlier this month.

Following this 70% decline from July 2025 to February 2026, the token has seen its “largest on-chain realized loss spike since 2022,” said Santiment. However, this could be a blessing in disguise for token holders.

The analyst from the analytics company noted that the last time such massive realized losses were recorded, of -$1.93 billion, the underlying asset exploded by 114% in the following eight months. If such a spectacular price increase is to repeat now, it would put XRP’s valuation at over $3.00.

“Significant realized losses happen when a large number of investors sell their coins at a price lower than what they originally paid. This usually coincides with fear taking over. When traders panic and capitulate, they lock in their losses instead of holding and hoping for a rebound,” explained the company.

However, the analysts added that while this might feel negative in the short-term, it can be an important price signal for the longer run.

If the so-called weak hands have already sold, fewer sellers are left to push the asset lower. Or, as Santiment put it: “a wave of heavy realized loss can mean that much of the damage has already been done.”

Additionally, the analysis reads that such large increases in realized losses occur near market bottoms because “extreme fear tends to peak before price does.”

“Once sellers are exhausted, even a small amount of new buying pressure can push prices higher. That does not guarantee an immediate rally, but it increases the probability of a bounce. “

The post Ripple Price Alert: Last Time This Happened, XRP Skyrocketed by 114% appeared first on CryptoPotato.