AI's rapid rise could trigger economic depression by 2028, reshaping industries and job markets worldwide.

The post Kevin O’Leary: AI could trigger economic depression by 2028, the role of technology in driving innovation, and the impact of Chinese interference on US power projects | The Diary of a CEO appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The US dollar's complex history challenges the narrative of American monetary sovereignty and impacts future economic discussions.

The post Brendan Greeley: The dollar exists in multiple forms, understanding monetary sovereignty is crucial for currency control, and the evolution of currency impacts economic discourse | Odd Lots appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

People are spending big on simulated intimacy, revealing deep desires for connection beyond physical encounters.

The post Justin Garcia: The ‘girlfriend experience’ reveals our deep desire for intimacy, emotional connections complicate casual sex, and the troubling power imbalances in sex work | Jordan Harbinger appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

AI's rapid advancements and oil price shifts are reshaping investment strategies in the tech economy.

The post Dan Loeb: Oil prices and AI are reshaping the economy, the semiconductor sector’s resurgence is crucial, and event-driven investing reveals undervalued opportunities | Invest Like the Best appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Effective sexual communication is the key to long-term satisfaction and overcoming societal shame in relationships.

The post Dr. Tara Suwinyattichaiporn: Sexual empowerment overcomes shame, the critical role of communication in intimacy, and understanding chemistry vs. compatibility | Shawn Ryan Show appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Sequans (SQNS) Completes Bitcoin Unwind, Exits Digital Asset Strategy After Less Than a Year

Sequans Communications (NYSE: SQNS), the Paris-based cellular IoT semiconductor company, has completed the full redemption of its remaining convertible debt, funded by the sale of a portion of its Bitcoin holdings — bringing a short-lived and costly digital asset treasury experiment to a close.

The company now holds approximately 658 BTC, described as “fully unencumbered,” following the retirement of all convertible notes issued in July 2025. Sequans said it plans to monetize the remaining Bitcoin over time, though it did not specify a timeline or method.

Sequans’ bitcoin bet that backfired

The retreat caps a strategy that began in June 2025, when Sequans announced plans to raise $385 million through debt and equity to start a Bitcoin treasury. 

By late July, CEO Georges Karam described Bitcoin as a “long-term store of value for our shareholders,” with a target of accumulating 3,000 BTC within weeks. The company crossed that threshold by month’s end.

The unwind began in November 2025 after Bitcoin fell from an all-time high above $126,000 to roughly $80,000. Sequans sold 970 BTC that month, followed by 125 BTC in February 2026, and another 1,025 BTC during the first quarter — reducing holdings to 1,114 BTC as of April 30. Thursday’s announcement confirmed a further reduction to 658 BTC, reflecting total sales of more than 80% of peak holdings.

Investors who bought shares at the height of Bitcoin enthusiasm last July are sitting on losses of more than 90%. SQNS shares rose 10% on Thursday following the announcement.

With the debt retired, Sequans transitions to what it calls a “near debt-free balance sheet,” giving the company greater financial flexibility heading into the second half of 2026. The move eliminates collateral obligations tied to Bitcoin’s price volatility, a risk that management had flagged in prior filings.

“We have strengthened our balance sheet, simplified our capital structure, and are now fully focused on scaling our IoT semiconductor business,” Karam said in Thursday’s statement.

Sequans’ renewed focus centers on its 4G LTE-M and Cat-1bis chipsets, which serve markets including smart metering, asset tracking, telematics, security, and industrial IoT. The company is also advancing its 5G eRedCap platform — a next-generation cellular IoT standard — as a long-term growth driver.

Karam framed Thursday’s announcement as the start of a focused operational phase. “Execute on our growing 4G and RF transceiver product portfolio, accelerate our path to profitability, and advance our 5G roadmap,” he said.

This post Sequans (SQNS) Completes Bitcoin Unwind, Exits Digital Asset Strategy After Less Than a Year first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Falls 5.5% in 5 Days to Below 73,000 as Spot ETF Outflows Accelerate 

Bitcoin price has fallen more than 5.5% over the past week, sliding from above $77,000 to around $72,600 on Thursday as risk sentiment weakened. The move extends a broader pullback from early May’s highs above $82,000, leaving bitcoin price trading near 6–7% lower week-on-week as surging spot ETF outflows and US‑Iran tensions pressure prices.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust recorded $527.84 million in net outflows on Wednesday, its second-largest single-day withdrawal since the fund launched in January 2024 — falling short of the all-time record by roughly $500,000. The figure lands within a broader retreat across the U.S. spot bitcoin ETF complex, which together shed $733.43 million that day, the largest combined daily outflow since late January.

Despite the headline numbers, context matters. IBIT remains up more than $2 billion in year-to-date flows and has accumulated $64 billion in lifetime net inflows since launch, placing it in the top 2% of all ETFs by cumulative flows. Wednesday’s $528 million draw represents less than 1% of that total.

The outflow did not occur in isolation. Bitcoin price fell through the $73,000 level during Asian trading hours Thursday, declining 3.4% over 24 hours to $72,978. The immediate catalyst was a fresh round of U.S. airstrikes on an Iranian military site near the Strait of Hormuz, reigniting geopolitical risk that markets had begun to discount.

As investors redeemed ETF shares, BlackRock and other issuers were forced to sell underlying bitcoin to settle those exits, feeding the price decline and the outflow data in a loop.

Alongside IBIT, Grayscale’s GBTC shed $104.76 million and Fidelity’s FBTC lost $60.30 million on the same day. Morgan Stanley’s MSBT was the only spot bitcoin ETF to post positive flows, drawing in $4.3 million, according to Bitcoin Magazine Pro data.

The massive Bitcoin block trade

One factor feeding Wednesday’s outflow number was a transaction that took place Tuesday. A single investor sold $1.29 billion of IBIT shares in a dark-pool block trade — a privately negotiated transaction designed to let large players move substantial size without tipping off the broader market. Bitcoin price was around $78,000 at the time.

Bloomberg Senior ETF Analyst Eric Balchunas flagged the trade, noting it involved 29.2 million IBIT shares and helped push total bitcoin ETF volume on Tuesday to $4.4 billion, the highest since April 17.

A dark-pool sale is not the same as a net outflow. Buyers absorb the other side of the transaction, so the fund itself does not necessarily see redemptions. IBIT’s actual net outflow on Tuesday came to $192.44 million — large, but separate from the block trade headline. The two events together point to institutional players reducing bitcoin exposure, whether through direct redemptions or secondary market exits.

The outflow data reflects a trend that has been building through May. Net ETF accumulation across the year had thinned to approximately 4,500 BTC, and May flipped from the steady buying seen in March and April into net distribution. 

Bitcoin price has fallen from above $82,000 on May 6 to under $73,000, and the ETF channel that drove much of the 2025 bull run has spent the past several weeks pulling capital in the opposite direction.

Bitcoin price debasement 

JPMorgan added another layer to the picture Wednesday, noting that the pandemic-era “debasement trade” — the thesis that bitcoin and gold serve as hedges against currency erosion — appears to be cooling. 

The bank suggested that institutional futures positions and ETF outflows in both assets reflect investors pricing in a potential U.S.-Iran resolution before one materializes.

IBIT has weathered extended outflow streaks before during this cycle without a permanent reversal, with capital returning each time the macro backdrop cleared. Whether this episode follows that pattern depends on the trajectory of Middle East tensions and whether the rotation out of crypto into equities proves short-lived or structural.

At the time of writing, the bitcoin price is near $72,800.

This post Bitcoin Price Falls 5.5% in 5 Days to Below 73,000 as Spot ETF Outflows Accelerate  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

UTXO Enters Bitcoin Staking on Stacks, Targets BTC Yield

Bitcoin-native asset management company UTXO Management has become one of the first institutional participants in Bitcoin Staking on the Stacks network, marking a notable shift in how corporate Bitcoin holdings may be used.

The initiative introduces a structure that allows institutions to earn bitcoin-denominated yield without transferring custody or moving assets off the Bitcoin base layer. 

For treasury managers holding large BTC reserves, the model presents a new option that preserves core Bitcoin properties while addressing rising pressure to generate returns.

Bitcoin Staking on Stacks requires participants to lock BTC in a Bitcoin timelock alongside a smaller allocation of STX, the Stacks network’s native token, in what the protocol defines as a “protocol bond.” 

The BTC remains under the participant’s control throughout the process, while the STX component determines the scale of participation in the system. The initial bonding period is set at six months.

The yield target for the protocol is near 3% annual percentage yield, paid in bitcoin. Unlike lending-based models, the return does not rely on counterparty borrowing. Instead, it is derived from Stacks’ Proof-of-Transfer consensus mechanism. 

Under this model, miners bid BTC to secure the right to produce blocks on the Stacks network, and that BTC is distributed to eligible participants, including those engaged in Bitcoin Staking.

Proof-of-Transfer has operated for several years and has distributed more than 4,200 BTC since 2021. Bitcoin Staking builds on this framework, extending its reward structure to a broader class of participants.

The protocol is expected to reach mainnet later this summer, opening with an initial bootstrapping phase managed by the Stacks Endowment.

Staking tradeoffs as bitcoin gains traction

The model introduces trade-offs that institutions must evaluate. Participants must hold STX equal to about 5% of the BTC position, which creates exposure to a second asset. The bonded BTC remains illiquid during the lockup period, though an early exit option exists for the BTC portion. Yield levels depend on network dynamics, including miner demand and STX market conditions, which introduces variability.

Despite these factors, UTXO’s participation signals growing institutional interest in productive Bitcoin strategies that maintain self-custody. 

The structure avoids lending desks and synthetic wrappers, both of which require relinquishing some control or altering the nature of the underlying asset.

Corporate Bitcoin treasuries have expanded in recent years. The top 100 companies now hold more than 1.2 million BTC, representing about 5% of total supply. 

Executives see Bitcoin Staking as a response to that scrutiny. Tyler Evans, Chief Investment Officer of Nakamoto and UTXO, described the model as a way to generate yield while preserving Bitcoin’s settlement and custody features. 

Stacks founder Muneeb Ali framed the development as a step toward transforming idle Bitcoin into productive capital within a secure framework.

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

This post UTXO Enters Bitcoin Staking on Stacks, Targets BTC Yield first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

No – Digital Credit Cannot Be Replicated With Bitcoin and Treasuries

The scale up of STRC and SATA has drawn in many detractors. 

Recently Onramp published a paper highlighting some issues of Digital Credit. There were some errors and the paper was clearly AI-generated in most places. My favorite error actually had little to do with Digital Credit, and it appeared in the preface of the report (imagine you haven’t even started reading the actual paper and you already see a factual error, this is the level of AI we are dealing with). 

Onramp writes on Page 3: “Strategy has released AI-generated advertising featuring a young, attractive model in a tropical setting” 

But a quick viewing of the 30-second ad they are referencing shows that the woman worked “hard as an engineer”, not a model. This is literally 10 seconds into the ad, which is about the same amount of time it took me to spot the error in Onramp’s preface. 

I just thought this anecdote was funny. Onto my main point. 

Their core argument was that Digital Credit could be better replicated by combining U.S. treasury securities with BTC. (This is what Onramp calls “the simpler trade” but I also fail to see how this is simpler considering that buying digital credit involves just one single ticker while “the simpler trade” involves a dynamic re-laddering of maturing treasury bonds combined with BTC held on a separate venue.) 

This conclusion is wrong. It is trivial to show that it is wrong empirically (one just has to look at the daily returns time series of Digital Credit instruments vs a portfolio of IBIT and SGOV or IEF). But this missive will present multiple economic arguments for why we can know a priori that the claim is incorrect. 

Reason 1: Collateral 

Digital Credit is overcollateralized by corporate bitcoin holdings. This cannot be replicated with one’s own equity because there is no committed external capital in the case of owning BTC and treasuries—it is all your own money and no one else is on the hook. Credit is different. Even though the principal is yours, there is external capital in the form of the issuer’s assets that are committed to ensuring you are made whole. This capital is “external” because it existed before you ever put your principal in and it remains well after you sell your position. 

To be precise, an unencumbered bitcoin balance sheet isn’t collateral in the strict sense, but it serves as collateral in a flexible sense. For instance, a BTC-backed loan with margin call is collateralized in a strict sense because the collateral is set apart for the debt. Digital Credit gives the issuer more flexibility with collateral management, but it also gives the investor more flexibility because the security is fungible and liquid. This is an understanding that both parties agree to. 

The presence of the collateral is protection for the investor. This coverage is expressed in the BTC Rating metric, which is the ratio of Bitcoin NAV to the sum of the notional value of a particular credit series and all more senior series. 

A portfolio of BTC and treasuries has no external capital. This fact alone makes it impossible to economically replicate what is going on in Digital Credit with BTC and treasuries. 

Before I move on, I should address treasuries. It is true these are backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government, and this might be considered a type of collateral. Some might even call this infinite collateral coverage. However this implicitly assumes that the U.S. will not default on its debt. Onramp mentions that because the government can print money and it is constitutionally illegal to not pay the debt, the treasuries position is therefore a sure thing. 

This does not account for a case where the government revises its policy and defaults on some debts but not others. Such a move should not be deemed impossible considering the growing influence of modern monetary theory, which posits that sovereign debt is a mere construct constrained only by inflation. MMT sees debt as a reallocation of society’s resources across time to generate the highest social benefit in the present. This line of thought is really the final destination of fiat finance where everything is relative and based on high time preference decision-making. 

But under this logic, a move to “delete” the debt owed to some parties while honoring the debt owed to others would, assuming the parties are selected correctly, constitute a partial debt jubilee that would still allow currency stability to persist. Is the treasuries risk worth taking? Everyone must decide for themselves. If this does happen, then STRC will be fine (since the dollar would be fine, because we already said that currency stability persists) but the treasuries and BTC portfolio could see some heavy losses. 

Combining BTC with treasuries therefore introduces that avenue for risk which Digital Credit, being a fully structured overcollateralized bitcoin position, does not have. 

In other words, the real difference between Digital Credit and a synthetic replication is the type of risk that the investor endures. Keep this point in mind, because it is a recurring theme. 

Reason 2: Correlation 

Markowitz portfolio theory shows diversification as the only free lunch in finance. When multiple uncorrelated things are stacked together, they can create higher risk adjusted returns. 

Digital Credit is rather uncorrelated to bitcoin and other assets. STRC is at 0.63 correlation to BTC and 0.33 correlation to SPY and a 0.33 correlation to the S&P preferred stock index. 

Like everything else, it is true that it can be positively correlated during times of high stress. But the lower correlation most of the time means that Digital Credit can improve the diversification of portfolios. 

In contrast, it is easy to show that bitcoin and treasuries cannot do this because it is simply a watered-down bitcoin position: bitcoin levered by some number between 0 and 1. For example, 20% BTC and 80% treasuries is really just 0.2x levered BTC. 0.2x levered BTC still has a 1.0 correlation with BTC, so it offers zero diversification benefits to a larger portfolio that already holds BTC. In finance jargon, we might say that this has a 0.2 beta but a 1.0 correlation. 

The reason Digital Credit can generate lower correlation is precisely because of the capital structure behind it. The company has many different options that are unavailable to the investor that holds only BTC and treasuries. These options create idiosyncratic factors that are independent from and therefore uncorrelated with BTC.

And just to reiterate the earlier point, these idiosyncratic factors are also different risks that the Digital Credit investor accepts. 

Reason 3: Tax 

This is probably the biggest error from Onramp. Return of Capital is a tax benefit in the case of STRC and SATA. Onramp argues that it isn’t a benefit because the company has no earnings and so the capital really is return of principal and therefore economically similar to the return of principal in their laddered treasuries model. While this is true for many cases of ROC, it is not the case for Digital Credit. 

First, understand that the ROC tax rule for negative taxable earnings and profits was designed with the assumption that companies would make their money via fiat-denominated cash flows rather than taking advantage of the fiat’s debasement to accumulate appreciating assets. 

For just a moment, I want you to seriously consider why a distribution from a company without earnings would be a reduction of cost basis. Why is this rule fair and why did it come about? 

The answer is that a company that doesn’t have income but pays a distribution is economically liquidating itself, which means the principal (cost basis) of all equity investors should be reduced to reflect this partial liquidation. In most cases of ROC, the entity gets smaller as the distributions occur, because the distribution was literally part of the entity. You can see this for yourself in covered call ETFs that go through brutal NAV erosion while paying out ROC distributions. 

But again, this whole dynamic assumes as a premise that companies only make money with cash flows and not by investing in appreciating assets. If in fact there existed a company that could make money by investing in appreciating assets, then it could easily take advantage of the ROC tax rule by making it look like it was partially liquidating while in reality growing larger and larger. 

And if you look closely, this is exactly what Strategy is doing. Its enterprise value gets larger as it pays out more ROC distributions. This is completely the opposite of what one would expect to see with ROC when thinking from first principles, or what one actually sees in other ROC cases. When BTC starts to rally, this difference gets even clearer. 

This distinction alone should make it clear that Digital Credit offers something very unique. It has ROC, which we may think of as an accounting treatment of principal erosion, without the economic reality of principal erosion being reflected by a lower share price. This is, in short, a structural arbitrage made possible by an oversight in the tax code (the oversight being that C-Corps do not make money by holding appreciating assets). This is unique to Digital Credit and cannot be replicated by BTC and treasuries. 

But just like Digital Credit today benefits from this tax rule, it could also stop benefiting should the rule change. We should expect a reprice of Digital Credit in that kind of event. This is a risk that Digital Credit investors accept, and it is a risk that the BTC and treasuries portfolio does not have. 

Reason 4: Value Investing 

Value investing is about buying undervalued assets. Assets are undervalued when the market does not assess the risk correctly. It is possible that the risk associated with the corporate structure is not priced correctly, and therefore the Digital Credit investor earns a higher risk premium than what is justified. This could explain the double digit yields on Digital Credit instruments. 

Therefore, getting a potential bargain is another benefit. It is of course true that treasuries might be a bargain. And it is of course true that BTC is a bargain. But it is also undeniable that neither can ever express the unique bargain of a misunderstood capital structure, which is what Digital Credit offers. 

Conclusion

Finally, it is fair for an investor to believe that the risks of Digital Credit are not worth it. However, this would not be the point of the article, which is to demonstrate that Digital Credit offers at least four unique benefits that a BTC and treasuries portfolio cannot replicate. 

The claim that such a portfolio can better replicate digital credit is false because such a portfolio does not at all replicate the underlying economics of Digital Credit.

The benefits of Digital Credit derive from a different set of risks inherent to the unique capital structure of a Bitcoin treasury company. Therefore the economic facts prove that Digital Credit cannot be replicated without a similar capital structure. 

This post No – Digital Credit Cannot Be Replicated With Bitcoin and Treasuries first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Allard Peng.

Bitcoin Magazine

The 2036 Issue: What Choices Will You Make On The Way To A Multipolar World?

As I write this in 2026, the world is becoming more multipolar, and I expect that trend to continue over the next decade through 2036.

In reality, it was this recent unipolar period that was historically anomalous. Starting from the end of World War II in 1945 and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has existed as the world’s sole hyperpower. For the first time in history, telecommunications and industry connected the whole world, enabling a truly global reach.

Prior to that point, multipolarity was the norm. Even during the height of the Roman Empire nearly two millennia ago, there were other similarly powerful regions of the world, including the Han Dynasty and other Asian kingdoms and empires. That was at a time when distance truly mattered, and great powers could exist simultaneously with only limited contact.

The other side of this multipolar aspect of power was the multipolar nature of money. For thousands of years, it was gold and silver, along with lesser commodities, that served as money. There was no sovereign ledger big enough to serve the whole world, and so only nature’s decentralized ledger could suffice.

But in the age of telecommunications, as commerce and money began to flow at the speed of light in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, even gold wasn’t good enough. The United States dollar became the primary currency for cross-border lending and contract pricing, while the United States treasury bond became the primary reserve asset for central banks. People often point to the existence of prior reserve currencies, such as the British pound sterling or the Dutch gilder, but they weren’t the same thing as the dollar. They were proxies for metal, and gold itself was the real reserve currency in those eras. But during this unipolar hyperpower era, the free-floating dollar and its bond market surpassed the known market capitalization of gold and became by far the largest holding in sovereign reserves.

Many people viewed this unipolar era as the end of history, even though of course history never does end. China and India gradually recovered their economic might from the depths of colonialism and war that defined their 19^th and 20^th centuries, with China in particular becoming the world’s largest steel producer, electricity generator, and manufacturer now in the early 21^st century. The United States, meanwhile, suffered from the Triffin dilemma: in order to maintain the world’s reserve currency, the nation must supply the world with units of its currency, which they do by running deficits. Those deficits, and the associated hollowing-out of industry that they contribute to, is what eventually weakens the trust in that currency.

Now, many of those in power in the United States no longer want the costs of issuing the reserve currency, though few would say it out loud. The imbalances have become too great. Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn’t want their assets to be devalued or frozen, or their liabilities hardened, at the whim of Washington DC. There are no other sovereign entities willing and able to serve as the world’s ledger either, with all the trust that’s required and all the burdens it entails.

And so, here it is that we witness the gradual trend shift back toward multipolarity of money. Gold is the obvious first choice; it’s the only other liquid and divisible store of value that’s big enough. It’s still not fast enough, but nations see that they didn’t have to go as all-in on the dollar as they did. They can hold gold in lieu of treasuries for a bigger chunk of their savings than they have been doing in recent decades. It may have its flaws, but gold can’t be hacked, can’t be unliterally debased or frozen, and lasts forever.

The second choice is a boring but obvious one: diversification. In a world where there are a handful of major economic powers, nations can diversify their fiat currency exposures. They can hold a plurality of currencies and bonds at roughly equal proportion to the size of their trading partners and capital providers. That spreads out risk, both in terms of debasement and in terms of confiscation. The problem here is about network effects: liquidity begets more liquidity, and entities don’t want assets and liabilities denominated in different units, and so money naturally trends toward one wherever possible. A patchwork combination of gold and two or three major fiat currencies collectively serving as the world’s ledger is a workable one, but not an ideal one.

The third potential choice, still in its relative infancy, is Bitcoin. Nature provided slow but decentralized ledgers, sovereigns provided fast but centralized ledgers, and this third method now provides a ledger that is both decentralized and fast. The hyperpower unipolar world occurred at a time when transaction speeds could move at the speed of light, but final settlement could not. Fast global transactions (i.e. IOUs) only require Morse code over telegraph connections, which are very simple and of low bandwidth, while fast global settlements (i.e. irreversible transfers) require much higher bandwidth communications and hard encryption. Now that fast settlement exists at scale, the reliance on central intermediaries to bridge the gap between fast transactions and slow settlements can be reduced.

However, the challenge from this point on is twofold: security and network effects.

Bitcoin’s ultimate security has been questioned from its inception. Will its economic incentives keep it permissionless and decentralized indefinitely, or will it eventually gravitate toward centralized capture? Will its cryptographic assumptions continue to hold? And related to both of those questions: will it be able to gradually update over time despite its decentralization, so that it can remain functional and secure as the world’s computer infrastructure evolves underneath it? At only seventeen years of age, these questions are still unanswered, but those of us who invest in the asset and participate in development either directly or through the financing of development believe that Bitcoin is the best shot we have, and so we try to create the reality we want to see.

Bitcoin’s network effects are strong, but are still limited. These network effects, along with its simple and robust design, have been sufficient to keep it as the largest cryptocurrency for seventeen straight years since inception, with no true competitors anywhere in sight. However, when looking more broadly, it’s still a minnow in an ocean of sharks. The direct user base is in the low millions, in a world of billions. The market cap is in the low trillions of dollars in a global world of assets that has reached roughly a quadrillion dollars. And speaking of dollars, people use the largest and most liquid money as their unit of account, and that remains the dollar globally and other fiat currencies locally. It’s what people’s paychecks are denominated in, it’s what their business contracts refer to, and it’s what fulfills their liabilities.

In order to grow very large, Bitcoin by definition requires upward volatility. With upward volatility comes euphoria and leverage, which create the conditions for periods of downward volatility. This volatile adoption period, which inevitably takes decades as it chips into the existing network effects of the dollar and other large monies, limits its attractiveness both as a unit of account and as a near-term savings device. It serves as an investable asset, as long-term savings, and as the most unstoppable payment and settlement method for products and services that are otherwise denominated in more stable incumbent monies. Bitcoin’s fate during this adoption period rests on the vision of early adopters whose plans are measured in decades. The larger it becomes, the more stable it can be and the more it can function as an accounting unit and near-term savings, but getting there is a long journey.

To the extent that Bitcoin continues to remain strong in the face of security threats, and continues to chip into the incumbent monetary networks, the more attractive it becomes to individuals, corporations, and sovereigns. In 2036, I believe gold will still be desired, as there is a natural tendency to want to own physical, immortal things. And I believe the largest fiat currencies, troubled as they may be, will still be in widespread use: those trains have quite a while to run yet. If it’s successful, Bitcoin in 2036 would be larger than any stock, and would rival the largest currencies and metals in market size.

The biggest challenge to Bitcoin is not governments, not quantum computers, not rogue developers, and not other digital assets. Instead, the biggest challenge, the biggest risk, is us. The people. All people.

In 2036, war, corruption, and tyranny will still exist. However, it’s a question of ratios and numbers. People imagine that governments impose all of these things on us, when in reality that’s only partially true. The way it works in practice is that people ask for it.

There is a perceived balance between liberty and security. War and tyranny, and the centralized ledgers that fuel them, come not just out of human evil, but also from human fear. When people are afraid of invaders, plagues, technology, and competition over scarce resources, they turn to their leaders for protection. They give up some of their liberty as long as they perceive that they’re under the collective security umbrella, and that the power of the state will be directed at others rather than themselves. This can work for a time, but it breeds corruption. Power begets power, and eventually turns inward. State failures, when they inevitably occur, must be covered up. Critics of the state, whether from without or from within, must be silenced. When liberty is gone, that system which promised security eventually and ironically becomes the biggest threat to it.

People who criticize ubiquitous surveillance and bureaucratic overreach when wielded by their political opponents often turn around to embrace those tools as soon as their political allies are in power. It’s a short-sighted strategy, relying either on staying in power forever, or in the lack of foresight about how those tools will be given back to their opponents at some point, stronger than ever and ready to be used against them yet again.

If Bitcoin fails to catch on by 2036, I think it will be because humanity didn’t want it, or wasn’t ready for it. The technology itself is robust. Proof of work helps keep the network secure. Tight limits on bandwidth and storage help keep the network decentralized. Layers built on top of it help provide scaling and privacy. There is more work to do, but the foundation is already strong, open for business, and being used at scale. To the extent that major challenges arise, the network is upgradable whenever sufficient consensus is achieved.

In this latest bull/bear cycle, Bitcoin further separated itself from other cryptocurrencies, but failed to attract many new users. AI services caught on with the public far more quickly, leapfrogging Bitcoin in adoption, because people and businesses could see AI’s immediate benefits to them, while Bitcoin’s benefits were unclear to many who haven’t gone down a rabbit hole of research.

There are many stores of value to choose from, and volatility is painful. In order for Bitcoin to truly catch on, it will need to be because people value financial sovereignty. It will need to be because hundreds of millions of people, not just several million as we have now, appreciate the importance of self-custodied savings, permissionless payments, and financial privacy. Those collectively are the attributes that Bitcoin uniquely provides at scale.

Prior to Bitcoin, during this century of fast transactions but without fast settlements, governments could impose their control over the financial system in the background. By regulating the banks, they could surveil and contain activities to a significant degree without restricting almost any end-user directly. Thus, most people didn’t see any direct threats to their financial liberty. After Bitcoin, people can run open-source code, can transact without permission, and can hold liquid savings in their own custody. To the extent that governments are threatened by this, they can’t just impose restrictions on thousands of banks anymore; they have to impose restrictions on millions of end-users and developers.

The question is, now that technology has pulled the mask off, will enough people resist and push forward through frictions, or will they comply without protest and move backward?

We have the tools now, but will we use them? That’s the main question to answer for 2036.

Don’t miss your chance to own The 2036 Issue — featuring articles written by many influential figures in the space pondering the challenges of the next decade!

This piece is featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The 2036 Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

This post The 2036 Issue: What Choices Will You Make On The Way To A Multipolar World? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Lyn Alden.

A warning from one of decentralized finance’s (DeFi) early security figures has turned a difficult stretch of hacks into a broader test of how the industry can defend itself against artificial intelligence (AI).

On May 27, Manuel Aráoz, co-founder and former chief technology officer of OpenZeppelin, advised investors to exit DeFi positions, including exposure to established lending protocols such as Aave, MakerDAO, and Compound.

According to Aráoz, autonomous AI coding agents have widened the gap between attackers and defenders by making it easier to find vulnerabilities at scale. He wrote:

“Coding agents are superhuman at finding vulnerabilities, and smart contract security is too asymmetric. Defenders need to fix every bug while attackers need just one exploit to steal funds.”

The warning gained traction because it came during a period of pressure for the broader DeFi market. Over the past year, the sector has lost more than $1.1 billion to exploits, with April accounting for $635 million across 28 reported hacks.

These security incidents resulted in the total value locked across decentralized finance falling from roughly $172 billion in mid-April to $148 billion as of press time, marking five consecutive weeks of outflows. The decline can also be linked to broader market weakness, which saw Bitcoin approach $72,000 earlier today.

Still, those figures have pushed the security debate beyond individual protocols and into a wider question of whether AI has lowered the cost of attacking DeFi faster than the industry can improve its defenses.

AI makes the search for weakness cheaper

Aráoz's warning is grounded in the fact that artificial intelligence fundamentally lowers the cost and effort required to map smart contract vulnerabilities.

Over the past years, advanced AI models have introduced immense pressure by accelerating vulnerability discovery, exploit testing, and operational reconnaissance at near-zero cost.

Recent research from venture capital firm a16z validates this accelerating offensive capability by noting that AI agents have consistently identified core vulnerabilities in historical DeFi exploits.

According to the firm, even when agents failed to complete an exploit, they often reached the stage that gives attackers a starting point. A tool that reliably identifies weak points can reduce the expertise required to begin an attack.

Anthropic has similarly restricted public access to its unreleased Claude Mythos model precisely because of its capacity to autonomously discover and weaponize software flaws.

For DeFi, this development matters because the systems for many protocols are public, composable, and financially liquid. Thus, the code, governance structures, and integrations surrounding a platform can be studied openly to identify any vulnerabilities.

AI can make that process faster and cheaper, increasing pressure on teams whose defenses still depend heavily on audits, bug bounties and manual review.

Protocol leaders point to stronger infrastructure

However, concerns about AI have drawn pushback from founders and security firms, who say DeFi has become more resilient than in earlier cycles.

Blockchain security firm OpenZeppelin argued that many recent security incidents stemmed from operational failures instead of flaws in audited contract code.

According to the firm, most large losses in recent months have involved stolen private keys, bridge spoofing, social engineering, and access control issues. That pattern suggests that attackers have often targeted the systems around protocols, including teams, permissions, and infrastructure.

Aave founder Stani Kulechov made a similar argument. He said DeFi infrastructure today benefits from better risk engines, lending market structures, formal verification, audits, bug bounties, cap management, oracle improvements, automated monitoring, and circuit breakers.

Kulechov said much of the remaining attack surface involves Web2-style operational lapses, including weak internal controls and infrastructure processes.

Notably, that view aligns with April’s exploit wave, where several of the largest losses were tied to compromised keys, social engineering, and bridge-related failures. For context, Drift Protocol's $285 million loss is tied to a six-month social engineering campaign from North Korea's Lazarus Group.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams also pushed back against the broader conclusion that DeFi itself has become unsafe.

He argued that well-built smart contracts can support applications with strong security properties, while AI is likely to expose weak code, rushed launches, and poor development practices more quickly.

That distinction has become central to the industry’s response. The debate is increasingly about which systems have the controls in place to withstand AI-assisted attacks, and which remain exposed due to weak operations, complex integrations, or limited monitoring.

DeFi teams bring AI into the defense stack

Meanwhile, the pushback from founders has not stopped teams from changing their approach to security.

Nansen, an agentic AI trading platform, told CryptoSlate that major protocols are leaning into AI tools on the defensive side rather than pulling away from open-source development.

This is corroborated by Deddy Lavid, chief executive officer of Cyvers, who said the industry is moving toward an AI-versus-AI security environment.

In this field, crypto developers are using the same AI tools to find and eradicate bugs before attackers do.

Notably, OpenZeppelin recently introduced tooling designed to help AI agents generate smart contracts using current, audited security libraries. The goal is to reduce reliance on stale training data or unsafe code patterns when agents assist developers.

Uniswap has also launched an AI-integrated developer platform to make secure deployments easier from the start.

Those efforts are significant examples of how the space is preparing for AI agents capable of discovering and weaponizing software flaws.

The quickest defense is limiting how far one failure can spread

The turn toward AI-assisted defense leaves DeFi with a more immediate task of slowing attacks before they become full protocol losses.

Cyvers' Lavid said static, point-in-time audits are no longer enough for protocols that manage large pools of user funds. Defenders need continuous monitoring, live transaction simulation, and automated systems that can slow or pause activity when suspicious behavior appears.

Some of those safeguards are already being adopted. Lavid said some protocols have been including circuit breakers, transaction monitoring, multisig controls, and runtime protections into their operations.

These systems can reduce losses by limiting an attack before funds leave a protocol or by giving teams time to intervene when activity moves outside expected patterns.

That response carries a trade-off. Circuit breakers, multisig controls, and emergency pauses can protect users during an incident, but they also introduce more human discretion into systems built around open access and automated execution.

As AI increases the speed of attacks, DeFi may have to adopt more defensive measures to preserve user confidence.

Meanwhile, Richard Liu, co-founder of Huma Finance, said the sector should focus less on eliminating every possible failure and more on reducing the damage when failures occur.

He compared the current moment to the early development of digital commerce, where credit card networks continued to grow even as fraud remained part of the system.

Those networks managed the risk through real-time detection, transaction limits, tokenization, insurance, and liability rules. Liu said DeFi needs a similar approach, with systems designed so that a single compromised key, a configuration error, or a bug cannot drain an entire liquidity pool.

That means the next phase of DeFi security may be judged by blast radius. Protocols will need tighter limits on privileged roles, stronger key management, conservative exposure caps, better oracle design, transaction-level monitoring, and pre-execution blocking. Insurance, bug bounties, and live response teams could also become more important for platforms handling large amounts of user capital.

For users, the practical response may become more selective. Pseudonymous Yearn Finance developer Banteg said he disagrees with exiting all DeFi positions, but he acknowledges the asymmetry is real. His advice was to avoid new and exotic protocols and focus on older, more tested systems.

That caution could shape where capital goes next. Mature protocols with simpler designs, longer operating histories, and clearer controls may be better positioned to retain users. Protocols built around complex integrations or high yields may face more scrutiny as AI makes weak points easier to find.

The post Have AI agents made the entire $148 billion DeFi sector unsafe? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Project Acacia has now tested how tokenized asset markets could settle in Australia.

The Reserve Bank of Australia and Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre released findings from Project Acacia, a wholesale experiment that moved digital money and tokenization from policy theory into market plumbing.

The project tested 20 wholesale tokenized asset market use cases across issuance, servicing, trading, and settlement, spanning fixed income, managed funds, repos, structured products, private markets, carbon credits, and trade payables.

The key result is about money, rather than the asset wrapper. Institutions need finality, legal certainty, liquidity, and operational reliability at the same time, and the settlement asset determines whether tokenized rails can carry real volume.

Project Acacia put four candidates in the same frame: traditional RBA exchange settlement account balances, a pilot wholesale central bank digital currency, tokenized forms of commercial bank deposits, and stablecoins.

That makes Project Acacia a live case study for every institutional tokenization push. Tokenized markets only scale when the cash leg can keep pace with the asset leg without creating new settlement risk.

Project Acacia shows the cash leg is the bottleneck

A tokenized bond, repo, fund unit, or carbon credit can trade on new rails, but the market still needs a trusted way to pay for it.

If the cash leg sits outside the tokenized platform, participants need synchronization between legacy payment systems and asset ledgers. If the cash leg is issued by a bank, the market needs interoperability across banks.

If the cash leg is a stablecoin, it needs credible reserves, redemption, and licensing. If the cash leg is central bank money, the question becomes who can access it and how far the central bank wants that money to operate outside existing settlement systems.

The RBA Project Acacia final report identified potential benefits across the asset lifecycle, including shorter settlement cycles, lower counterparty risk, better capital efficiency, automated servicing, and fewer operational errors.

Those gains speak to institutional costs that retail crypto trading often hides: reconciliation, failed settlement, collateral movement, prefunding, custody controls, and legal finality.

The report also points to the limits of a technology-only thesis. Interoperability, legal and regulatory uncertainty, industry coordination, liquidity fragmentation, and liquidity tied up in pre-funded trades remain live barriers.

Tokenization may reduce some frictions, but settlement money decides whether the new system becomes a market or another set of disconnected platforms.

The RBA’s materials frame central bank money and settlement infrastructure as an anchor for tokenized wholesale asset markets, while leaving room for private digital money such as stablecoins and bank deposit tokens. That is a map of tradeoffs rather than a declaration that one form wins.

RBA Assistant Governor Brad Jones gave the key nuance in a March speech: wholesale CBDC could be helpful, but it was far from essential for tokenized markets to get started.

He pointed instead to tools such as RITS synchronization, fast payment rails, and existing central bank infrastructure as nearer-term paths.

Acacia therefore sits outside the familiar CBDC argument. The experiment shows early tokenized markets can start with existing settlement tools, while the case for wCBDC grows if those markets become systemically important or need risk-free settlement with functionality existing reserves cannot provide.

Interoperability decides whether liquidity fragments

The settlement problem is also a market-design problem.

If one platform settles in a bank deposit token, another in a stablecoin, and a third through central bank accounts, participants need a way to move between those forms at par and with predictable legal treatment.

Otherwise, liquidity splits across money silos, and each venue asks traders or institutions to pre-position funds before they know where the trade will happen.

That is why the money form changes the power structure. Central bank settlement balances preserve the role of regulated settlement-account holders. Deposit tokens extend bank money into tokenized markets but require banks to agree on standards.

Stablecoins add private competition but bring reserve, redemption, and regulatory questions. A wholesale CBDC could provide a risk-free settlement asset with programmable features, but it also puts the central bank closer to market infrastructure design.

Project Acacia’s pilot boundary is important. The trials were supported by ASIC regulatory relief, which means the activity should be treated as constrained testing, rather than broad commercial authorization for tokenized settlement.

Separately, ASIC’s 2025 stablecoin relief for distributors of an Australian stablecoin shows that stablecoin issuance, distribution, and related intermediary services remain tied to a licensing perimeter that is still being clarified.

That is the tension for policymakers. Tokenized markets need room to test live value, but settlement systems are not apps that can fail without consequence.

Once settlement money becomes part of institutional market infrastructure, questions about access, redemption, legal finality, and financial stability move from background issues to launch conditions.

The follow-on agenda shows how far Australia still has to move before any model becomes production infrastructure.

The RBA and DFCRC pointed to expanded regulator-industry coordination, possible digital financial market infrastructure sandbox work, tokenized government-bond exploration, deposit-token interoperability, consultation on settlement infrastructure and exchange settlement account access, and further applied wCBDC research.

That list is more revealing than a simple technology roadmap. Tokenized government bonds would test whether the state is willing to put a core public asset into a tokenized lifecycle.

Deposit-token interoperability would test whether banks can avoid creating separate pools of private money. ESA access work would test whether more participants can reach central bank settlement safely.

A sandbox would test how much real-world activity regulators will permit before all legal questions are settled.

What Project Acacia revealed

Australia also has a reason to separate wholesale tokenized finance from retail CBDC politics.

The RBA and Treasury previously found no clear public-interest case for issuing a retail CBDC in Australia at that time, while placing greater emphasis on wholesale digital money and tokenized-market research.

Project Acacia fits that path: the focus is market infrastructure, not a consumer cash replacement.

There is also a global context. BIS and CPMI work has framed tokenization as a question for central banks because money and assets have to move together without undermining the singleness of money.

CryptoSlate has separately covered the growth of stablecoins as a live settlement market, central-bank settlement modernization in the UK, and tokenized-stock policy questions in the US.

Project Acacia adds a more concentrated test: several settlement forms inside one institutional market stack.

Project Acacia revealed that the next fight in tokenized finance is less about whether assets can be tokenized and more about which settlement money regulators, banks, and market operators can make interoperable.

Stablecoins may be useful where always-on settlement and private-sector distribution count most, but licensing and reserve confidence remain constraints.

Deposit tokens may suit bank-led markets, but only if they do not trap liquidity inside separate bank networks. Existing central bank settlement infrastructure may support early synchronization, but access rules and operating hours still shape adoption.

Wholesale CBDC remains a stronger candidate if tokenized markets become important enough to need risk-free money with more direct programmability.

The Australian findings make a hierarchy of settlement assets look more likely than a single replacement for money. The cash leg has to be trusted enough for regulators, flexible enough for market operators, and interoperable enough that liquidity does not splinter as assets move.

The next test is which settlement model regulators allow to leave the pilot stage, under what access rules, and with enough legal certainty to support real institutional volume.

The post Australia’s Project Acacia shows why tokenized markets still hinge on settlement money appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin fell toward the $72,000 level after a new wave of reported US military strikes on Iran pushed oil higher and sent another shock through risk assets.

The largest cryptocurrency fell as much as 3.6% over a 24-hour window, touching an intraday low of $72,792, according to CryptoSlate's data. It has slightly recovered to $73,274 as of press time.

BTC's slide coincided with a sudden spike in energy prices after the US military launched a fresh wave of airstrikes against Iranian targets. This disrupted an already fragile geopolitical landscape and soured investor appetite for risk-bearing assets worldwide.

The downside momentum quickly spilled into the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. Ethereum, the second-largest digital asset, dropped roughly 5%, sliding below the $2,000 mark.

Even recent market darlings were caught in the crossfire: Hyperliquid (HYPE), which had carved out an aggressive multi-week rally to an all-time high above $64, reversed sharply, plunging more than 9% to near $55.

Other major tokens, including Solana, BNB, XRP, Cardano, and Dogecoin, logged uniform losses as selling pressure broadened across both centralized and decentralized platforms.

Geopolitical shocks hit energy and risk assets

The catalyst for the cross-asset de-risking event began in the Middle East, where the US Military reportedly deployed F/A-18 fighter jets to strike an Iranian drone-ground control unit at a major port city situated along the Strait of Hormuz.

According to US defense officials cited by the Wall Street Journal, the action followed reports that Iranian forces had launched unmanned aerial vehicles targeting commercial vessels and US assets in the region.

The situation deteriorated further when Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly issued a formal statement confirming it had retaliated by striking a US airbase in Kuwait, warning that “aggression will not go unanswered.”

The military exchange immediately put pressure on traditional commodity markets. Brent crude futures surged nearly 5%, climbing past $96 per barrel as energy traders priced in a substantial risk premium.

The renewed fighting effectively extinguished hopes for a near-term diplomatic resolution that would secure the Strait of Hormuz. This is a vital maritime artery that handles between 25% of the world’s total oil shipments.

Speaking on this market situation, Rachael Lucas, a crypto analyst at BTC Markets, said:

“It has been a highly challenging 24 hours for digital asset markets as macroeconomic and geopolitical headwinds simultaneously weighed on investor sentiment.”

She stated that Bitcoin dipped directly in response to the escalating US-Iran tensions and the resulting logistical uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz.

According to her, risk assets globally felt the squeeze, though Bitcoin exhibited a degree of relative resilience compared with the structural damage seen in traditional equity and derivatives markets.

Leveraged longs face $930 million cascades

As spot prices pierced psychological support levels, the downward move triggered a severe liquidation event across cryptocurrency derivatives markets.

Crypto traders who had utilized high leverage to back bullish wagers found themselves caught in a margin-call squeeze. This forced automated platforms to systematically close out under-collateralized positions.

Data from Coinglass revealed that $930 million in derivative positions were forcibly liquidated within a 24-hour period. The volatility impacted more than 166,130 individual retail and institutional accounts.

The financial damage was overwhelmingly borne by bullish market participants. Long positions, which are bets that digital asset prices would continue to appreciate, accounted for approximately $870 million of the total wipeout.

In contrast, short sellers experienced modest losses, with just $60 million in short positions liquidated during the choppy trading session.

Bitcoin-linked contracts bore the brunt of the liquidations, enduring more than $366 million in forced closures. Ethereum derivatives traders were similarly punished, suffering roughly $240 million in wiped-out positions.

The single largest individual liquidation occurred on the Hyperliquid DEX platform, where a single Bitcoin swap contract valued at $15.34 million was automatically terminated.

Institutional retreat: ETF outflows accelerate

The market duress was mirrored in institutional capital flows, as US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) registered their second-largest outflows this year.

Data from SosoValue shows that the total net outflows across the eleven listed US products reached $733.4 million.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led the retreat, shedding an unprecedented $527.82 million in a single session. The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) continued its structural bleeding with a $104.76 million withdrawal, while Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) recorded a $60.30 million reduction.

Additional outflows were observed at Bitwise (BITB) and Ark Invest (ARKB), which lost $17.48 million and $17.39 million, respectively.

Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Trust (MSBT) stood as the lone bright spot, posting a modest net inflow of $4.29 million, while providers like Invesco, Franklin Templeton, Valkyrie, and VanEck reported flat flows.

The single-day exodus extended the continuous capital flight from spot Bitcoin products to eight consecutive trading days, with cumulative losses now reaching $2.6 billion.

The prolonged redemption streak has dragged total assets under management for US spot ETFs below the $100 billion milestone, to roughly $97 billion at press time.

On-chain data signals ‘double risk-off' regime

Underneath the price action, underlying blockchain data indicates a fundamental shift in market architecture.

According to Axel Adler, an on-chain analyst at CryptoQuant, more than 103,000 BTC returned to centralized exchanges over a 30-day trailing period. This marks the most aggressive influx of tokens to trading platforms since the spring of 2025.

Concurrently, stablecoin liquidity is departing centralized exchanges at a clip of $153 million per day.

“Two foundational flow metrics are simultaneously flashing warning signs,” Adler observed. “Coins are returning to exchanges, which elevates the immediate liquid supply available for sale. Meanwhile, stablecoins are exiting platforms, stripping the order books of ready buying power. This is the textbook definition of a double risk-off market setup.”

The shift marks a complete structural reversal from the accumulation regime observed between March and April, when net exchange flows reached a cycle low of -300,000 BTC, signaling that investors were aggressively moving assets into offline cold storage.

The trend inverted on May 18, when net flows turned positive, eventually peaking on May 26 and leaving an elevated supply overhang that has complicated Bitcoin's defense of the $73,000 level.

Darkfost, an on-chain analyst at CryptoQuant, also pointed out that BTC is currently at a structural zone where its spot demand is contracting rapidly.

Per the analyst:

“Total monthly demand growth is currently averaging a -139,000 BTC, pulling the asset back into its medium-term bearish corridor.”

Technical correction or structural shift?

Despite the severe deleveraging, some research firms caution against interpreting the drop as a permanent macroeconomic breakdown.

Analysts note that geopolitical shocks traditionally generate rapid, front-loaded price dislocations that tend to normalize once localized uncertainties clear.

“The US strikes on Iranian positions have introduced an undeniable geopolitical risk premium across the entire risk-asset spectrum,” said Nicolai Sondergaard, a research analyst at Nansen. “Bitcoin has absorbed roughly 5.5% of that premium over the last three days, correcting from near $77,100 to the current $72,900 range. This dynamic is consistent with historical patterns we have monitored during previous military escalations in the Middle East.”

Sondergaard added that the critical metric to monitor is whether the conflict remains geographically contained or broadens into a wider regional war. He told CryptoSlate:

“Exchange flows have shifted toward net inflows today, proving that distribution pressure remains active. However, history demonstrates that when geopolitical events act as the primary catalyst—rather than a structural macroeconomic breakdown—the resulting price dip is usually absorbed once the immediate logistical and political uncertainty settles.”

Moreover, indications of institutional contrarian accumulation also emerged amid the broader rout.

Ethereum treasury firm Bitmine executed a notable block purchase of 111,942 ETH, representing a capital commitment of $238 million.

Market observers view the size of the transaction as a significant counter-signal to the daily ETF redemptions, suggesting that long-term institutional conviction remains intact beneath the immediate, derivatives-driven panic.

The post Bitcoin’s drop toward $72,000 shows how US-Iran tensions are again hitting ETFs, leverage, and flows appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Stablecoins were built on the premise that removing intermediaries between sender and recipient would erode the relevance of legacy payment networks, but the fastest-growing consumer stablecoin product depends entirely on one.

Data reported by The Kobeissi Letter shows crypto-card spending reached roughly $600 million per month, with $7.2 billion in cumulative on-chain card volume across 24 million transactions and 1.36 million wallets.

Approximately 90% of those transactions were processed through Visa, with USDT accounting for 62.5% of settled volume. Jupiter Global, whose USDC-backed card runs on Visa rails, grew 660% month-over-month in the same dataset.

Jupiter Card is a Visa debit card backed by a user's USDC balance, accepted wherever Visa is accepted. Users deposit USDC, which converts into US dollars behind the card, and merchants receive ordinary fiat, with the blockchain never touching the point of sale.

Bridge-enabled stablecoin-linked Visa cards went live in 18 countries in March, with planned expansion to more than 100 countries by year-end, covering 175 million Visa merchant locations. Phantom and MetaMask are among the crypto platforms already distributing cards of this type.

Visa's stablecoin settlement pilot separately hit a $7 billion annualized run rate as of Apr. 29, up 50% quarter-over-quarter and now operating across nine blockchains, still a rounding error against Visa's FY2025 volume of $14.2 trillion, but moving fast enough to show direction.

Why Visa wins the consumer layer

Stablecoins expand the pool of balances that can fund the card network at checkout, leaving the acceptance layer untouched.

Visa's durable assets include merchant acceptance across over 175 million locations, embedded compliance relationships, fraud tooling, chargeback infrastructure, and consumer behavior trained over decades.

What Visa lacked was a way to tap into crypto-native wallet balances without forcing users out of their familiar UX or merchants to accept new payment methods, and crypto cards solve that problem cleanly for Visa.

For the original pitch that stablecoins would route consumers around card rails, as crypto did with correspondent banks for cross-border transfers, this outcome is the uncomfortable version.

Holding USDC and tapping Visa converts stablecoin balances into spendable money at scale, but Visa still sits between the user's dollar-denominated wallet and the merchant, capturing interchange, data, and the consumer relationship at every transaction.

McKinsey estimates B2B stablecoin payments at around $226 billion annually, roughly 60% of global stablecoin payment volume, while stablecoin-linked card spending reached $4.5 billion in 2025, up 673% from 2024.

A Colombian supplier pays in USDC, settling entirely on-chain, while a consumer buying coffee routes through a Visa terminal. Stablecoins damage bank prefunding, FX intermediaries, and correspondent banking far more directly.

What scale looks like

The current $7.2 billion in cumulative on-chain crypto-card volume accounts for roughly 2.2% of the $322.6 billion stablecoin market cap, with USDT at $189.2 billion and USDC at $76.6 billion, per DeFiLlama.

Standard Chartered forecasts that stablecoin supply will reach $2 trillion by the end of 2028, while JPMorgan's more conservative view puts the figure at around $500 billion.

If card spending continues at its current 2.2% share of stablecoin supply, Standard Chartered's bull case implies roughly $45 billion in annual crypto-card volume. If penetration doubles as rewards programs scale and global card access expands through Bridge's 100-country rollout, that approaches $90 billion.

JPMorgan's bear case still implies $11 billion in annual revenue at current penetration. Even the bull scenario sits below 1% of Visa's current annual payment volume, a ratio that forecloses the displacement argument and reinforces Visa's consumer front end as stablecoin balances compound.

Compounding either way

In the bear case, growth in crypto-card spending slows to around 25% annually as rewards normalize, compliance requirements tighten, and frictions in converting on-chain balances to card-usable fiat prove sticky, leaving annual crypto-card volume at roughly $9 billion.

Visa's share of that volume would pull toward 75% as Mastercard's stablecoin infrastructure matures, since the network announced plans to acquire BVNK for up to $1.8 billion and said consumers can already spend stablecoins across over 150 million Mastercard merchant locations.

Stablecoin cards stay a real product, serving crypto-native users who would have held stablecoins regardless, but one that stays peripheral to consumer payments at large.

In the bull case, Jupiter-style programs scale across more blockchains, Bridge's 100-country expansion delivers genuine volume from emerging markets where dollar-denominated wallets address real FX pain, and user growth compounds off today's small base, pushing annual crypto-card spend toward $18 billion.

Visa's 90% share holds or strengthens, implying roughly $16 billion in Visa-routed stablecoin card volume and representing a structural addition to its card-ready balance sourcing, with the acceptance layer wholly intact.

Mastercard's BVNK acquisition fits the same logic, as both networks compete to become the dominant consumer front end for on-chain balances before those balances outgrow their current niche.

The GENIUS Act disadvantages the anonymous direct-payment model proposed by the original crypto thesis and favors card networks as the natural compliance interface between on-chain balances and consumer commerce.

The real contest

Bank deposits, cross-border prefunding, FX corridors, and correspondent banking face direct competition from on-chain dollar balances.

ECB officials cited risks of less stable deposits, reduced bank lending capacity, and complications for interest-rate transmission.

Euro stablecoins account for only 0.3% of the total stablecoin supply, a figure that makes the dollarization risk embedded in global stablecoin adoption. Visa's position is the checkout terminal, and that is exactly where stablecoin cards hand control back to it.

The actual prize Visa captures is the consumer interface to stablecoin balances as those balances grow from $322 billion toward the $2 trillion projection.

Every dollar of stablecoin supply that routes through a Visa-linked card is a dollar that could have funded a competing payment rail and instead chose the one already embedded in 175 million merchant terminals.

Stablecoins are rewriting cross-border finance while extending Visa's reach at the point of sale.

The post Stablecoins were supposed to bypass credit cards, but now Visa is winning crypto card payments appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Automated yield protocols built DeFi's most persuasive retail pitch that depositing into a vault was all a user needed to do, with the protocol handling everything else.

For users wanting exposure to Curve's boosted yields without manually managing CRV locks, vote power, wrappers, gauges, and incentives, Stake DAO offered a product that packaged the full stack behind a simple interface and, in doing so, also packaged what could break.

According to Blockaid, an attacker minted over 5.4 trillion vsdCRV on Arbitrum through a suspected compromise of a deployer key and began swapping tokens for ETH.

The attacker altered LayerZero-related peer configuration to forge a cross-chain message before minting 5,446,744,073,709 vsdCRV, converting a portion into roughly 43.78 ETH, with liquidity constraining realized extraction far below the nominal mint.

Stake DAO told users not to interact with vsdCRV while the situation was active. The incident spread to Curve, which warned users in an affected Arbitrum LlamaLend market, and Beefy Finance paused a connected vault with exposure to Curve and Convex.

Stake DAO's Liquid Lockers let users deposit governance tokens like CRV, receive liquid sdTokens, and access boosted yield and governance exposure without managing the Curve-locking stack directly.

The vault interface hides all of that and, in doing so, also hides the deployer keys, cross-chain messaging trust, wrapper-token accounting, and oracle dependencies that the exploit traveled through.

Automated yield moves DeFi complexity out of sight, a relocation that only becomes visible when something in the hidden layer breaks.

Ido Ben-Natan, co-founder and CEO of Blockaid, framed the security disconnect in a note:

“Wherever there is value on-chain, there will be attackers trying to exploit it, and that's true regardless of how simple or complex a protocol's strategy is. Two things matter here. First, whether protocols have the right governance infrastructure in place to ensure there is no easy point of failure to exploit. Second, having a real-time on-chain security tooling that validates every transaction before execution.”

The broader reckoning

April 2026 was DeFi's worst month for exploits, with roughly $635 million extracted across 28 incidents, driven by social engineering, bridge spoofing, and AI-assisted reconnaissance.

Manuel Aráoz, who co-founded OpenZeppelin and served as its CTO until 2019, wrote that he now considers “all” of DeFi unsafe because AI coding agents have become “superhuman” at finding vulnerabilities, while defenders must fix every bug and attackers need only one.

OpenZeppelin publicly rejected that claim, stating that Aráoz's posts do not reflect the company's position. The asymmetry he describes, though, has drawn serious attention beyond the attribution dispute.

Ben-Natan puts the defensive advantage in real-time tooling and adaptive threat detection:

“Hackers are increasingly leveraging AI to move faster and find new attack vectors. However, on-chain cybersecurity providers like Blockaid have deep experience using AI to stay well ahead. We continuously analyze and adapt to new threat patterns in real time, using AI agents for investigations, simulations, and malicious pattern matching.”

That real-time capability makes transaction validation a viable countermeasure to the speed edge attackers are gaining, and for automated yield protocols, governance controls, and monitoring have become the actual security layer that the vault interface depends on.

The next vault

In the bear case, more key compromises, bridge incidents, oracle contagion, and vault pauses drive an abstraction discount into automated yield products.

Users demand higher returns to compensate for hidden stack risk, making it harder to sustain the one-click yield pitch without explicit risk disclosure, and smaller vaults lose TVL as integrations become risk-gated.

The incident pattern that defined April extends through the rest of the year, and each new incident reinforces the perception that yield automation bundles risks that users cannot independently evaluate.

In the bull case, protocols adopt the architecture Ben-Natan describes, consisting of governance controls that eliminate easy points of failure, real-time transaction validation, and continuous threat-pattern monitoring, and automated yield survives in a more standardized form.

Formal verification, multisig controls, and runtime monitoring become the default infrastructure, and the products that retain retail trust are those that disclose and manage the dependency stack.

Security vendors and risk dashboards are embedded in the vault interface itself, and the competitive edge moves from hiding complexity to proving which parts of it are under control.

The retail promise of automated yield was always about relocating complexity, and for years, the protocol absorbed that burden invisibly. The Stake DAO exploit shows what happens when the invisible layer breaks, and April's record shows it breaking with increasing frequency.

The next automated yield product to win retail trust will earn it by showing users which parts of the stack are monitored, controlled, and isolated, and what the protocol does when any one part fails.

The post DeFi’s automated yield protocols were built for retail, now they just add another layer of risk appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto Market Crash Continues Across Major Coins

The crypto market is under pressure again, with major coins trading in the red while traditional markets show stronger momentum. Bitcoin is hovering near $73,000, Ethereum is trading close to the critical $2,000 level, and Solana has slipped below $85.

The broader market picture also looks weak. $BTC, $ETH, $BNB, $SOL, $DOGE, $ADA, and $LINK are all showing negative daily performance, while several major crypto assets carry weak technical ratings. This suggests that the current crypto market crash is not limited to one token or sector, but reflects broader selling pressure across the market.

Privacy coins are also under pressure, with Monero and Zcash showing sharp moves. Meanwhile, Stellar stands out as one of the few major gainers, but that is not enough to shift the overall market sentiment.

S&P 500 Hits New High While Crypto Falls

The most important part of the story is the contrast between crypto and stocks. While Bitcoin and major altcoins are falling, the S&P 500 has reportedly reached a new all-time high. This creates a major market contradiction: traditional risk assets are rallying, but crypto is failing to follow.

Usually, when stocks rise strongly, crypto often benefits from improved risk appetite. However, this time, the reaction is different. Stocks appear to be pricing in better macro sentiment, while crypto traders remain cautious.

This divergence raises an important question: if investors are willing to take risk in equities, why is Bitcoin still falling?

Why Bitcoin Is Not Following the Stock Market Rally

One possible reason is that crypto is still dealing with its own internal weakness. The recent crypto crash triggered heavy selling, weak technical setups, and possible leverage unwinding across major coins. Even if macro sentiment improves, crypto may need more time to recover from the damage caused by the sell-off.

Bitcoin is also trading near a key psychological zone. If $BTC fails to hold above the $70,000–$73,000 area, traders may expect another downside move before any real recovery begins. This keeps buyers cautious, especially while Ethereum remains close to $2,000 and Solana continues to trade below stronger resistance levels.

Another factor is market rotation. Investors may currently prefer stocks because the S&P 500 is showing stronger momentum, while crypto charts still look fragile. Until Bitcoin confirms a rebound, capital may continue flowing into equities instead of digital assets.

Trump’s Pro-Crypto Narrative Is Not Saving the Market Yet

Recent posts also show renewed attention around President Trump and his pro-crypto positioning. Some traders are calling him the first pro-crypto president, while others are focusing on his influence on market sentiment.

However, the latest crypto market reaction shows that political narratives alone are not enough to reverse a crash. Even if Trump’s administration is seen as more supportive of crypto, traders still need stronger liquidity, clearer regulation, and better technical confirmation before confidence returns.

In other words, bullish headlines may support long-term sentiment, but they do not automatically stop short-term selling.

Bitcoin Price Prediction: Rebound or Drop Toward $70K?

For now, Bitcoin’s next major test is whether it can hold above the current support zone. If $BTC stabilizes above $73,000 and buying volume returns, the market could attempt a recovery toward $78,000–$80,000.

However, if Bitcoin loses momentum and breaks lower, the next key psychological level is around $70,000. A move below that area could deepen the crypto market crash and put more pressure on Ethereum, Solana, XRP, and other major altcoins.

The bullish scenario depends on Bitcoin reclaiming strength and proving that the stock market rally can eventually spill back into crypto. The bearish scenario is that crypto is warning of hidden risk while stocks continue to rally.

Crypto Market Outlook

The current market setup is unusual. Stocks are breaking records, but crypto is still struggling. That makes this moment important for traders because it could signal either a delayed crypto rebound or a deeper divergence between Bitcoin and traditional markets.

For now, the key levels to watch are Bitcoin near $70,000–$73,000, Ethereum around $2,000, and Solana below $85. If these levels hold, the crypto market may still recover. If they fail, the crash could continue before a stronger bottom forms.

$BTC, $ETH, $SOL, $BNB, $XRP, $DOGE, $ADA, $LINK, $ZEC, $XMR, $XLM

The cryptocurrency market is witnessing a stark disconnect between Washington politics and raw market mechanics. Within the last 24 hours, U.S. President Donald Trump aggressively attempted to salvage market sentiment by issuing two highly supportive, pro-crypto statements on his Truth Social platform. Most notably, Trump declared that under his administration, the United States is securely positioned as the "crypto capital of the world," emphatically promising that he will "NEVER let Crypto down!"

Despite this overt rescue attempt from the White House, the market reacted with cold indifference. Instead of an upward rally, the premier digital assets entered a synchronized freefall. The Bitcoin price suffered a sharp drop, dumping over $2,000 to slide into the $73,200 range, while major altcoins like Ethereum ($ETH) and Ripple ($XRP) recorded even steeper percentage losses.

Why is Bitcoin Crashing?

If you are wondering why is bitcoin crashing right as a sitting U.S. President goes out of his way to salvage the industry's regulatory outlook, the fundamental catalyst isn't domestic policy—it is escalating war.

While Trump's verbal rhetoric was bullish, a fresh exchange of U.S.-Iranian military strikes shattered regional ceasefire hopes, triggering global risk-off sentiment. Short-term traders used the temporary political headline pump to exit their positions into stable cash and gold. This flight to safety triggered an aggressive cascade of margin liquidations that dragged down the entire crypto sector, breaking multi-month support zones for several top-tier tokens.

Crypto Crash: Ethereum and XRP Suffer Major Breakdowns

The downside momentum was not isolated to Bitcoin. The broader altcoin market faced intense distribution, invalidating critical psychological floors.

Ethereum ($ETH) Slices Below $2,000

Ethereum experienced a severe technical breakdown, plunging by over 4.8% within 24 hours to trade at $1,987. This marks the first time ETH has closed below the vital $2,000 level since March. Analysts note that after seven consecutive weeks of downward or sideways distribution, the failure to hold the $2,100 support level has opened the door for Ethereum to test the next structural floor near $1,900.

Ripple ($XRP) Crashes Past Key Supports

Ripple’s native token, $XRP, similarly fell victim to the heavy selling pressure, losing roughly 4% of its value to drop to $1.27. The intense selling volume pushed XRP below its strongly defended $1.30 support zone. The asset is facing dual headwinds from stagnant spot ETF inflows and external geopolitical anxieties, with traders now eyeing the $1.10 horizontal support as the next defensive line.

How Trump is Trying to Salvage the Market

To understand Trump's salvage operation, we must look closely at what the administration expressed. Trump's posts targeted two specific pillars of the domestic digital asset landscape that have faced heavy regulatory pressure: structural market legislation and federal regulatory jurisdiction.

Codifying the CLARITY Act: Trump took aim at the "Anti-Crypto Army" and promised to permanently codify a "FUTURE-PROOF Digital Asset Market Structure," referring implicitly to the ongoing legislative push for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act currently awaiting a full Senate floor vote.

Defending Prediction Markets via the CFTC: In his secondary post, Trump came to the defense of prediction markets (such as Polymarket and Kalshi), insisting that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) must retain "exclusive authority" over these platforms to ensure they thrive against state-level restrictions.

Crypto Analysis: Breaking Down the Crypto Price Dumps

An examination of the BTC/USD trading chart and major altcoin pairs shows that the market was already showing signs of severe exhaustion prior to the social media posts.

When the bullish headlines hit, price action experienced a brief, volatile spike before aggressively reversing. From a technical perspective, both BTC and ETH have drifted well below their short-term 50-day and 100-day Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs). If Bitcoin cannot stabilize above $73,000, analysts warn that a deeper correction toward the psychological floor of $70,000 could trigger a broader capitulation.

ETF Outflows and Leverage Flush: $744 Million Wiped Out

The primary underlying mechanism behind the sudden price drop was a massive influx of institutional selling paired with a flush in the derivatives market. Data from Coinglass revealed that spot Bitcoin ETFs suffered a massive single-day outflow of $733 million, led heavily by BlackRock's IBIT fund shedding over $500 million.

This institutional exit exacerbated a massive leverage wipeout in the derivatives market. The broader cryptocurrency market suffered over $744 million in total liquidations within a 12-hour window, with $715 million consisting of forced long liquidations. Trump's attempt to salvage the mood acted as a counter-indicator; instead of driving spot demand, it provided the ideal conditions for whales to distribute assets, trapping over-leveraged retail traders in the process.

The entire crypto market is going through a rough patch today, leaving many investors wondering about the exact crypto crash reason behind the sudden drop. Over the past 24 hours, the total cryptocurrency market cap fell by 3.313%, bringing the global valuation down to $2.45 trillion.

Major digital assets are down across the board. The market leader, Bitcoin ($BTC), slid by 3.2% to find itself trading at $73,250. This downside momentum quickly spilled over into the altcoin market. Ethereum ($ETH) took an especially hard hit, dropping 4.3% in just the past two hours and breaking down below the crucial $2,000 psychological support level to sit at $1,980.

Other major tokens couldn't escape the selling pressure either. Solana ($SOL) dropped 3% to $81, while Ripple ($XRP) fell 2.9% to $1.28. Tron ($TRX) and Dogecoin ($DOGE) also posted noticeable losses, sliding 4.8% (to $0.354) and 3.1% (to $0.09) respectively. Meanwhile, Hyper ($HYPER) experienced a brutal 8.9% decline, crashing down to $57.

To navigate these choppy waters and manage your trading risk effectively, it is always a good idea to stick with liquidity-rich choices found on the best crypto exchanges.

Global Tensions Cause a Chain Reaction

The main reason your portfolio is in the red today doesn't have to do with blockchain tech failing. Instead, it is being driven by global political tension. Fresh news of military strikes near the Strait of Hormuz—a major global shipping lane—and threats of retaliation have caused oil prices to spike. Higher oil prices mean higher inflation, making it much harder for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates anytime soon.

When inflation fears rise, big institutional investors usually pull their money out of speculative assets. Right now, Bitcoin is moving in close alignment with traditional assets like Gold as global markets adjust to these changes. With liquidity drying up across the financial world, crypto is feeling the squeeze.

Liquidations and ETF Panic Multiply Losses

What started as a normal market pullback quickly snowballed into a much larger drop due to a couple of key market mechanics.

1. Leveraged Traders Get Wiped Out

As the Bitcoin price began to break down, traders who borrowed money to bet on higher prices got caught off guard. This triggered a massive chain reaction, causing automated long liquidations to spike by 161%. Over $296 million worth of bullish positions were forcefully sold into the market within 24 hours, driving prices down even faster.

2. Record Institutional Outflows

At the same time, big money institutions are pulling out. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs just suffered a massive $733 million in net outflows in a single day. Because these funds have to sell physical Bitcoin on the open market whenever investors cash out, this sudden institutional exit put immense downward pressure on prices.

What to Watch Next

Where the market goes from here depends heavily on whether buyers step up to defend current technical levels and how upcoming economic data looks.

Even though an oversold RSI reading of 21.47 means a short-term relief rally could be right around the corner, a real recovery won't happen until ETF outflows stop and global tensions settle down. During periods of extreme volatility, many long-term investors prefer keeping their digital assets off exchange platforms using secure setups highlighted in our hardware wallets comparison.

Retail brokerage Robinhood has launched a breakthrough feature allowing customers to connect third-party artificial intelligence (AI) agents directly to their accounts. This system, known as Agentic Trading, enables advanced AI models to autonomously execute market strategies within a partitioned financial ecosystem.

Robinhood AI Trading News

Robinhood rolled out the beta phase of its Agentic Trading platform on May 27, 2026. Currently, the setup supports automated operations strictly for equities (stocks). While cryptocurrency execution is not available at launch, Robinhood confirmed that support for Robinhood Crypto and options will be integrated as the ecosystem expands out of beta.

What is Robinhood Agentic Trading?

Agentic Trading enables users to delegate deployment choices and execution power to an independent AI agent. Instead of relying on static algorithmic APIs, traders can connect LLMs (like Claude or ChatGPT) to evaluate data and adjust portfolios based on conversational natural language instructions.

To maintain security, Robinhood implemented the open-standard Model Context Protocol (MCP) server architecture. Built-in safeguards include:

• Siloed Accounts: AI agents cannot touch a user’s primary portfolio. They can only use funds explicitly moved to a separate, dedicated Agentic Trading account.
• Real-Time Monitoring: Holders receive instant push notifications for all automated operations, with a distinct app interface tracking live performance.
• Master Kill Switch: Investors maintain complete oversight and can immediately sever an agent's connection with a single tap.

What are Agentic Credit Cards

Alongside market access, Robinhood is bridging AI with everyday consumer spending via the new Agentic Credit Card. Available to Robinhood Gold members, this virtual credit card leverages secure banking MCP servers to let an AI agent shop autonomously on behalf of the customer.

Users can instruct their AI agent to scan the web for consumer items—such as tracking optimal travel deals—and authorize the purchase automatically when specific price thresholds are met. These virtual cards feature strict spending caps to insulate core financial assets.

After a brutal multi-week downtrend stemming from the $2,500 region, the Ethereum price is currently trading at $2,075, hovering above the psychologically vital $2,000 baseline.

The central question is whether the current consolidation is the final pause before a catastrophic $ETH coin crash below $2,000, or a classic liquidity hunt designed to trap short-sellers before a sharp bullish reversal.

How Other Cryptos Are Performing

The current weakness in $ETH does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of a systemic pullback visible across the entire crypto ecosystem. Heavy institutional liquidations and spot ETF outflows are weighing heavily on major assets:

• Bitcoin ($BTC): The premier cryptocurrency has lost its grip on the crucial $76,000 support level, down roughly 1.2% over the last session to trade near $75,800. A multi-day streak of net outflows from major U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs has dented the near-term bullish momentum for $BTC.
• Ripple ($XRP): Despite positive fundamental updates to the XRP Ledger (XRPL), $XRP has steadied around $1.32. A failed local breakout keeps the asset locked within a narrowing trading range, closely tracking $BTC's macro pullbacks.
• Solana ($SOL): Much like $XRP, Solana has faced structural headwinds, sliding down to approximately $84 despite recording occasional green ticks in its isolated fund inflows.

Compared to its peers, $ETH has notably underperformed over the past month due to an extended ten-day streak of negative ETF flows, placing its immediate technical floors under maximum stress.

Ethereum Price Analysis: Deciphering the $2,000 Floor

An analysis of the daily ETH/USD chart reveals a highly defined horizontal support and resistance matrix that has dictated price action throughout the year.

The $2,100 Breakdown and the Orange Zone

Over the past few weeks, the $2,100 level served as a firm structural floor, repelling multiple downside attempts. However, the chart shows that after three successive tests, this defensive perimeter finally gave way. The price has descended into the orange-highlighted circle, finding temporary friction just above the primary horizontal support at $2,000.

When a critical level like $2,100 breaks, it typically triggers momentum expansion toward the next major psychological boundary. In this case, the $2,000 level represents the absolute line in the sand for macro bulls.

RSI Momentum: Approaching Oversold Territory

Complementing the candlestick structure is the Relative Strength Index (RSI), currently registering at 37.49, with its moving average sitting slightly higher at 37.65.

• Bearish Continuation Risk: Because the RSI has not yet dipped below the traditional oversold threshold of 30.00, there remains mathematical room for a final flush downward to sweep liquidity beneath $2,000.
• Bullish Divergence Potential: Conversely, the flattening out of the RSI while price makes lower local lows indicates that selling pressure is beginning to exhaust itself. This exhaustion is a primary prerequisite for a market fakeout.

The Bear Case: A Clean Break and Descent to $1,800

If macroeconomic headwinds—specifically via hotter-than-expected inflation metrics or persistent spot ETF outflows—continue to dominate the news, a clean breakdown becomes highly probable.

In a strict bearish continuation scenario, a daily candle closing decisively below $2,000 will invalidate the local accumulation thesis. This would effectively turn the $2,000 floor into a formidable overhead resistance level. According to historical volume profiles shown on the chart, the next defensive bastions for buyers are situated at $1,800 (marked by the teal horizontal line) and $1,600 (marked by the lower yellow support line).

Traders looking to manage their risk safely during such structural shifts often utilize secure storage solutions, which can be reviewed on our comprehensive guide to hardware wallets.

The Bull Case: The Liquidity Sweep and "Fakeout" Blueprint

Despite the grim short-term price action, several institutional and underlying variables point heavily toward a potential bullish fakeout (also known as a spring or bear trap) rather than a complete market collapse.

• What is a Market Fakeout? A fakeout occurs when an asset's price briefly breaches a well-known support level to trigger stop-loss orders and liquidate over-leveraged long positions. Once this deep pool of liquidity is absorbed by major market makers, the price rapidly and aggressively reverses in the opposite direction.

Institutional Accumulation Signals

While retail sentiment remains fearful, deep-pocketed entities are treating this correction as a premier buying window. Massive corporate treasuries and institutional buyers have been taking advantage of the sub-$2,200 discount, showing that structural demand remains strong under the surface of the spot market.

Furthermore, recent efforts to minimize operational selling pressure from major ecosystem foundations are helping establish a cleaner fundamental launchpad for the asset.

If a fakeout occurs, expect the price to momentarily wick down to the $1,950–$1,980 range to sweep stops before closing the daily candle back above $2,020. This behavior would confirm a structural failure to break lower, rapidly shifting momentum back toward the overhead targets at $2,400 and $2,600.

Current Bitcoin whale activity is similar in nature to the last bear market in 2022 when BTC fell precipitously, according to on-chain data.

The Senate’s crypto bill has supporters excited—and opponents concerned—about the bill’s potential reverberations beyond America’s borders.

The Google employee case is the second federal prosecution tied to alleged prediction market insider trading on Polymarket.

Analysts compared Ethereum's current position to Amazon following the dot-com bubble burst.

Prediction market odds are rising for Bitcoin to drop below $70,000 in the next few days following a dip to a six-week low price.

VanEck has confirmed the launch via its official X account.

Michael Saylor calls for 'HODL' as Bitcoin drops below $73,000, pushing Strategy's 843,738 BTC portfolio into a $2.47 billion paper loss amid rising US PCE inflation.

Ripple has destroyed 30 million RLUSD to control its supply on the Ethereum blockchain while regulating its value to boost adoption.

Vitalik Buterin warns Europe cannot beat the US and China at their own game.

XRP community watches closely as ATH odds go live on prediction market.

Key Highlights

• Seven Grand Managers LLC acquired 3 million shares of ACHR valued at approximately $22.56 million during Q4
• Shares opened Thursday at $6.53, representing a gain of roughly 6.56%
• Q1 results showed an EPS loss of -$0.28 against a consensus estimate of -$0.25; revenue totaled $1.60M compared to expectations of $1.66M
• Advancements in FAA certification and participation in UAE’s air taxi program are improving market sentiment
• Wall Street analysts maintain a “Moderate Buy” consensus with an average target price of $11.83

Shares of Archer Aviation (ACHR) soared 6.56% during Thursday’s trading session, beginning the day at $6.53, following the revelation that Seven Grand Managers LLC established a significant new position in the electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) manufacturer valued at around $22.56 million.

Archer Aviation Inc., ACHR

The investment comprises approximately 0.46% of Archer’s total shares and ranks as the 17th largest position within Seven Grand Managers’ portfolio. This holding represents about 1.7% of the fund’s complete investment allocation.

This institutional commitment arrives on the heels of a challenging Q1 financial report released on May 11. The company recorded an earnings per share loss of $0.28, exceeding the anticipated loss of $0.25. Top-line results reached $1.60 million, falling marginally short of the $1.66 million analyst forecast.

The quarterly loss deepened compared to the prior year period, when Archer reported an EPS of -$0.17. Wall Street projections indicate a full-year EPS loss of -$1.51 for the ongoing fiscal year.

Nevertheless, market participants seem to be prioritizing regulatory developments over near-term financial performance.

Regulatory Milestones Fueling Optimism

Archer continues to advance through the FAA certification process and has recently been accepted into the UAE’s air taxi regulatory approval framework. These achievements represent tangible progress toward launching commercial flight operations.

Such regulatory victories are providing momentum for bullish investors, despite the company’s ongoing negative cash flows and profitability challenges.

Institutional investors collectively control 59.34% of Archer’s outstanding shares. Additional funds have expanded their positions recently — Bank of Jackson Hole Trust increased its holdings by 45.9% in Q3, while Center for Financial Planning boosted its stake by 138.8% during the identical quarter.

Executive Share Sales Continue

Contrasting with institutional buying activity, company insiders have been divesting shares. Over the previous 90 days, insiders have sold 502,739 shares totaling approximately $3.12 million.

Chief Accounting Officer Harsh Rungta disposed of 22,826 shares at $6.46 per share on March 5, decreasing his holdings by 25.86%. Eric Lentell, another company insider, sold 48,169 shares at $5.95 each on May 18, similarly reducing his stake by approximately 25%. Both transactions were associated with tax obligations related to vesting equity compensation.

Corporate insiders maintain ownership of 7.65% of the company’s shares.

Regarding analyst coverage, opinions remain varied. Canaccord Genuity reduced its price objective from $13 to $12 on May 12 while preserving a “buy” recommendation. Needham lowered its target from $10 to $9 on March 3, also retaining a “buy” stance. Weiss Ratings has issued a “sell” rating on the shares.

The overall analyst consensus stands at “Moderate Buy” with a mean price target of $11.83 — significantly above current market levels.

ACHR trades within a 52-week range of $4.80 to $14.62. The stock’s 50-day moving average stands at $5.87, while the 200-day moving average sits at $7.05. With a beta of 3.13, the equity exhibits substantial volatility.

Financially, Archer maintains a current ratio of 18.06 and carries a minimal debt-to-equity ratio of 0.06, indicating conservative leverage.

For the year-to-date period, ACHR shares have declined approximately 12.90%, making Thursday’s advance one of the stronger single-session performances in recent trading activity.

The company’s market capitalization currently stands at roughly $4.94 billion.

The post Archer Aviation (ACHR) Stock Surges 6% Following Major Institutional Investment appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Arm shares climbed 13% during Wednesday’s session, reaching an intraday peak of $345.60
• Mizuho Securities upgraded its price forecast from $290 to $360 while keeping its Outperform designation
• The revised target suggests approximately 19% potential appreciation from Arm’s prior close of $302.71
• Achieving $360 would establish a fresh record high for the semiconductor designer
• The upgrade reflects expectations for sustained DRAM demand extending to 2027 and expansion in the high bandwidth memory sector

Arm Holdings (ARM) experienced a significant 13% rally on Wednesday following Mizuho Securities’ decision to elevate its price objective to $360 from the previous $290, accompanied by a reaffirmed Outperform rating. The stock touched $345.60 during intraday trading and has posted gains exceeding 210% since early 2026.

Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares, ARM

Mizuho’s updated $360 price objective indicates potential upside of approximately 19% compared to Arm’s latest settlement price of $302.71. Should the stock reach this level, it would set a new peak in the company’s trading history.

The analyst firm’s bullish revision stems from two fundamental convictions. Mizuho anticipates that DRAM demand will maintain momentum through 2027. Additionally, the firm projects continued expansion in the addressable market for high bandwidth memory—both trends expected to benefit Arm’s semiconductor operations.

The evolving AI narrative provides additional support. Arm has increasingly emphasized emerging opportunities within agentic AI, a theme that market participants are viewing as a significant long-term catalyst.

The semiconductor designer’s gross margin currently registers at 94.08%, while its market capitalization has expanded to approximately $322 billion following Wednesday’s advance.

Potential Headwinds Under Scrutiny

Despite the enthusiasm, the rally comes with certain considerations. Arm has recently identified new operational risks associated with demand forecasting as it transitions into production silicon.

The organization cautioned that closer collaboration with chip foundries may present complications related to supply chain management, manufacturing yields, and inventory optimization. These challenges represent legitimate concerns for an enterprise scaling its hardware manufacturing footprint.

Nevertheless, Mizuho’s choice to increase rather than moderate its outlook indicates the firm believes the company’s growth trajectory overshadows these operational considerations in the near term.

Current Market Position

ARM’s 52-week trading band extends from $100.02 to $349.11. Wednesday’s intraday peak of $345.60 positions the stock near the upper boundary of this range.

Typical daily trading volume hovers around 9.2 million shares. On Wednesday, activity measured 403,900 shares—substantially below the average—indicating this price movement reflects a sentiment adjustment rather than aggressive institutional accumulation.

The stock’s performance since the beginning of the year now exceeds 176%, representing one of the semiconductor sector’s standout performers in 2026.

Mizuho’s revised $360 price forecast represents the most current analyst assessment available as of Wednesday’s close.

The post Arm Holdings (ARM) Stock Soars 13% Following Mizuho’s Bullish $360 Target Revision appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Claude Opus 4.8 represents a significant advancement over the previous Opus 4.7 version, featuring enhanced coding capabilities and superior reasoning
• Benchmark testing shows the model exceeding the performance of both OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 and Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro across multiple evaluations
• Users can now customize processing intensity through an innovative effort control feature tailored to specific task requirements
• The latest model demonstrates a fourfold improvement in detecting coding mistakes that previously went unnoticed
• No price adjustments announced, maintaining $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens for standard tier

Anthropic has introduced Claude Opus 4.8, representing the company’s most advanced AI system to date, now accessible globally. This release builds upon Opus 4.7 with notable enhancements in code generation, logical reasoning, and truthfulness.

Benchmark evaluations conducted by Anthropic demonstrate that Opus 4.8 delivers superior results compared to OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 and Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro across multiple testing categories. The model excels particularly in autonomous coding tasks, financial data analysis, and computer interaction scenarios.

Autonomous AI describes technology capable of executing complex operations with minimal human oversight. This capability is gaining importance as organizations integrate AI-powered agents into their workflows.

Introducing Customizable Processing Intensity

Among the most notable features is the introduction of effort adjustment controls, now available through Claude.ai and Claude Cowork. This functionality enables users to regulate the computational resources allocated to specific requests.

When handling straightforward queries, users can reduce processing intensity to conserve both time and computational units. Conversely, challenging projects can receive increased processing power for more thorough analysis.

Computational units serve as the measurement standard AI services employ to quantify input and output. Each interaction with an AI system consumes these units, regardless of complexity—from basic questions to sophisticated programming requests.

Lowering processing intensity translates to reduced unit consumption, potentially decreasing expenses for organizations with high usage volumes.

Enhanced Code Validation and Business Features

Regarding reliability improvements, Opus 4.8 demonstrates a 400% enhancement in identifying coding errors compared to Opus 4.7. This represents a substantial upgrade for software developers deploying the model in live production systems.

The company is simultaneously unveiling an experimental version of dynamic workflows within Claude Code. This capability enables the coordination of hundreds of simultaneous sub-processes to manage extensive code migration projects.

The system has also been refined for greater transparency. According to Anthropic, the model will acknowledge limitations in its analysis and refrain from presenting unsubstantiated information.

Fast mode operations have become significantly more economical. Operating costs have decreased by 66% while maintaining the published rate of $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens for end users.

Standard tier pricing remains consistent at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens.

Competition for Public Market Debut

The introduction of Opus 4.8 coincides with reports that Anthropic is finalizing a pre-IPO funding round exceeding $30 billion. This investment could establish a company valuation surpassing $900 billion.

While Anthropic has not officially announced plans for going public, industry sources suggest a potential 2026 stock market debut. This timeline aligns with comparable preparations underway at OpenAI and SpaceX, both of which are considering public offerings.

Established by former OpenAI team members, Anthropic has emerged as a major player in the artificial intelligence sector.

The post Claude Opus 4.8 Surpasses GPT-5.5 in Latest AI Benchmark Tests appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• JPMorgan assigned Oracle an Overweight rating with a $210 price objective, driving ORCL shares up 2.4% during pre-market hours
• The company secured a massive $30 billion cloud infrastructure agreement with the federal government in early 2026
• Third-quarter IaaS revenue reached $4.89 billion, representing an 84% annual increase; RPO skyrocketed to $553 billion
• Oracle exceeded Q3 projections with earnings per share of $1.79 compared to the anticipated $1.71, while revenue totaled $17.19 billion
• Wall Street analysts maintain a Moderate Buy consensus rating with an average target price of $261.46

Shares of Oracle (ORCL) advanced 2.4% during Wednesday’s pre-market session following JPMorgan’s decision to begin coverage with an Overweight designation and establish a $210 price objective.

Oracle Corporation, ORCL

JPMorgan analyst Mark Murphy highlighted a more favorable risk/reward dynamic, observing that market sentiment toward Oracle had shifted dramatically from “unwavering optimism to pervasive skepticism” regarding the company’s fiscal 2030 objectives — suggesting the negative sentiment may be overdone.

The general market context made Oracle’s performance particularly notable. With the S&P 500 trading flat, the Dow Jones showing minimal movement, and the Nasdaq essentially unchanged, Oracle’s gains stood out as company-specific momentum.

The timing of JPMorgan’s coverage initiation follows a transformative period for the enterprise software giant. Oracle finalized a $30 billion cloud infrastructure agreement with federal authorities in early 2026 — representing one of the most substantial cloud computing contracts in history.

This landmark agreement solidified Oracle’s role as a critical AI computing infrastructure provider for sensitive government operations, including national security and defense applications.

Compelling Financial Performance Supports Optimistic Outlook

Oracle’s latest quarterly financial disclosure provided substantial evidence supporting bullish analyst perspectives. The company delivered third-quarter earnings per share of $1.79, surpassing Wall Street’s $1.71 consensus forecast, while revenue reached $17.19 billion versus analyst expectations of $16.91 billion.

Total revenue climbed 21.7% compared to the prior-year period. Infrastructure as a Service revenue specifically totaled $4.89 billion, marking an impressive 84% year-over-year surge.

The most striking metric: Remaining Performance Obligations soared to $553 billion, representing a remarkable 325% annual increase. This enormous deferred revenue figure reflects substantial long-term AI-related contracts.

For the fourth quarter of 2026, Oracle projected earnings per share between $1.96 and $2.00, with full-year analyst consensus estimates settling at $6.08 per share.

Institutional Ownership Continues Strong

Huntington National Bank expanded its Oracle holdings by 0.6% during the fourth quarter, concluding the period with 672,225 shares representing approximately $131 million in market value.

Additional institutional investors joined the buying activity. Brighton Jones LLC dramatically increased its Oracle position by 189.3% in Q4, while both Revolve Wealth Partners and United Bank expanded their respective stakes. Institutional and hedge fund investors collectively control approximately 42.44% of outstanding shares.

Regarding insider transactions, Executive Vice President Stuart Levey divested 15,000 shares on April 16th at an average transaction price of $176.19, generating proceeds of $2.64 million. This disposition occurred pursuant to a predetermined Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement.

Wedbush Securities recently elevated its Oracle price target from $225 to $275, reaffirming an Outperform recommendation. Meanwhile, Citigroup maintains a Buy rating with an ambitious $320 price objective.

The overall analyst community currently assigns Oracle 3 Strong Buy recommendations, 29 Buy ratings, 9 Hold ratings, and a single Sell rating. The consensus price target across analysts averages $261.46.

The stock has traded within a 52-week range spanning $134.57 to $345.72. Shares were changing hands near $190.73 prior to Wednesday’s pre-market advance.

The post Oracle (ORCL) Stock Surges Following JPMorgan’s Overweight Rating and Massive Contract Backlog appeared first on Blockonomi.

Quick Summary

• Planet Labs announces Q1 2027 financial results after trading ends on June 4
• Options pricing suggests approximately 10% volatility; PL exceeded this forecast in 5 of its previous 8 quarterly reports
• Shares hovering around $50.35, approaching the 52-week peak of $51.13, climbing 4.2% during Thursday’s session
• Wall Street forecasts a $0.03 loss per share with $90 million in quarterly revenue
• Analyst rating consensus stands at “Hold” with a mean price objective of $30.61 — significantly beneath today’s valuation

Planet Labs (PL) is set to unveil its Q1 2027 financial performance following the closing bell on June 4, with options contracts indicating potential price movement of approximately 10% in either direction.

Planet Labs PBC, PL

While a double-digit percentage swing may appear substantial, it’s relatively modest for PL based on historical patterns.

Shares began Thursday’s trading session at $50.35, gaining 4.2%, hovering near the 52-week peak of $51.13. Twelve months prior, PL traded at a mere $3.66.

Street estimates point to a quarterly loss of $0.03 per share alongside $90 million in revenue.

The company’s earnings conference call is slated for 5:00 PM ET on June 4.

Historical Volatility Patterns

Planet Labs frequently delivers price swings that surpass options market expectations.

During five of its most recent eight quarterly announcements, actual stock movement exceeded implied volatility projections. The June 2025 report triggered a remarkable 50.1% surge despite options pricing in only 13.7%. December 2025 witnessed a 48.4% shift against a 19.1% implied forecast.

The March 2026 earnings release produced a 33% movement compared to the 19.2% expectation.

However, outcomes don’t always exceed predictions. March 2025 saw merely a 5.3% decline against a 10.3% implied range. The most dramatic negative reaction occurred in September 2024, when shares plummeted 29.1%.

Consequently, the current 10% implied volatility heading into June 4 shouldn’t be viewed as an upper boundary.

Wall Street’s Perspective and Valuation Targets

Analyst sentiment regarding the stock reveals notable division.

Current coverage includes six Buy recommendations, three Hold ratings, and three Sell opinions. The overall consensus registers as “Hold” with a median price objective of $30.61 — representing approximately 39% downside from present trading levels.

Recent analyst actions include Citigroup upgrading its target to $35 while maintaining a Buy stance, plus Needham and Cantor Fitzgerald both elevating projections to $40 following March’s earnings disclosure.

Conversely, New Street Research launched coverage during May with a Sell designation and $28 price target.

Current trading levels sit substantially above both the 50-day moving average of $36.74 and the 200-day moving average of $26.12 — indicating powerful upward momentum.

Insider transactions show increased selling activity. CFO Ashley Johnson divested 200,000 shares at $35.10 during early April. Robert Schingler, another insider, sold 73,683 shares at $35.07 approximately the same timeframe. Both transactions occurred through predetermined Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements.

Meanwhile, institutional participation continues expanding. Van ECK Associates enlarged its position by 320.3% during Q4. Invesco grew its holdings by 265.6% in Q3. Goldman Sachs expanded its stake by 7.9% throughout Q4.

Institutional and hedge fund investors collectively control 41.71% of outstanding PL shares.

The quarterly earnings announcement arrives after market close on June 4, followed by the conference call at 5:00 PM ET.

The post Should You Buy Planet Labs (PL) Stock Ahead of Its June 4 Earnings Report? appeared first on Blockonomi.

Hyperliquid builder program has become a major revenue engine for wallets, bots, and trading apps that route user trades into Hyperliquid’s HyperCore perpetuals exchange through third-party interfaces, according to CoinGecko data.

The program allows developers, including wallets, Telegram bots, and trading frontends, to connect directly to the exchange, set their own fee rates on top of the base protocol fee, and retain 100% of what they charge. There is no gatekeeping or revenue share at the protocol level. As a result, builders compete primarily on product quality, user experience, and pricing, creating a distribution layer where different entry points all access the same order book.

Hyperliquid Builder Rankings

Among builders, CoinGecko found Phantom leads with $20.63 million in terms of cumulative revenue, and represents almost 32% of total earnings among the top 10 since the program began. It also has the largest user base at 137,496 users and averages about $150 revenue per user.

Based ranks second with $15.05 million in revenue from $44 billion in volume compared to Phantom’s $39.4 billion, with its lower 0.025% builder fee versus Phantom’s 0.05% explaining the gap in earnings despite higher throughput. Together, Phantom and Based make up for almost 55% of total top-10 builder revenue.

Meanwhile, MetaMask ranks fourth with $6.51 million in terms of revenue as it charges a 0.1% fee, the highest among the top builders, while still attracting 43,761 users and $7.46 billion in trading volume, with an average revenue per user of $149. Next up is Insilico with $3.30 million in revenue from just 2,962 users, followed by Axiom, which processed $22.1 billion in volume but earned $2.27 million due to a 0.01% fee, resulting in $68 revenue per user.

Drivers Behind Hyperliquid’s Growth

Beyond the builder-driven revenue layer, the broader ecosystem developments are further strengthening Hyperliquid’s position. Traction in HIP-3 permissionless perp markets, including emerging pre-IPO trading venues, is expanding activity and awareness. Additionally, spot HYPE ETF launches appear to have significantly improved distribution and investor access to the token, supported by strong early flows that point to underlying demand.

According to FalconX, the HIP-4 outcome markets, launched on mainnet earlier this month, expand Hyperliquid’s reach into prediction market territory and bring it closer to already established platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket. At the same time, the introduction of priority fees is expected to add incremental protocol revenue and deepen token utility.

FalconX further estimated that USDC becoming an aligned asset through formal support from Coinbase and Circle could contribute up to $160 million in annualized revenue.

The post Hyperliquid Builder Program Becomes Major Revenue Engine for Wallets and Bots: CoinGecko appeared first on CryptoPotato.

[PRESS RELEASE – BELIZE City, Belize, May 28th, 2026]

BC.GAME has announced that stakers on BC Engine have earned more than 2.1 million BCD, worth over $2.1 million, only a few weeks after the system launched on April 8.

BC Engine is an in-platform rewards system built around BC.GAME’s platform coin, $BC. Players can earn $BC by wagering on BC.GAME casino games, with the $BC automatically entering BC Engine. Users can then view their $BC balance, staking status, unclaimed rewards and historical reward distributions within the BC Engine page.

The system brings casino gameplay, $BC earnings, staking participation and reward claims into one place. For users, $BC is not only a platform coin, but also part of the regular gameplay and reward process on BC.GAME.

BCGame Coin has also drawn more market attention recently and has reached all-time highs on some market tracking platforms. With BC Engine now live, the use of $BC on BC.GAME has become more defined: players earn $BC through casino games, the $BC enters BC Engine automatically, and users can continue to participate in staking and reward distributions.

In addition to staking rewards, BC Engine also includes a daily burn mechanism. Under the current mechanism, part of the $BC flow related to BC Engine enters a daily burn process and is removed from supply. Users can also view cumulative burn-related data on the BC Engine page.

BC Engine currently allows users to view their staked amount, earnings, the next payout pool, historical distribution rounds and related supply data. BC.GAME said it will continue to improve the BC Engine user experience and release further updates around $BC earning, staking and reward claims.

About BC.GAME

BC.GAME is a crypto-first online entertainment platform offering casino games, sports betting and original gaming experiences. The platform supports a wide range of digital assets and continues to build product features around user experience, transparency and crypto-native participation.

The post BC.GAME: BC Engine Stakers Have Earned Over $2M in Rewards appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum (ETH) dropped below the $2,000 level for the first time in nearly two months, a situation that pushed traders back into “buy the dip” mode according to blockchain analytics firm Santiment.

However, Santiment pointed out that the sudden wave of optimism around ETH’s decline could be a warning sign in itself.

Crowd Optimism Points to More Downside

Santiment’s reasoning is that when a major token drops through a key psychological level, traders often split into two camps, with one group panicking and writing off the asset and the other piling in even more because they believe they are catching a discount.

Per the firm’s analysis, the second scenario is what is happening currently with Ethereum.

“Retail has erupted with ‘buy the dip’ calls toward $ETH,” it wrote on X, adding that this kind of crowd optimism at a local bottom usually means the price still has some more falling to do.

That’s because, in Santiment’s assessment, retail crowds tend to get such calls wrong and get too optimistic, and anyone buying before panic fully sets in will be doing so before the actual floor arrives.

As such, the firm advised patience, saying:

“There will be an opportunity to buy Ethereum, but ideally you will want to wait for the majority to cool down their FOMO and begin to show panic. This way, you will be buying while there is true blood in the streets.”

A glimpse at the market backs up that bearish backdrop, with ETH trading around $1,975 at the time of writing, which is a nearly 5% drop in the last 24 hours and almost 8% in the red over seven days.

The world’s second-largest cryptocurrency is also down around 14% from where it was 30 days ago and is sitting about 60% below its all-time high registered in August 2025 when it stopped a few dollars short of $5,000.

Data from CoinGlass shows that about $241 million in ETH positions were liquidated in the past day alone, with longs making up the vast majority of that figure at roughly $228 million compared to just $13 million in shorts.

Those lopsided liquidation numbers reflect just how many traders were caught offside betting on a recovery.

Ethereum Network’s Success Isn’t Showing in ETH Prices

All the above is happening at a time when debate around Ethereum’s future is hitting fever pitch, with Bankless co-founder David Hoffman saying that he had sold his ETH stash.

He said that, while Ethereum has succeeded as a network, he is unsure whether ETH itself still has a strong path toward a major long-term repricing.

According to him, Ethereum has become more beneficial to stablecoins, tokenized assets, and decentralized apps at the expense of its own native token, calling the network “a giver, not a taker.”

The post Buy the Dip on ETH, or Is More Downside Ahead? These Metrics Give Hints appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin continues to trade under pressure after losing the critical $75K-$76K support zone, while broader market sentiment remains cautious amid weakening ETF inflows and deteriorating technical structure.

However, BTC is now approaching an important confluence of technical supports around $70K-$72K, where both trendline support and the 100-day MA could provide temporary relief for the market.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, Bitcoin has officially broken below the key $75K-$76K support region, which previously acted as an important decision point for the market. The breakdown confirms bearish continuation after repeated failures to reclaim the descending 200-day MA near $80K-$81K.

Currently, the price is approaching a major support confluence around $70K-$72K. This region aligns with the ascending lower boundary of the broader structure, the 100-day MA around $73K, and a significant historical order block visible on the chart. Such overlapping supports often increase the probability of at least a short-term reaction or relief bounce.

If buyers manage to defend the $70K-$72K range, Bitcoin could attempt a corrective recovery back toward the broken $75K-$76K resistance zone. However, failure to hold this area may open the path toward deeper supports around $65K-$66K and potentially the broader $60K-$63K demand region.

For now, the overall market structure remains bearish unless BTC reclaims the $75K-$76K zone and stabilizes above it.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart reflects accelerating bearish momentum following the recent breakdown below the consolidation structure near $75K-$76K. Sellers remain in control, while lower highs and persistent rejection candles continue to dominate the short-term trend.

Nevertheless, Bitcoin is now entering a critical order block between $70K and $72K. This zone has historically attracted significant demand and currently overlaps with the rising trendline support shown on the chart. The market reaction here will likely determine the next major move.

A short-term bullish pullback remains possible if buyers step in around this support cluster. In that scenario, BTC could revisit the $74K-$76K region as a corrective rebound. However, if the current support fails to hold, bearish momentum could accelerate rapidly toward the $65K-$66K liquidity zone.

Therefore, the $70K-$72K area represents the most important short-term battlefield between buyers and sellers.

Sentiment Analysis

The ETF cumulative flow chart reveals an important divergence developing in the market. Despite Bitcoin attempting multiple recoveries during recent months, cumulative ETF inflows have started flattening and have recently turned weaker alongside the latest correction.

This behavior suggests that institutional demand has cooled considerably compared to previous accumulation phases. The slowdown in spot Bitcoin ETF inflows indicates reduced aggressive buying from large market participants, which partly explains BTC’s inability to sustain rallies above the $80K-$82K region.

More importantly, recent price weakness has occurred while cumulative ETF flows remain relatively stable rather than aggressively expanding higher. This signals a lack of fresh capital entering the market at current levels.

Historically, strong bullish continuation phases in Bitcoin have usually been accompanied by accelerating ETF inflows. The absence of that dynamic increases the likelihood that the current market will remain corrective in the short term.

Still, if Bitcoin stabilizes around the $70K-$72K support region and ETF flows begin strengthening again, the market could regain momentum later. Until then, weakening institutional demand, combined with a bearish technical structure, keeps downside risks elevated despite the possibility of temporary relief rallies.

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: BTC Eyes $70K Support as ETF Demand Weakens and Bears Stay in Control appeared first on CryptoPotato.

OP Labs said exchange-owned chains built on the OP Stack generated more than $495 million in application revenue in the second half of 2025. The figure includes sequencer fees from transactions, revenue generated through applications embedded directly into exchange platforms, and assets that remained onchain.

According to the official press release shared with CryptoPotato, OP Labs said exchanges historically relied on third-party networks that captured much of the value generated from settlement activity, application fees, and broader onchain monetization linked to user activity.

OP Stack Onchain Revenue

Over the past year, however, applications running across exchange-owned chains built on the OP Stack have expanded rapidly. OP Labs highlighted that Morpho’s total value locked (TVL) on Coinbase-backed Base rose from $48 million at the beginning of 2025 to more than $960 million by the end of the year, representing nearly 20x growth. The company said the increase was driven mainly by lending products integrated directly into the Coinbase app rather than through wallet-based user acquisition.

Base has now become Morpho’s second-largest chain globally and accounted for 32% of Morpho’s application fees in H2 2025, which OP Labs said was 13 times that of Arbitrum and 60 times that of OP Mainnet.

Meanwhile, Kraken’s Ink chain added more than one million unique addresses since December 2024. OP Labs said fewer than 0.6% of those addresses had any prior onchain history with Kraken, while the remaining 99.4% represented net-new onchain wallets, which it described as evidence that exchange-owned chains are expanding the overall onchain market rather than merely shifting existing users between networks.

OP Labs further noted that Tydro, the Aave V3 white-label lending protocol launched on Ink in October 2025, reached $100 million in TVL within its first 24 hours and surpassed $500 million within 90 days. The company said comparable Aave deployments on neutral Layer 2 networks previously took between 142 and 721 days to reach similar milestones.

Optimism Foundation’s Chief Business Officer Kyle Jenke said the H2 figures showed a shift from the old system, where exchanges made money from trading while external networks captured the value generated thereafter. He added

“Exchanges now own the settlement, distribution, and application layers their users transact on. They’re doing it on a shared standard precisely so they don’t fragment from each other in the process.”

Ecosystem Record High

Across the wider ecosystem, OP Stack chains secured $16.33 billion in total value, held $6.8 billion in DeFi TVL, and processed 3.6 billion transactions during H2 2025. This was an all-time high across more than 50 live chains covering exchanges, consumer applications, financial infrastructure, and developer platforms.

Additionally, regulated companies are also choosing the OP Stack for institutional blockchain projects. Bitpanda’s Vision Chain uses the OP Stack for institutional finance aligned with Europe’s MiCA and MiFID II regulations, while Japan’s Mitsui & Co. Digital Commodities launched the regulated precious-metals-backed Zipangcoin on OP Mainnet.

The post Exchange-Owned OP Stack Chains Made Nearly $500M in Onchain Revenue, OP Labs Says appeared first on CryptoPotato.