Gold breaks above $5,000 for the first time on geopolitical and economic risks, while silver hits records and crypto slips.

The post Gold surges past $5,000 for first time as silver tops $107 on safe-haven buying appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The recent Bitcoin drop intensifies market fear, potentially leading to further declines and impacting the broader crypto ecosystem.

The post Bitcoin slides below $88K, triggering $135M in crypto long liquidations in the past hour appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The US's leadership in crypto regulation could drive global innovation, attracting investment and talent while setting international standards.

The post CFTC Chair Selig says America is the crypto capital of the world appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Gemini's pivot to a super app could streamline user experience but may limit NFT market diversity and innovation.

The post Gemini to close NFT marketplace Nifty Gateway as it sharpens focus on super app vision appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Trump's tariff threat could strain US-Canada relations, impacting trade dynamics and potentially forcing Canada to reconsider its China strategy.

The post Trump threatens 100% tariff on Canadian goods over China deal appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Oklahoma Introduces Bill Allowing State Employees and Vendors to Be Paid in Bitcoin

Oklahoma lawmakers introduced legislation this week that would allow state employees, vendors, private businesses, and residents to negotiate and receive payments in bitcoin.

Senate Bill 2064, introduced by Senator Dusty Deevers during the 2026 legislative session, establishes a legal framework for the use of bitcoin as a medium of exchange and compensation without designating it as legal tender.

The bill explicitly states that it does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on states coining money or declaring legal tender other than gold and silver, instead recognizing bitcoin as a financial instrument operating within existing legal frameworks.

If enacted, the bill would permit Oklahoma state employees to elect to receive salaries or wages in bitcoin, either based on the asset’s market value at the start of a pay period or at the time of payment. 

Employees would be allowed to revise their payment preference at the beginning of each pay period and could choose to receive compensation in bitcoin, U.S. dollars, or a combination of both. 

Payments would be deposited either into a self-hosted wallet controlled by the employee or into a third-party custodial account designated by the employee.

The legislation would also allow vendors contracting with the state to opt into receiving payment in bitcoin on a per-transaction basis. The bitcoin value of those payments would be determined by the market price at the time of the transaction unless otherwise agreed upon in writing.

Beyond state payroll and procurement, the bill broadly authorizes private businesses and individuals in Oklahoma to negotiate and receive payments in bitcoin, reinforcing its use as a voluntary medium of exchange across the state economy.

SB 2064 includes provisions aimed at reducing regulatory friction for bitcoin-native businesses. Firms that deal exclusively in digital assets and do not exchange them for U.S. dollars would be exempt from Oklahoma’s money transmitter licensing requirements, according to legislation text. 

The bill directs the Oklahoma State Treasurer to issue a request for proposals for a digital asset firm to process bitcoin payments for state employees and vendors.

In selecting a provider, the Treasurer must consider factors including fees, transaction speed, cybersecurity practices, custody options, and any relevant state licenses. The Treasurer would be required to finalize a contract with a provider by January 1, 2027, and is authorized to promulgate rules to implement the program.

Back in January 2025, Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Deevers introduced a similar initiative called the Bitcoin Freedom Act (SB 325). It was a bill designed to let employees, vendors, and businesses voluntarily receive and make payments in Bitcoin while creating a legal framework for its use in the state’s economy.

Oklahoma’s bitcoin adoption echoes other U.S. states

This move follows other states like New Hampshire and Texas in exploring ways to integrate Bitcoin into public finance. 

New Hampshire passed the nation’s first Strategic Bitcoin Reserve law, allowing the state to hold up to 5% of its funds in high-market-cap digital assets and even approve a bitcoin-backed municipal bond.

Texas, meanwhile, has paired legislation with action, creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and making the first U.S. state Bitcoin ETF purchase of around $5 million, framing it as both a hedge against economic volatility and a step toward modernizing state finances. 

If passed, SB 2064 would take effect on November 1, 2026, positioning Oklahoma among a small but growing number of U.S. states exploring direct integration of bitcoin into government payment systems.

The Oklahoma Tax Commission would also be required to issue guidance on the tax treatment of digital assets received as payment by January 1, 2027, addressing an area that has often created uncertainty for employees and employers alike.

This post Oklahoma Introduces Bill Allowing State Employees and Vendors to Be Paid in Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

UBS Plans Bitcoin Trading for Select Wealth Clients

UBS Group AG is preparing to offer bitcoin trading to a select group of private banking clients in Switzerland.

According to a Bloomberg report citing people familiar with the matter, the Swiss banking giant has been in discussions for several months about launching a cryptocurrency trading offering and is currently in the process of selecting external partners. 

The service would initially be limited to a small subset of Swiss private banking clients, with a broader rollout possible at a later stage.

UBS has not made a final decision on implementation, the people said, and the plans remain subject to regulatory, operational, and risk considerations.

Rather than building a full digital asset stack in-house, the banks is reportedly evaluating partnerships with third-party providers that could handle trading execution, custody, and compliance. 

A partner-led model would allow the bank to offer crypto exposure while limiting balance sheet risk and operational complexity.

Such an approach mirrors strategies adopted by other major financial institutions entering the digital asset space, particularly those seeking to comply with stringent capital requirements under the Basel III framework.

Under the proposed structure, the company would initially allow eligible clients to buy and sell bitcoin (BTC) and ethereum (ETH), the two largest digital assets by market capitalization. 

Additional assets have not been discussed.

Possible UBS expansion beyond Switzerland

While the initial rollout would focus on Switzerland, Bloomberg reported that UBS is considering expanding the service to other regions, including Asia-Pacific and the United States, depending on regulatory clarity and client demand.

UBS currently manages approximately $4.7 trillion in wealth assets as of September 30, making it the largest wealth manager globally, according to Bloomberg. Even a limited crypto offering could represent a meaningful step toward broader institutional adoption of bitcoin within traditional private banking.

The bank has historically maintained a cautious stance on cryptocurrencies. 

In November 2023, UBS allowed wealthy clients in Hong Kong to trade cryptocurrency-linked exchange-traded funds, joining competitors such as HSBC, but stopped short of offering direct spot crypto trading.

A UBS spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of the Bloomberg report but confirmed that the bank continues to explore digital asset initiatives.

“As part of UBS’s digital asset strategy, we actively monitor developments and explore initiatives that reflect client needs, regulatory developments, market trends and robust risk controls,” the spokesperson said. “We recognize the importance of distributed ledger technology like blockchain, which underpins digital assets.”

This post UBS Plans Bitcoin Trading for Select Wealth Clients first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Nasdaq Moves to Remove Position Limits on Bitcoin ETF Options

Nasdaq has filed a rule change with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking to remove position and exercise limits on options tied to spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, a move that would further integrate crypto-linked products into traditional derivatives markets.

The proposal, originally filed on Jan. 7 and made effective this week on the 21st, eliminates the current 25,000-contract cap on options linked to Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs listed on Nasdaq. 

Affected products include funds from BlackRock, Fidelity, Grayscale, Bitwise, ARK/21Shares and VanEck, according to the filing.

The SEC waived its standard 30-day waiting period, allowing the rule change to take effect immediately, while retaining the authority to suspend it within 60 days if further review is deemed necessary. 

A public comment period is now open, with a final SEC determination expected by late February unless the rule is paused.

Nasdaq argued that lifting the limits would allow crypto ETF options to be treated “in the same manner as all other options that qualify for listing,” eliminating what it described as unequal treatment without undermining investor protections. 

The exchange said the change would support market efficiency while maintaining safeguards against manipulation and excessive risk.

Options are derivative contracts that give traders the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an asset at a predetermined price before a set expiration date. Position and exercise limits are typically imposed to prevent concentrated positions that could amplify volatility or destabilize markets.

The filing builds on Nasdaq’s approval in late 2025 to list options on single-asset crypto ETFs as commodity-based trusts. While that decision allowed Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF options to trade on the exchange, existing position limits remained in place.

Nasdaq has steadily expanded its involvement in crypto markets in recent years. 

Nasdaq’s bitcoin and digital asset push

In November, the exchange filed a separate proposal to raise position limits on options tied to BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) to as much as one million contracts, citing growing institutional demand and increased use of options for hedging strategies.

The exchange has also pushed into crypto indexing and tokenization. In January, Nasdaq and CME Group announced plans to unify their crypto benchmarks under the Nasdaq-CME Crypto Index, which tracks major digital assets including Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, Solana, Cardano and Avalanche.

If approved permanently, the latest rule change would mark another step toward normalizing Bitcoin derivatives within U.S. regulated markets, further blurring the line between traditional financial instruments and crypto-native assets.

This post Nasdaq Moves to Remove Position Limits on Bitcoin ETF Options first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Epoch Ventures Predicts Bitcoin Hits $150K in 2026, Declares End of 4-Year Halving Cycle

Epoch, a venture firm specializing in Bitcoin infrastructure, issued its second annual ecosystem report on January 21, 2026, forecasting robust growth for the asset despite a subdued 2025 performance.

The 186-page document analyzes Bitcoin’s price dynamics, adoption trends, regulatory outlook, and technological risks, positioning the cryptocurrency as a maturing monetary system. Key highlights include a prediction that Bitcoin will reach at least $150,000 USD by year-end, driven by institutional inflows and decoupling from equities. The report also anticipates the Clarity Act failing to pass, though its substance on asset taxonomy and regulatory authority may advance through SEC guidance. Additional forecasts cover gold rotations boosting Bitcoin by 50 percent, major asset managers allocating 2 percent to model portfolios, and Bitcoin Core maintaining implementation dominance.

Eric Yakes, CFA charterholder and managing partner at Epoch Ventures, brings over a decade of finance expertise to the Bitcoin space, having started his career in corporate finance and restructuring at FTI Consulting before advancing to private equity at Lion Equity Partners, where he focused on buyouts. He left traditional finance in recent years to immerse himself in Bitcoin, authoring the influential book “The 7th Property: Bitcoin and the Monetary Revolution,” which explores Bitcoin’s role as a transformative monetary asset, and has since written extensively on its technologies and ecosystem. Yakes holds a double major in finance and economics from Creighton University, positioning him as a key voice in Bitcoin venture capital through Epoch, a firm dedicated to funding Bitcoin infrastructure.

The Death of the Four-Year Cycle

Bitcoin closed 2025 at $87,500, marking a 6 percent annual decline but an 84 percent four-year gain that ranks in the bottom 3 percent historically. The report states the death of the 4-year cycle in no uncertain terms: “We believe cycle theory is a relic of the past, and the cycles themselves probably never existed. The fact is that Bitcoin is boring and growing gradually now. We make the case for why gradual growth is precisely what will drive a ‘gradually, then suddenly’ moment.” 

The report goes on to discuss cycle theory in depth, presenting a view of the future that’s becoming the new market expectation: less volatility to the downside, slow and steady growth to the upside. 

Price action suggests a new bull market commenced in 2026, with 2025’s drop from $126,000 to $81,000 potentially being a self-fulfilling prophecy due to cycle expectations, as RSI remained below overbought since late 2024, suggesting bitcoin already went through a bear market and we are commencing a new kind of cycle. 

Versus gold, Bitcoin is down 49 percent from its highs, in a bear market since December 2024. Gold’s meteoric rise presents a potential price catalyst for bitcoin; a small rebalancing reallocation from gold of 0.5% would induce greater inflows than the U.S. ETFs; at 5.5%, it would equal bitcoin’s market capitalization. Gold’s rise makes bitcoin more attractive on a relative basis, and the higher gold goes, the more likely a rotation into bitcoin. Timing analysis, as seen in the chart below, which counts days from the local top, suggests Bitcoin might be nearing a bottom versus Gold.

In terms of volatility bitcoin has aligned with mega-caps like Tesla, with 2025 averages for Nasdaq 100 leaders exceeding Bitcoin’s, suggesting a risk-asset decoupling and limiting drawdowns. Long-term stock correlations persist, but maturing credit markets and safe-haven narratives may pivot Bitcoin toward gold-like behavior. 

The report goes in-depth into other potential catalysts for 2026, defending its bullish thesis, such as:

• Consistent ETF Inflows
• Nation State Adoption
• Mega-cap Companies Allocating to Bitcoin
• Wealth Managers Allocating Clients
• Inheritance Allocation

FUD, Sentiment and Media Analysis

Analysis of 356,423 datapoints from 653 sources reveals a fractured sentiment landscape, with “Bitcoin is dead” narratives concluded. FUD is stable at 12-18 percent but the topics rotate, crime and legal themes are up 277 percent, while environmental FUD is down 41 percent.

A 125-point perception gap exists between conference attendees (+90 positive) while tech media is generally negative at (-35). UK outlets show 56-64 percent negativity, 2-3 times international averages. 

The Lightning Network coverage dominates podcasts at 33 percent but garners only 0.28 percent mainstream coverage, a 119x disparity. Layer 2 solutions are not zero-sum, with Lightning at 58 percent mentions and Ark up 154 percent.

Media framing has caused mining sentiment to swing 67 points: mainstream outlets cover the sector at 75.6 percent positive, while Bitcoin communities view it at only 8.4 percent positive, underscoring the importance of narrative and audience credibility for mining companies.

Bitcoin Treasury Companies

More companies added Bitcoin to their balance sheets in 2025 than in any previous year, marking a major step in corporate adoption. Established firms that already held Bitcoin—known as Bitcoin treasury companies, or BtcTCs—bought even larger amounts, while new entrants went public specifically to raise money and purchase Bitcoin. According to the report, public company bitcoin holdings increased 82% y/y to ₿1.08 million and the number of public companies holding bitcoin grew from 69 to over 191 throughout 2025.65 Corporations own at least 6.4% of total Bitcoin supply – public companies 5.1% and private companies 1.3%. This created a clear boom-and-bust pattern throughout the year.

Company valuations rose sharply through mid-2025 before pulling back when the broader Bitcoin price corrected. The report explains that these public treasury companies offer investors easier access through traditional brokers, the ability to borrow against holdings, and even dividend payments, though with dilution risks. In contrast, buying and holding Bitcoin directly remains simpler and preserves the asset’s full scarcity.

Looking ahead, Epoch expects Japan’s Metaplanet to post the highest multiple on net asset value (mNAV)—a key valuation metric—among all treasury companies with a market cap above $1 billion. The firm also predicts that an activist investor or rival company will force the liquidation of one underperforming treasury firm to capture the discount between its share price and the actual value of its Bitcoin holdings. 

Over time, these companies will stand out by offering competitive yields on their Bitcoin. In total, treasury companies acquired roughly 486,000 BTC during 2025, equal to 2.3 percent of the entire Bitcoin supply, drawing further corporate interest in Bitcoin. For business owners considering a Bitcoin treasury, the report highlights both the growth potential and the risks of public-market volatility.

The Bitcoin Treasury Companies section of the report explores: 

• The fundamentals of a Bitcoin treasury allocation including the potential benefits and risks of Bitcoin treasury company investing. 
• The 2025 timeline of Bitcoin Treasury companies. 
• Current valuations of BtcTCs. 
• Our opinion on BtcTCs broadly, and how we view them compared to owning Bitcoin directly. 
• Commentary on specific BtcTCs. 
• Predictions on Bitcoin treasury companies in the coming years. 

Regulation Expectations for 2026

Epoch predicts the Clarity Act—a proposed bill to clarify digital asset oversight by dividing authority between the SEC and CFTC—will not pass Congress in 2026. However, the report expects the bill’s main ideas, including clear definitions for asset categories and regulatory jurisdiction, to advance through SEC rulemaking or guidance instead. The firm also forecasts Republican losses in the midterm elections, which could trigger new regulatory pressure on crypto, most likely in the form of consumer protection measures aimed at perceived industry risks. On high-profile legal cases, Epoch does not expect pardons for the founders of Samurai Wallet or Tornado Cash this year, though future legal appeals or related proceedings may ultimately support their defenses. 

The report takes a critical view of recent legislative efforts, arguing that bills like the GENIUS Act (focused on stablecoins) and the Clarity Act prioritize industry lobbying over the concerns of everyday Bitcoin users, especially the ability to hold and control assets directly without third-party interference (self-custody). 

The report points out a discrepancy between what crypto-owning voters want — a majority preferring above all, the right to transact. While the Clarity and Genius Acts focus on less popular special interests, they just fall within the 50% support range. Epoch warns that “This deviation between the will of the voters and the will of the largest industry players is an early warning sign of the potential harm from regulatory capture (intentional or otherwise)”.  

The report is particularly critical of the way the GENIUS Act set up the regulatory structure for stablecoins. The paragraph on the topic is so poignant that it merits being printed in its entirety:

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

Last year, in our Bitcoin Banking Report, we discussed the structure of the 2-tier banking system in the US (see figure below). In this system, the Central Bank pays a yield on the deposits it receives from the Tier II Commercial banks, who then go on to share a portion of that yield with their depositors. Sound familiar?

The compromise structure in the GENIUS Act essentially creates a parallel banking system where stablecoin issuers play the role of Tier I Central Banks and the crypto exchanges play the role of Tier II Commercial Banks. 

To make matters worse, stablecoin issuers are required to keep their reserves with regulated Tier II banks and are unlikely to have access to Fed Master accounts. The upshot of all this is that the GENIUS act converts a peer-to-peer payment mechanism into a heavily intermediated payment network that sits on top of another heavily intermediate payment network.”

The report goes into further depth on topics of regulation and regulatory capture risk, closing the topic with an analysis of how the CLARITY Act might and, in their opinion, should take shape. 

Quantum Computing Risk

Concerns about quantum computing potentially breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography surfaced prominently in late 2025, in part contributing to institutional sell-offs as investors reacted to headlines about rapid advances in the field. The Epoch report attributes much of this reaction to behavioral biases, including loss aversion—where people fear losses more than they value equivalent gains—and herd mentality, in which market participants follow the crowd without independent assessment. The authors describe the perceived threat as significantly overhyped, noting that claims of exponential progress in quantum capabilities, often tied to “Neven’s Law,” lack solid observational evidence to date.

“Neven’s law states that the computational power of quantum computers increases at a double exponential rate of classical computers. If true, the timeline to break Bitcoin’s cryptography could be as short as 5 years. 

However, Moore’s law was an observation. Neven’s law is not an observation because logical qubits are not increasing at such a rate. 

Neven’s law is an expectation of experts. Based on our understanding of expert opinion in the fields we are knowledgeable about, we are highly skeptical of expert projections,” the Epoch report explained.

They add that current quantum computers have not succeeded in factoring numbers larger than 15, and error rates increase exponentially with scale, making reliable large-scale computation far from practical. The report argues that progress in physical qubits has not yet translated into the logical qubits or error-corrected systems needed for factorization of the large numbers underpinning Bitcoin’s security.

Implementing quantum-resistant signatures prematurely — which do exist — would introduce inefficiencies, consuming more block space on the network, while emerging schemes remain untested in real-world conditions. Until meaningful advances in factorization occur, Epoch concludes the quantum threat does not warrant immediate priority or network changes.

Mining Expectations

The report forecasts that no company among the top ten public Bitcoin miners will generate more than 30 percent of its revenue from AI computing services during the 2026 fiscal year. This outcome stems from significant delays in the development and deployment of the necessary infrastructure for large-scale AI workloads, preventing miners from pivoting as quickly as some market narratives suggested.

Media coverage of Bitcoin mining shows a stark divide depending on who is framing the discussion. Mainstream outlets tend to portray the industry positively—75.6 percent of coverage is favorable, often emphasizing energy innovation, job creation, or economic benefits—while conversations within Bitcoin communities remain far more skeptical, with only 8.4 percent positive sentiment. This 67-point swing in net positivity highlights how framing and audience shape perceptions of the same sector, with community credibility remaining a critical factor for mining companies seeking to maintain support among Bitcoin holders.

The report has a lot more to offer including analysis of layer two systems and Bitcoin adoption data on multiple fronts, it can be read on Epoch’s website for free. 

This post Epoch Ventures Predicts Bitcoin Hits $150K in 2026, Declares End of 4-Year Halving Cycle first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Kansas Introduce Bill to Establish Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

Kansas has become the latest U.S. state to explore a formal role for Bitcoin and digital assets in public finance, with lawmakers introducing legislation that would create a state-managed Bitcoin and Digital Assets Reserve Fund.

The bill, introduced by State Senator Craig Bowser, proposes amending Kansas’ unclaimed property laws to explicitly recognize digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and virtual currencies, and to establish a framework for their custody, management, and potential sale.

If passed, the legislation would place oversight of the reserve with the Kansas State Treasurer.

Under the proposal, unclaimed digital assets, like Bitcoin, would be transferred to the state after three years of inactivity following undeliverable written or electronic communication to the owner. 

There is some ambiguity around what an ‘unclaimed digital asset’ is but the bill appears to apply only to custodial digital assets held by a legally defined “holder,” such as exchanges, banks, trust companies, or other licensed custodians, not to self-custodied wallets. 

Per the bill, the three-year abandonment clock begins only after written or electronic communication to the owner is returned as undeliverable, and it stops immediately if the owner shows any sign of activity, including logging in or accessing another account with the same custodian.

Unlike many traditional forms of unclaimed property, the bill allows these assets to be delivered and held in their native digital form, rather than being immediately liquidated.

The legislation also permits the state’s designated qualified custodian to stake digital assets and receive airdrops, subject to direction from the treasurer. 

Any staking rewards or airdropped assets generated after three years would be transferred into the BTC and Digital Assets Reserve Fund, creating a mechanism for the state to accumulate digital assets over time.

In a notable provision, the bill prohibits BTC from being deposited into the state’s general fund.

Instead, Kansas would retain Bitcoin as part of its reserve, while directing 10% of deposits of non-bitcoin digital assets into the general fund, contingent on legislative appropriations. Supporters argue this structure treats BTC as a long-term reserve asset rather than a short-term revenue source.

States are actively pushing for bitcoin reserves 

The bill also lays out how the state would handle the sale of digital assets. Cryptocurrencies that trade on established exchanges would have to be sold at market prices, while assets without active exchange listings could be sold using other commercially reasonable methods. 

The goal of all this is to minimize market disruption while adding clearer guardrails around how state-held digital assets are managed.

If passed, the legislation would put Kansas alongside a growing number of U.S. states exploring how Bitcoin and other digital assets might fit into long-term financial and custodial strategies. 

In recent years, state lawmakers across the country have debated whether Bitcoin could serve as a hedge against inflation, a diversification tool, or a way to modernize public finance infrastructure.

This post Kansas Introduce Bill to Establish Strategic Bitcoin Reserve first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Tokenized US Treasuries crossed $10 billion in total value this week, a milestone that confirms the category has moved from proof-of-concept to operational infrastructure.

Yet, something happening underneath this achievement is just as important: Circle's USYC has edged past BlackRock's BUIDL as the largest tokenized Treasury product, signaling that distribution rails and collateral mechanics now matter more than brand recognition in determining which on-chain cash equivalents win.

As of Jan. 22, USYC holds $1.69 billion in assets under management compared to BUIDL's $1.684 billion, a gap of roughly $6.14 million, or 0.36%.

Over the past 30 days, USYC's assets grew 11% while BUIDL's contracted 2.85%, a divergence that reads less like marketing success and more like net creation flowing in one direction while redemptions drain the other.

This isn't a story about Circle beating BlackRock in a brand war. It's about collateral workflow design outperforming logo recognition.

Additionally, it maps directly onto the infrastructure question that regulators and institutions are now asking out loud: who shapes the stack that turns idle crypto capital into productive, yield-bearing collateral?

Related Reading

Tokenized Treasuries skyrocketed 125%, creating this “programmable cash” loop that banks are scrambling to copy

Tokenized RWAs are dominated by Ethereum, but one unexpected blockchain rival just surged 28% to outpace the leader.

Jan 10, 2026 · Gino Matos

Distribution plus collateralization beats brand

USYC's clearest structural advantage is distribution through exchange collateral rails.

On July 24, Binance announced that institutional customers could hold USYC and use it as off-exchange collateral for derivatives, with custody handled through Banking Triparty or Ceffu and near-instant redemption into USDC.

Binance added BUIDL to its off-exchange collateral list on Nov. 14, four months after USYC.

That sequencing matters. If the cash collateral stack is built first inside prime brokerage and derivatives workflows, the product that integrates earlier captures the flow.

USYC didn't just get listed, it got embedded into the operational layer where institutions manage margin and collateral automation.

Circle positioned USYC explicitly as yield-bearing collateral that travels alongside USDC rails, meaning institutions that already route stablecoin flows through Circle's ecosystem can onboard USYC without building new operational pathways.

BlackRock's BUIDL entered the market with brand authority but without the same plug-and-play integration into crypto-native collateral systems.

Related Reading

BlackRock backs Ethereum gatekeeping tokenization even though its market share is under threat

BlackRock’s tokenization thesis puts 65%+ of tokenized assets on Ethereum, but newer RWA data shows share can drift.

Jan 22, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Product mechanics suit trading collateral

RWA.xyz labels the two products differently under “Use of Income.” USYC is marked as “Accumulates,” meaning interest accrues within the token balance. BUIDL is marked as “Distributes,” meaning returns are paid out separately.

This distinction is mechanical, not cosmetic. Collateral systems, especially automated margin and derivatives infrastructure, prefer set-and-forget balances where value compounds without requiring operational handling of payouts.

An accumulating structure integrates more cleanly into collateral automation than a distributing one.

For institutions building collateral rails that need to scale across multiple venues and counterparties, the simpler the structure, the lower the operational drag.

RWA.xyz lists materially different entry requirements for the two products.

BUIDL restricts access to US Qualified Purchasers, requiring a minimum investment of $5 million in USDC. USYC targets non-US investors with a minimum of $100,000 USDC.

The funnel difference is structural. Qualified Purchaser status in the US requires $5 million in investable assets for individuals or $25 million for entities, a narrow gate that excludes most crypto-native funds, prop desks, and smaller institutional players.

USYC's $100,000 minimum and non-US eligibility open access to a broader set of offshore institutions, family offices, and trading firms that operate outside US regulatory perimeters but still need dollar-denominated, yield-bearing collateral.

BlackRock's brand carries weight, but the brand doesn't override access constraints. If a fund can't meet the Qualified Purchaser threshold or operates outside the US, BUIDL isn't an option. USYC is.

The addressable market for on-chain collateral skews heavily toward non-US entities and smaller institutions, exactly the segment USYC is designed to serve.

Related Reading

BlackRock tokenized BUIDL fund now convertible to USDC 24/7 via Circle integration

New smart contract enables real-time, transparent BUIDL share transfers to USDC.

Apr 11, 2024 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Net creation versus net redemption

The simplest explanation for the flip is the cleanest: flows moved.

USYC grew by 11% over the past 30 days, while BUIDL shrank by 2.85%. That's not a marketing differential. It's net issuance into one product, offset by net outflows from the other.

The recent flip suggests a discrete event or allocation decision rather than gradual drift. USYC's Binance integration, its accumulating income structure, and its lower entry threshold all reduce friction. BUIDL hasn't added comparable distribution momentum in the same window.

Tokenized Treasuries at $10 billion remain a small fraction of the $310 billion stablecoin market, but their role is shifting from niche experiment to operational default.

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) noted in recent guidance that tokenized money market funds are increasingly used as stablecoin reserve assets and as collateral for crypto-related transactions. This is precisely the interlinkages driving USYC's growth.

JPMorgan framed tokenized money market funds as the next frontier after stablecoins, centered on portability and collateral efficiency.

The bank's analysis treats tokenized Treasuries not as an alternative to stablecoins but as an evolution of them. They are programmable cash equivalents that settle faster, move across blockchains more easily, and integrate into collateral systems with less operational overhead than traditional custody arrangements.

With stablecoin yields near zero, tokenized Treasuries offer a risk-free on-chain rate without requiring users to exit crypto rails.

Instead of parking cash in non-yielding stablecoins or moving it off-chain to earn returns, institutions can now hold yield-bearing collateral on-chain that functions like cash but compounds like Treasuries.

Related Reading

Tokenized US Treasuries just broke DeFi’s most sacred rule, and the $9 billion consequence is irreversible

Tokenized US Treasuries grew from $2 billion to $9 billion in 18 months. BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and Circle now offer on-chain T-bills as margin collateral, DeFi building blocks, and stablecoin alternatives.

Dec 16, 2025 · Gino Matos

What happens next

The $10 billion milestone is less important than the capture rate it represents.

Tokenized Treasuries currently account for roughly 3% to 4% of the stablecoin float. If that rate doubles over the next 12 months, which is a conservative assumption given current flow momentum and collateral integrations, tokenized Treasuries could reach $20 billion to $25 billion.

If collateral flywheels accelerate and more venues replicate Binance-style off-exchange rails, the range stretches to $40 billion to $60 billion.

The metrics that matter are all measurable: net issuance trends, collateral integration announcements, changes to eligibility requirements, and shifts in income-handling preferences.

USYC's 30-day growth rate and BUIDL's contraction are early signals. The Binance integration timeline is another. The funnel gap is a third.

USYC didn't flip BUIDL because Circle outspent BlackRock on marketing. It flipped because distribution, mechanics, and access constraints aligned with how institutions actually use on-chain collateral.

The category crossed $10 billion not because one flagship product dominated, but because multiple products are now competing on infrastructure terms: who integrates faster, who reduces friction, who widens the funnel.

Brand recognition opened doors. Collateral workflow design is keeping them open.

The post How BlackRock just lost control of the $10B tokenized Treasury market to Circle for one simple, mechanical reason appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, better known as the CLARITY Act, was supposed to draw clean lines around crypto assets and which regulator gets the first call.

CryptoSlate has already walked readers through the bill’s larger architecture ahead of the January markup, including what changed, what stayed unresolved, and why jurisdiction and state preemption may matter as much as the headline definitions.

The part consuming the most oxygen right now is narrower and much more nuanced: it's about who can pay consumers to keep dollars parked in a particular place.

Related Reading

Washington’s new crypto bill would strip states of power – legally bans oversight that catches front-end manipulation

Crypto’s biggest U.S. problem has always been jurisdiction. The CLARITY Act aims to end the SEC–CFTC tug-of-war, while opening a new fight over DeFi and state preemption.

Jan 4, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

That dispute became harder to ignore after Coinbase said it couldn't support the Senate draft in its current form, and the Senate Banking Committee postponed a planned markup. Since then, the bill has shifted into the phase where staff rewrite verbs, and lawmakers test whether a new coalition is real.

Senate Democrats said they would keep talking with industry representatives about concerns, while the Senate Agriculture Committee pointed to a parallel schedule, including their Jan. 21 draft and a hearing scheduled for Jan. 27.

If you want the simplest way to understand why stablecoin rewards became the tripwire, forget the slogans and picture one screen: a user sees a dollar balance labeled USDC or another stablecoin and an offer to earn something for keeping it there. In Washington, that “something” is interest. In banking, “there” is a substitute for deposits.

In the Senate draft, the conflict is concentrated in Section 404, titled “Preserving rewards for stablecoin holders,” a section that essentially tells platforms what they can and cannot do.

The line Congress is trying to draw

Section 404 says digital asset service providers can't provide any form of interest or yield that's “solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin.”

That targets the simplest rewards product: park a payment stablecoin on an exchange or in a hosted wallet and receive a quoted return that accrues over time, with no additional behavior required. That looks like interest to lawmakers, and it looks like a direct funding competitor to banks that rely on deposits.

The key phrase here is “solely in connection with the holding,” as it makes the ban depend on causality. If the only reason a user receives value is that they hold the stablecoin, the platform is out of bounds. If a platform can credibly tie the value to something else, the draft offers a path forward.

CLARITY tries to define that path by allowing “activity-based rewards and incentives,” then listing what that activity can include: transactions and settlement, using a wallet or platform, loyalty or subscription programs, merchant acceptance rebates, providing liquidity or collateral, and even “governance, validation, staking, or other ecosystem participation.”

Put simply, Section 404 is separating being paid for parking from being paid for participation. In product language, it invites a second fight over what counts as participation, because fintech has spent a decade learning how to convert economics into engagement with a few extra taps.

Related Reading

The US Senate could wipe out $6 billion in crypto rewards this week by closing one specific loophole

Banks want the “affiliate loophole” closed; exchanges say that turns lawful loyalty incentives into an illegal end-run overnight.

Jan 13, 2026 · Gino Matos

The parts users will actually notice

Most readers will focus on the yield ban and overlook the layer that could reshape the front end of stablecoin products: marketing and disclosures.

Section 404 prohibits marketing that suggests a payment stablecoin is a bank deposit or FDIC insured, that rewards are “risk-free” or comparable to deposit interest, or that the stablecoin itself is paying the reward. It also pushes toward standardized plain-language statements that a payment stablecoin isn't a deposit and isn't government-insured, plus clear attribution of who is funding the reward and what a user must do to receive it.

Banks and credit unions care about perception because perception is what moves deposits. Their public argument is that passive stablecoin yield encourages consumers to treat stablecoin balances like safe cash, which can accelerate deposit migration, with community banks taking the hit first.

The Senate draft validates that concern by requiring a future report on deposit outflows and explicitly calling out deposit flight from community banks as a risk to study.

However, crypto companies say that stablecoin reserves already generate income, and platforms want flexibility to share some of that value with users, especially in products that compete with bank accounts and money market funds.

The most useful question we can ask here is what survives this bill and in what form.

A flat APY for holding stablecoins on an exchange is the high-risk case, because the benefit is “solely” tied to holding, and platforms will need a genuine activity hook to keep that going.

Cashback or points for spending stablecoins is much safer, because merchant rebates and transaction-linked rewards are explicitly contemplated, and that tends to favor cards, commerce perks, and various other “use-to-earn” mechanics.

Collateral or liquidity-based rewards are likely possible because “providing liquidity or collateral” appears in the list, but the UX burden rises there because the risk profile looks more like lending than payments. DeFi pass-through yield inside a custodial wrapper remains possible in theory.

However, platforms won't be able to avoid disclosures, and disclosures create friction, because platforms will have to explain who's paying, what qualifies, and what risks exist in a way that will be tested in enforcement and in court.

The throughline is that Section 404 nudges rewards away from idle balance yield and toward rewards that look like payments, loyalty, subscriptions, and commerce.

Related Reading

Banks are lobbying to kill crypto rewards to protect a hidden $1,400 “tax” on every household

They earn $176B on Fed reserves and $187B in swipe fees, and now they’re lobbying to shut the rewards door.

Jan 10, 2026 · Gino Matos

The issuer firewall and the phrase that will decide partnerships

Section 404 also includes a clause that doesn't look like much until you place it next to real-world stablecoin distribution deals. It says a permitted payment stablecoin issuer is not deemed to be paying interest or yield just because a third party offers rewards independently, unless the issuer “directs the program.”

This is the bill’s attempt to keep issuers from being treated like interest-paying banks because an exchange or wallet layered incentives on top. It also warns issuers to be careful about how close they get to platform rewards, because that closeness can easily be seen as direction.

“Directs the program” is the main hinge here. Direction can mean formal control, but the hard cases are influence that looks like control from the outside: co-marketing, revenue shares tied to balances, technical integrations designed to support a rewards funnel, or contractual requirements about how a platform describes the stablecoin experience.

After Coinbase’s objection and the markup delay, that ambiguity became the battleground, because late-stage bill work often comes down to whether a single word is narrowed, broadened, or defined.

Related Reading

Coinbase accused of performing a “rug pull” as the White House weighs killing the CLARITY Act over yield

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong denies a White House "war" while Terrett reveals the banks' secret demand.

Jan 19, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The most plausible endpoint is, unfortunately, not a clean victory for either side. The market will most likely see a new regime implemented where platforms still offer rewards, but they do so through activity-based programs that look like payments and engagement mechanics, while issuers keep their distance unless they're prepared to be treated as participants in the compensation structure.

That's why Section 404 matters beyond the current news cycle. It's about which rewards can be offered at scale without stablecoins being sold as deposits by another name, and about which partnerships will be deemed to cross the line from distribution into direction.

The post Will your crypto rewards survive upcoming CLARITY law? A plain-English guide to Section 404 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

When Solana maintainers told validators to move quickly on Agave v3.0.14, the message arrived with more urgency than detail.

The Solana Status account called the release “urgent” and said it contained a “critical set of patches” for Mainnet Beta validators.

Within a day, the public conversation drifted toward a harder question: if a proof-of-stake network needs a fast coordinated upgrade, what happens when the operators do not move together?

That gap showed up in early adoption snapshots. On Jan. 11, one widely circulated account said only 18% of stake had migrated to v3.0.14 at the time, leaving much of the network’s economic weight on older versions during a period labeled urgent.

For a chain that has spent the past year selling reliability alongside speed, the story shifted from the code itself to whether the operator fleet could converge fast enough when it mattered.

Related Reading

How Solana neutralized a 6 Tbps attack using a specific traffic-shaping protocol that makes spam impossible to scale

Solana got hit and it didn’t blink.

Dec 21, 2025 · Andjela Radmilac

Over the next ten or so days, the picture became clearer and more useful than the first-wave headlines implied.

Anza, the team behind Agave, published a security patch summary on Jan. 16 explaining why v3.0.14 mattered and why operators were told to upgrade quickly.

Around the same time, Solana’s ecosystem signaled that coordination is not left to goodwill alone, because the Solana Foundation’s delegation criteria now explicitly references required software versions, including Agave 3.0.14 and Frankendancer 0.808.30014, as part of the standards validators must meet to receive delegated stake.

Taken together, those developments turn v3.0.14 into a case study in what “always-on finance” demands in practice on Solana, not just from software, but from incentives and operator behavior under time pressure.

A high-speed chain still runs on human operations

Solana is a proof-of-stake blockchain designed to process large volumes of transactions quickly, with validators that vote on blocks and secure the ledger in proportion to staked SOL delegated to them.

For users who don't run validators, delegation routes stake to an operator, and that stake becomes both a security input and an economic signal that rewards validators who stay online and perform well.

That design has a consequence that's easy to miss if you only watch token price charts. A blockchain isn't one machine in one place. On Solana, “the network” is thousands of independent operators running compatible software, upgrading at different times, across different hosting setups, with different levels of automation and risk tolerance.

When things go smoothly, this independence limits single points of control. When an upgrade is urgent, the same independence makes coordination harder.

Solana’s validator-client landscape raises the stakes for coordination. The most common production lineage is the client maintained through Anza’s Agave fork, and the network is also progressing toward broader client diversity via Jump Crypto’s Firedancer effort, with Frankendancer as an earlier milestone on that path.

Client diversity can reduce the risk that one bug takes a large share of stake offline at once, but it does not eliminate the need for coordinated security upgrades when a fix is time-sensitive.

That's the context in which v3.0.14 landed. The urgency was about closing potential paths to disruption before they could be exploited.

Related Reading

Solana’s public attack on Starknet exposes how billions in “mercenary” volume are artificially pumping network valuations right now

Extended dominates Starknet perps, and the fee pressure doesn’t match the “activity,” hinting at mercenary volume.

Jan 15, 2026 · Gino Matos

What changed in the last 10 days: the why became public, and incentives became visible

Anza’s disclosure filled in the missing center of the story. Two critical potential vulnerabilities were disclosed in December 2025 via GitHub security advisories, and Anza said the issues were patched in collaboration with Firedancer, Jito, and the Solana Foundation.

One issue involved Solana’s gossip system, the mechanism validators use to share certain network messages even when block production is disrupted. According to Anza, a flaw in how some messages were handled could cause validators to crash under certain conditions, and a coordinated exploit that took enough stake offline could have reduced cluster availability.

The second issue involved vote processing, which is central to how validators participate in consensus. Per Anza, a missing verification step could have allowed an attacker to flood validators with invalid vote messages in a way that interfered with normal vote handling, potentially stalling consensus if done at scale.

The fix was to ensure that vote messages are properly verified before being accepted into the workflow used during block production.

That disclosure changes how the early “adoption lag” framing reads. The upgrade was urgent because it closed two plausible routes to severe disruption, one by crashing validators and one by interfering with voting at scale.

The operator question still matters, but it becomes more specific: how quickly can a distributed fleet deploy a fix when the failure modes are concrete and systemic?

In parallel, Solana’s delegation rules made the coordination mechanism easier to see. The Solana Foundation’s delegation criteria includes software-version requirements and a stated responsiveness standard.

Its published schedule for required validator software versions lists Agave 3.0.14 and Frankendancer 0.808.30014 as required versions across multiple epochs. For operators who receive Foundation delegation, upgrades become economic, because failing requirements can result in delegation being removed until the criteria are met.

Related Reading

How Solana neutralized a 6 Tbps attack using a specific traffic-shaping protocol that makes spam impossible to scale

Solana got hit and it didn’t blink.

Dec 21, 2025 · Andjela Radmilac

That is the operational reality behind “always-on finance.” It's built through code, but maintained through incentives, dashboards, and norms that push thousands of independent actors to converge during narrow windows that security incidents create.

Even with disclosures and clear stakes, fast adoption is far from frictionless. Anza said operators need to build from source following Anza’s installation instructions.

Building from source isn't inherently risky, but it raises the operational bar because validators rely on build pipelines, dependency management, and internal testing before rolling changes to production.

Those requirements matter most during urgent upgrades, because urgency compresses the time validators have to test, stage, and schedule maintenance, while mistakes carry direct reward loss and reputational damage in a competitive delegation market.

The v3.0.14 episode also didn't pause Solana’s broader release cadence.

On Jan. 19, the Agave repository shipped v3.1.7, labeled as a testnet release recommended for devnet and up to 10% of mainnet beta, signaling a pipeline of changes operators must track and plan for. On Jan. 22, Agave’s v3.1 release schedule page was updated with a tentative rollout plan.

Readiness becomes measurable in grounded ways.

One measure is the convergence of versions under pressure, meaning how quickly stake migrates to the recommended version when an urgent advisory hits, and early reporting around v3.0.14 showed the costs of slow movement.

Another is resilience against correlated failure, where client diversity through Firedancer and Frankendancer reduces the risk of one software lineage taking the network down, but only if alternative clients reach meaningful deployment levels.

A third is incentive alignment, where delegation criteria and required versions turn security hygiene into an economic requirement for many operators.

The v3.0.14 episode began as an urgency label and an adoption worry, then became a clearer window into how Solana patches, coordinates, and enforces standards across a distributed validator fleet.

The post Terrifying Solana flaw just exposed how easily the “always-on” network could have been stalled by hackers appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Institutions have learned to live with Bitcoin’s volatility because volatility is measurable and, for many strategies, manageable. What still holds back large allocations is the risk of moving the market while getting in or out.

A fund can hedge price swings with options or futures, but it can't hedge the cost of pushing through a thin order book, widening spreads, and turning a rebalance into visible slippage.

That's why liquidity matters more than most headlines admit. Liquidity isn't the same thing as volume, and it's much more than just a general feeling that the market is “healthy.”

Put into as few words as possible, liquidity is the market’s capacity to absorb trades at predictable costs.

The only way to understand it clearly is to treat it as a stack of measurable layers: spot order books, derivatives positioning, ETF trading and creations/redemptions, and stablecoin rails that move cash and collateral across platforms.

Related Reading

Bitcoin faces a massive liquidity shift as these 5 crypto gatekeepers prepare to tighten the remaining market chokepoints

Bitcoin’s 2026 price may turn on macro liquidity, SEC market access, ETF flows, stablecoin supply, and exchange rules. Track the chokepoint bosses, not influencers.

Jan 19, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Start with spot: spreads, depth, and how fast books refill

The first layer is spot execution. The easiest number to quote is the bid-ask spread, the gap between the best buy and sell prices. While spread is useful, it can stay tight even when the book behind it is thin. Depth is more informative because it shows how much size is available near the current price, not just at a single level.

Kaiko’s research often uses 1% market depth, meaning the total buy and sell liquidity sitting within 1% of the mid price, as a practical way to gauge how much the market can absorb before price moves materially.

When the 1% depth falls, the same trade size tends to cause larger price moves, and execution costs become much less predictable. Kaiko has also warned about liquidity concentration and how depth can thin across venues even when aggregate volume looks strong.

A second piece that matters is the refill. Depth isn'tt static, and books can look fine until they get hit with a large order. What separates resilient markets from fragile ones is how quickly liquidity returns after a sweep. This is why it helps to track the same metrics over time rather than relying on a single snapshot.

Liquidity changes by hour, and that matters more than 24/7 implies

Crypto trades all day, but institutional liquidity isn't equally available across every hour. Depth and spreads can vary by session, with noticeable differences between periods of high participation and periods where market makers and larger players quote less aggressively.

Amberdata's report on temporal patterns in market depth shows how intraday and weekly rhythms affect how much liquidity is available at different times. This means that a market can look liquid during overlapping business hours and noticeably thinner at other times, and that affects how far the price can move for a given trade size.

CryptoSlate has made this point in its own order book reporting around round number levels, noting that thinner aggregated depth can make markets more sensitive near widely watched prices. One example referenced a roughly 30% drop in aggregated 2% depth from prior highs, framing the issue as mechanical fragility rather than a price call.

This is the kind of case study that's useful because it shows liquidity depends on execution risk more than it does on narrative claims.

Related Reading

Bitcoin just touched a critical price point but this order book signal suggests the move to $100k might backfire

Options hedging may amplify moves between $95,000 and $104,000. Yet, order-book depth is down ~30% from 2025 highs.

Jan 16, 2026 · Gino Matos

Derivatives and ETFs can transmit stress into spot, or reduce it

Once spot books thin, derivatives start to matter more because forced flows become more disruptive. Perpetual swaps and futures can concentrate leverage. When funding rates spike or futures basis becomes stretched, it often means positioning is crowded and more sensitive to price moves.

If the market then trades into liquidations, those liquidations are executed as market orders. When liquidity is thin, that increases slippage and the chance of sharp gaps.

ETFs matter for a different reason. They create a second venue for liquidity: a secondary market where shares trade, and the primary market where authorized participants create and redeem shares. Under normal conditions, creations and redemptions help keep an ETF close to the value of its holdings.

For Bitcoin, strong secondary market liquidity can let some investors adjust exposure without immediately pushing through spot exchange books.

On the other hand, large one-way flows that result in heavy creations or redemptions can push activity back into the underlying market, especially if liquidity is thinner on the venues that participants use to source or hedge.

Related Reading

Over $1B in Bitcoin liquidity evaporated as the Wall Street feedback loop looks to wipe out gains

As major funds dump holdings, a thin order book means every dollar of selling is now significantly more destructive.

Jan 22, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The overlooked rail: stablecoins and where cash can move quickly

The last layer is cash mobility. Institutions need more than just BTC liquidity; they need reliable cash and collateral rails that can move between venues and sit inside margin systems. Stablecoins are central to that because a large share of spot and derivatives activity is still routed through stablecoin pairs and stablecoin collateral.

The market is already familiar with the effect stablecoin trading across exchanges has on price formation. Regulated rails and stablecoin-led liquidity are becoming more important in shaping how crypto markets function, which makes liquidity partly policy-shaped rather than purely market-made.

This is important because liquidity can be abundant in places that some institutions cannot use, and thinner on the venues they can. The result is a market that looks deep in aggregate but still produces higher execution costs for certain participants.

Related Reading

Bitcoin faces a massive liquidity shift as these 5 crypto gatekeepers prepare to tighten the remaining market chokepoints

Bitcoin’s 2026 price may turn on macro liquidity, SEC market access, ETF flows, stablecoin supply, and exchange rules. Track the chokepoint bosses, not influencers.

Jan 19, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Measuring liquidity without the guesswork

To see whether liquidity is improving or deteriorating, we need to focus on a few metrics.

The 1% depth on major venues, paired with top of book spreads and a standardized slippage read at fixed sizes, can tell you whether liquidity is expanding or contracting week to week.

Perp funding and futures basis can act as a positioning temperature check. When leverage gets expensive and crowded, thin spot conditions become more dangerous because forced flows can move prices farther.

Monitor ETF secondary market liquidity with simple inputs such as share spreads and traded volume, then cross-check against creations and redemptions where that data is available.

Finally, watch stablecoin liquidity and where it concentrates across venues, because cash mobility is a prerequisite for reliable execution, especially when markets move quickly.

If those layers improve together, the market becomes easier to trade in size without turning flows into price events. If they weaken together, institutions may still buy Bitcoin, but they'll do it more cautiously, rely on wrappers and hedges, and treat thin hours as higher risk for execution.

The post Bitcoin trades bleed cash during these “toxic” hours because market depth is a total illusion right now appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Makina Finance lost 1,299 ETH, roughly $4.13 million, in a flash-loan and oracle manipulation exploit.

The attacker drained the protocol's funds and broadcast the transaction to Ethereum's public mempool, where it should have been picked up by validators and included in the next block.

Instead, an MEV builder identified by the address 0xa6c2 front-ran the draining transaction, redirecting most of the funds into builder-controlled custody before the hacker could move them off-chain.

The hacker's transaction failed. The funds landed in two addresses associated with the MEV builder.
The immediate takeaway is that Makina's users avoided a total loss. The deeper signal is who ended up holding the money and what that means for crypto's emerging emergency-response architecture.

The most important actor in this story isn't the attacker or the protocol, but the block-building supply chain that intercepted the exploit and now controls whether users get their funds back, under what terms, and how quickly.

MEV bots and builders are becoming crypto's last line of defense, not by design but by structural position. That's a problem, because rescue capacity is concentrated in the hands of profit-maximizing intermediaries operating with unclear accountability.

MEV as a backstop is already a pattern

The Makina incident isn't a one-off. Chainalysis documented a similar dynamic during the 2023 Curve and Vyper exploit, noting that white hat hackers and MEV bot operators helped recover funds, which reduced realized losses below initial estimates.

The pattern is mechanical: as long as exploits or rescue attempts are visible in public transaction channels, sophisticated searchers and builders can compete to reorder transactions.

Sometimes they save funds. Sometimes they capture them. Either way, they're acting as a de facto emergency-response layer.

When an exploit transaction enters the public mempool, MEV searchers monitor for profitable opportunities. If a hacker drains a protocol and broadcasts the transaction publicly, a searcher can construct a competing transaction that executes first, redirecting the funds to a different address.

The searcher bundles the transaction and submits it to a block builder, who includes it if the profit exceeds competing bids. If the builder's block gets chosen by a validator, the searcher's transaction executes, and the hacker's transaction fails.

This is profit extraction with a beneficial side effect rather than pure altruism. But it's also the most reliable mechanism crypto has developed for intercepting exploits in real time, because it operates at the transaction-ordering layer rather than relying on protocol-level circuit breakers or governance intervention.

Related Reading

Who decides what's in the next Bitcoin block without MEV?

Bitcoin MEV, the quiet kind: how miners pick winners in your mempool.

Nov 10, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Why dependence on MEV builders is uncomfortable

The problem with MEV-based rescues is that they concentrate emergency-response capacity in a highly intermediated pipeline.

On Ethereum, MEV-Boost dominates block production. Rated's relay landscape shows roughly 93.5% of recent blocks routed via MEV-Boost, compared to roughly 6% using vanilla block production.

Within MEV-Boost, Relay market share is further concentrated: Ultra Sound Money accounts for roughly 29.84% of relay traffic, and Titan accounts for roughly 24.24%, meaning the two largest relays together handle over 54% of block production.

If most blocks flow through MEV-Boost and most MEV-Boost traffic flows through two relays, the rescue layer is structurally dependent on a small set of intermediaries. That creates governance problems fast.

If a builder ends up holding rescued funds, who authorizes custody? Who sets the bounty? What prevents extortion or ransom demands? What if the builder is offshore, anonymous, or operating in a jurisdiction with weak enforcement?

The Makina case illustrates the problem. The funds are in the builder's custody, but there's no public SLA, predefined bounty, or clear mechanism for returning the funds to Makina or its users.

The builder could return the funds voluntarily, negotiate a bounty, demand a higher fee than industry norms, or refuse to return the funds at all.

Private routing makes the problem worse.

A 2025 academic paper titled “Sandwiched and Silent” documented widespread private routing of transactions and found that many victims migrate toward private channels after being sandwiched by MEV bots.

Related Reading

BNB launches Good Will Alliance to counteract MEV sandwich attacks

BNB Chain's Good Will Alliance targets sandwich attacks with advanced filters and community collaboration.

Mar 18, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

However, private routing doesn't eliminate MEV, it just shifts it from public mempools to private order flow channels controlled by builders and relays.

For protocols, that means public mempool rescues become less reliable because exploit transactions increasingly route through private channels accessible only to a subset of builders.

An attempt to civilize chaos

Safe Harbor is a framework developed by SEAL that seeks to replace the “MEV builder as accidental custodian” model with authorized responders, explicit SLAs, and bounded incentives.

SEAL describes Safe Harbor as a legal and technical framework that lets protocols pre-authorize white hats to intervene during active exploits.

The core operational rule is that rescued funds must be sent to official recovery addresses within 72 hours, with pre-defined, enforceable bounties.

SEAL says Safe Harbor was motivated by the Nomad hack, where white hats were willing to help but constrained by legal ambiguity about whether returning funds could be prosecuted as unauthorized computer access.

Safe Harbor removes that ambiguity by giving protocols a way to pre-authorize intervention and set clear terms. SEAL claims Safe Harbor is already protecting over $16 billion across major protocols, including Uniswap, Pendle, PancakeSwap, Balancer, and zkSync.

Immunefi, the bug bounty platform, has operationalized Safe Harbor with stricter terms.

Immunefi describes Safe Harbor as a SEAL-developed framework that redirects funds to a protocol-controlled vault on Immunefi's platform. On Immunefi's Safe Harbor program page, the terms state: “You have 6 hours to transfer funds back.”

Failure to meet the six-hour window is a material breach. That's four times faster than SEAL's baseline 72-hour requirement.

Safe Harbor doesn't eliminate the dependence on MEV infrastructure. Instead, it just tries to formalize it.

If a builder front-runs an exploit and the protocol has adopted Safe Harbor, the builder is expected to recognize the intervention as authorized and route the funds to the protocol's designated recovery address within the SLA.

But that assumes builders monitor Safe Harbor registries, respect the terms, and prioritize compliance over profit.

Related Reading

Who decides what's in the next Bitcoin block without MEV?

Bitcoin MEV, the quiet kind: how miners pick winners in your mempool.

Nov 10, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Scenario range

The expected user recovery rate in an exploit can be modeled as: expected recovery equals the probability of intervention, multiplied by one minus the bounty percentage, multiplied by one minus the failure or leak percentage.

Safe Harbor aims to increase the likelihood of intervention by reducing legal ambiguity and capping the bounty percentage in advance.

In the base case, Safe Harbor adoption increases over the next 12 months. More protocols are adding Safe Harbor terms to their governance frameworks, and more white hats are registering as authorized responders.

The probability of intervention rises because responders have legal clarity and fixed bounty terms. Recovery rates improve, especially for protocols that adopt stricter SLAs, such as Immunefi's six-hour window.

In the bull case, the rescue layer professionalizes. Protocols build tight vault addresses, compress SLAs to single-digit hours, and pre-negotiate bounty schedules with known white hat teams.

Builders integrate Safe Harbor registries into their transaction-ordering algorithms, automatically routing rescued funds to designated addresses without manual intervention.

In the bear case, builder dependence hardens. Private order flow and relay concentration make rescues less transparent and more oligopolistic. Protocols that haven't adopted Safe Harbor end up negotiating with builders after the fact, with no clear leverage or SLA.

Governance becomes dependent on intermediaries who hold funds and set terms unilaterally.

What to watch

The metrics that matter are adoption cadence, operational SLAs, and centralization pressure.

Adoption cadence means tracking how many protocols add Safe Harbor governance proposals and register in SEAL's adopter list.

Operational SLAs mean watching whether the market compresses response windows: SEAL's 72-hour baseline versus Immunefi's six-hour program signals that tighter SLAs are becoming competitive differentiators.

Centralization pressure means monitoring whether the market share remains concentrated.

MEV bots are becoming crypto's emergency-response layer, whether the ecosystem likes it or not. Safe Harbor is the attempt to turn that into a predictable, accountable system.

But it's also a bet that builders will respect pre-authorized terms, that protocols will adopt the framework fast enough, and that concentration in the block-building pipeline won't undermine the fairness or accessibility of rescues.

The Makina case shows what happens when those assumptions don't hold: funds sit in builder custody with no clear path back to users.

The post Explosive truth behind crypto bots that front-run thieves to “save” funds — but they decide who gets paid back appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A new academic paper examines how autonomous AI agents could make influence campaigns harder to detect and more effective at scale.

Ethereum treasury firm SharpLink Gaming hopes to stand apart from the pack by focusing on the long-term—with shareholders top of mind.

X Games will share a title with MoonPay as part of an eight-figure deal, as the action sports spectacle adopts a league-based format.

Ethereum researcher Justin Drake said the ecosystem is moving from research to execution as the threat from quantum computing draws closer.

Nearly all stablecoins track the U.S. dollar. Experiments with baskets and commodities show how hard that grip is to loosen.

XRP's burn rate has surged modestly in the last day, signaling a potential shift in market structure as network activity begins to rise after multiple days of being low.

The market might not be ready for a proper retrace despite the possibility of having one sooner rather than later.

Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham has pushed back against the narrative that the crypto industry sought to escape oversight.

Shiba Inu's exchange flow has finally turned bullish again after multiple days of signaling rising selling pressure amid the broad crypto market downturn.

Shiba Inu is seeing a 15,943.82% liquidation imbalance as the crypto market faces continued profit taking.

Every crypto cycle creates legends and regrets. Ethereum once traded for under a dollar while powering obscure smart contracts. Bitcoin was dismissed as an internet experiment when it hovered below $100. Those who ignored them didn’t just miss gains; they missed generational wealth. Today, many investors search for the best crypto coins that still offer early-stage access before mass adoption locks out life-changing upside.

As we move through early 2026, the market is warming again. Bitcoin is stabilizing after ETF-driven demand, Ethereum continues to dominate DeFi and tokenization, and meme-driven ecosystems are reclaiming attention. But history shows that the largest returns don’t come from mature giants; they come from presales where entry prices are microscopic and momentum hasn’t peaked. That’s where APEMARS ($APRZ) enters the conversation as one of the best crypto coins to buy today.

APEMARS ($APRZ) Stage 5: Early Access Before the Crowd Arrives

APEMARS is currently in Stage 5 of its structured presale, offering tokens at $0.00003629 ahead of a confirmed $0.0055 listing price. At this stage alone, the projected upside from APEMARS presale to listing stands at 15,055.69% ROI, while the earliest supporters have already seen 113.59% ROI through earlier stages.

The traction is real, not theoretical. The presale has already raised over $100,000, attracted 525+ token holders, and distributed more than 4.9 billion tokens. This phase represents the final stretch during which entry remains accessible before stage prices are escalated, reshaping the risk–reward balance. For investors scanning the market for the best crypto coins with asymmetric upside, Stage 5 offers a rare window of opportunity.

Why APEMARS Is Being Watched as One of the Best Crypto Coins

APEMARS combines viral mechanics with disciplined token economics. Holders can access 63% APY staking, allowing long-term participants to compound rewards while supply remains locked. A 9.34% referral system fuels organic growth, while scheduled token burns at later presale milestones permanently reduce circulating supply.

This structure creates a feedback loop: reduced supply, increasing demand, and community-driven expansion. Unlike many speculative launches, the roadmap is clearly staged, transparent, and time-based. That clarity is why APEMARS continues to surface in discussions around the best crypto coins for early 2026 positioning.

Ethereum: The Smart Contract Revolution That Already Paid Early Believers

Ethereum changed crypto forever by introducing smart contracts, enabling decentralized finance, NFTs, tokenized assets, and DAOs. When ETH launched in 2015, it traded below $1, and few imagined it would become the backbone of Web3. Early adopters who accumulated Ethereum during its formative years saw exponential returns as the ecosystem exploded and developers flocked to build on the network.

Today, Ethereum remains a dominant Layer-1 blockchain with massive real-world usage and institutional adoption. However, its market maturity means price growth is now steadier rather than explosive. Ethereum is widely considered a foundational asset for long-term exposure, but the kind of life-changing upside seen in its earliest days is no longer easily achievable, which is why many investors now search for newer best crypto coins at earlier stages.

Bitcoin: Digital Gold That Delivered Historic Gains, Now in a Mature Phase

Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency and the benchmark for the entire market. In its early years, Bitcoin traded for under $100, dismissed by many as a speculative experiment. Those who recognized its scarcity and decentralized value proposition early were rewarded as Bitcoin surged through multiple market cycles, becoming a globally recognized store of value.

As of today, Bitcoin benefits from institutional inflows, ETFs, and growing mainstream acceptance. While it remains one of the safest long-term crypto holdings, its size and market capitalization naturally limit upside multiples compared to emerging projects. Bitcoin continues to anchor portfolios, but investors seeking aggressive growth increasingly look beyond established giants toward earlier-stage best crypto coins.

$15,000 Investment Scenario: From Stage 5 to Listing

At the Stage 5 price of $0.00003629, a $15,000 investment secures approximately 413 million APEMARS tokens. If the token lists at the projected $0.0055 price, that position could be valued at over $2.27 million, reflecting the 15,055.69% ROI tied to this stage.

This calculation does not include additional upside from staking rewards or referral incentives, which can further expand holdings before public trading begins. For investors targeting best crypto coins with measurable upside, this scenario highlights why Stage 5 is drawing increasing attention.

How to Buy APEMARS in Stage 5

Getting involved is straightforward. Visit the official presale website, connect a compatible wallet, choose your purchase amount, and complete the transaction using ETH or USDT. Tokens are allocated instantly, and earlier participation secures lower pricing before the next stage adjustment.

Conclusion: Why Timing Still Defines Crypto Winners

Ethereum and Bitcoin proved one lesson beyond doubt: timing matters more than hype. Those who entered early captured exponential upside, while latecomers settled for incremental gains. In every cycle, new opportunities emerge, but only for those willing to act before the crowd arrives.

APEMARS stands out as one of the best crypto coins to buy today because it still offers early-stage access at $0.00003629, a clear $0.0055 listing price, and a documented 15,055.69% ROI potential from Stage 5. For investors researching opportunities through trusted platforms like Best Crypto To Buy Now, APEMARS continues to rank among presales, combining momentum, structure, and measurable upside. The window is still open, but history shows it never stays that way for long.

For More Information:

Website: Visit the Official APEMARS Website

Telegram: Join the APEMARS Telegram Channel

Twitter: Follow APEMARS ON X (Formerly Twitter)

Frequently Asked Questions About the Best Crypto to Invest In Coins

What are the best crypto coins to invest in right now?

The best crypto coins to invest in are typically those combining strong narratives, early-stage access, and clear growth catalysts. While established assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum offer stability, many investors focus on presales and emerging projects with significantly higher upside potential.

Is it better to invest in established coins or early-stage crypto projects?

Established coins provide lower risk but limited upside, while early-stage crypto projects offer higher risk with much greater reward potential. Historically, the largest returns have come from early participation in presales before public listings and widespread adoption.

Why is APEMARS considered one of the best crypto coins to invest in today?

APEMARS stands out because it is still in Stage 5 of its presale, offering early access at $0.00003629 with a defined $0.0055 listing price. This structure provides a measurable 15,055.69% ROI potential, combined with staking rewards, referral incentives, and scheduled token burns that support long-term value.

How do investors identify the best crypto coins before they explode?

Investors look for low entry prices, transparent tokenomics, growing communities, and structured launch plans. Presales with rising stage prices and fixed listing targets often attract attention as potential high-growth opportunities.

Are crypto presales a good way to find the best crypto to invest in?

Yes, crypto presales are one of the most common ways investors access early pricing. Many of the best-performing crypto coins started in presales, where early buyers secured positions long before exchange listings.

Is APEMARS better positioned than other presale crypto coins?

APEMARS gains an edge through its transparent multi-stage presale, growing holder base of 525+ participants, over 4.9 billion tokens sold, and more than $100,000 already raised. Unlike many presales with unclear outcomes, APEMARS offers defined milestones and a clear launch strategy, making it a strong contender among the best crypto coins for early investors.

The post From Missed Bitcoin and Ethereum to New Opportunity: APEMARS Stage 5 Is One of the Best Crypto Coins to Buy Today appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin ETFs saw $1.72B in outflows as market sentiment remains fragile and cautious. 
• Fear & Greed Index signals “Extreme Fear” while Bitcoin hovers around $89K. 
• Lack of catalysts and volatile sentiment leave the Bitcoin price movement uncertain. 
• ETF outflows and subdued price action reflect shifting risk appetites among investors. 

Bitcoin ETFs have been facing a sustained withdrawal streak. $1.72 billion has been pulled in just five days, signaling caution among investors. 

This is despite Bitcoin struggling to break above $100,000 since November; sentiment indicators show an “Extreme Fear” environment. With risk-averse behavior dominating, market participants are closely watching for any signs of a trend reversal or further price decline.

Bitcoin ETF Outflows Signal Growing Caution Among Investors

Bitcoin ETFs have experienced significant outflows over the past week. Approximately $1.72 billion was withdrawn across five consecutive trading days.

This trend highlights the fragile investor sentiment prevailing in the market, particularly as Bitcoin has been unable to break above the key psychological level of $100,000 since mid-November. 

The continued pullback underscores the broader risk-off behavior among retail investors, signaling a cautious stance amid persistent uncertainty.

On Friday, Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of $103.5 million, extending a trend that began the previous week. The lack of bullish momentum for Bitcoin is currently hovering around $89,160.

This has led investors to seek safer assets, with many turning to traditional markets like gold and silver. ETF flows are often seen as a barometer for retail appetite in crypto markets.

The current outflow streak reflects the cautious mood dominating the space.

What Does This Mean for Bitcoin’s Near-Term Outlook?

The outflows from Bitcoin ETFs are an indication of broader market sentiment. Investors are retreating from riskier assets as the crypto market faces a phase of uncertainty. 

The Crypto Fear & Greed Index recently dropped to “Extreme Fear,” reflecting how fear is weighing heavily on retail participants. Santiment, an analytics firm, suggests that despite the caution, there are signs of a potential market bottom forming. 

On-chain signals, reduced social media chatter, and changes in supply distribution could be early hints that a reversal may be coming. This is even though the timing remains uncertain.

Some analysts remain cautiously optimistic, predicting that a corrective rally could be imminent; others believe that Bitcoin may need more time to consolidate before a definitive trend reversal takes shape. 

With liquidity conditions tightening and no immediate catalysts on the horizon, Bitcoin’s price is likely to remain range-bound for now.

In this uncertain environment, Bitcoin’s immediate price trajectory is highly dependent on sentiment indicators, ETF flows, and any macro developments.

This could restore confidence among investors. However, the current outflows represent a short-term correction before a new bullish phase can emerge.

The post $1.72B Withdrawn from Bitcoin ETFs in 5-Day Outflow Streak: What’s Next? appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin and Ethereum combined outflows exceeded $3.3 billion, marking the highest weekly exodus since November 10.
  
• Tether on Ethereum saw $3.11 billion withdrawn while Tron network gained $905 million in USDT inflows concurrently.
  
• Simultaneous withdrawal of risk assets and stablecoins typically precedes heightened volatility rather than clear trends.
  
• Large-scale exchange outflows suggest traders moving to self-custody or responding to market uncertainty concerns.
  

Binance experienced its largest weekly asset withdrawal since November 10, with over $6 billion leaving the exchange across multiple blockchain networks.

On-chain tracking data shows Bitcoin, Ethereum and Tether dominated the outflows during the week beginning January 19, 2026.

The exodus represents a notable shift in trader behavior on the world’s largest cryptocurrency platform.

Multi-Billion Dollar Withdrawal Marks Exchange Exodus

Bitcoin withdrawals reached approximately $1.97 billion during the seven-day period, while Ethereum saw roughly $1.34 billion move off the platform.

Tether on the Ethereum network recorded the largest single-asset outflow at $3.11 billion. The combined movement of risk assets and stablecoins suggests traders are repositioning holdings rather than exiting crypto markets entirely.

Multichain weekly netflow data confirms the withdrawal pattern affected major digital assets simultaneously. However, the Tron network presented a contrasting trend with USDT-TRC20 recording positive inflows around $905 million.

Source: Cryptoquant

This pattern indicates capital rotation between blockchain networks instead of wholesale flight from centralized exchanges.

The timing and scale of withdrawals draw parallels to previous periods of market uncertainty. Large institutional holders often move assets into cold storage ahead of anticipated price movements. Self-custody solutions have gained traction among traders seeking direct control over their digital holdings.

Market Dynamics Point to Potential Volatility Ahead

Exchange outflows of this magnitude typically precede periods of increased price swings across cryptocurrency markets.

The simultaneous withdrawal of both trading assets and stablecoins creates conditions for supply constraints. Reduced liquidity on centralized platforms can amplify price movements in either direction.

Two competing narratives have emerged around the data. Some analysts view the outflows as preparation for future price appreciation through reduced available supply.

Others interpret the movement as risk mitigation amid broader market concerns or platform-specific factors affecting trader confidence.

The withdrawal pattern differs from typical market cycles where stablecoins flow into exchanges before major purchases.

Instead, USDT exited alongside Bitcoin and Ethereum, complicating immediate directional forecasts. Historical precedent suggests this configuration often leads to heightened volatility rather than clear trends.

Network-specific data reveals traders are selectively choosing blockchain platforms for asset storage. The positive Tron network inflow contrasts sharply with Ethereum’s stablecoin exodus.

This selective migration points to cost considerations and transaction efficiency driving allocation decisions beyond simple exchange exit strategies.

The post Binance Sees $6 Billion Weekly Outflow as Bitcoin, Ethereum and Stablecoins Leave Exchange appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Polymarket’s odds now show a 77% chance of a US government shutdown by January’s end, a 67% rise in 24 hours. 
• Senator Schumer’s refusal to vote on the DHS funding sparks fears of a prolonged shutdown and regulatory delay. 
• Trump’s prediction of a ‘Democrat shutdown’ fuels growing uncertainty about the timeline for the CLARITY Act. 
• Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong opposes the current version of the CLARITY Act, citing concerns over tokenized equities and privacy risks.

Polymarket has priced in a 77% chance of a U.S. government shutdown before January ends, marking a sharp increase in shutdown odds.

This uncertainty comes amid mounting political tension around funding issues, with the potential to delay the CLARITY Act. The surge in odds has put the crypto industry on high alert for further regulatory delays.

Shutdown Odds Surge, Potentially Jeopardizing the CLARITY Act

Polymarket’s latest data reveals that the odds of a U.S. government shutdown have spiked to 77% by the end of January 2026. This represents a dramatic 67% increase within just 24 hours, raising alarms in the political and financial sectors. 

The primary catalyst for this surge is the ongoing political gridlock over government funding. Particularly regarding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bill.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently announced that Senate Democrats would oppose funding the DHS if the bill included provisions they find objectionable. Starting with those related to ICE enforcement. 

His remarks, along with Trump’s warning of a “Democrat shutdown,” have ignited fears that Congress may fail to pass crucial funding before the deadline. This, in turn, could trigger another lengthy government shutdown.

The last one in late 2025, caused significant disruptions in legislative processes. This would delay efforts to pass bills like the CLARITY Act which aims to bring clarity to the digital asset.

The CLARITY Act, which has already faced delays due to the prior government shutdown, now risks even further setbacks. However, with the current political climate and the looming threat of another shutdown, the chances of it being enacted appear slim.

Trump’s Shutdown Prediction Adds to Industry Concerns

In addition to the concerns raised by Schumer’s opposition, former President Donald Trump has further fueled uncertainty by predicting that a shutdown is likely. Speaking to Fox Business, Trump stated, “We’re probably going to end up in another Democrat shutdown.” 

While Trump’s comment was somewhat vague, it underscores the volatile political landscape in Washington. The crypto industry has expressed its frustration over the stalled regulatory framework.

Trump’s remarks only add fuel to the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the fate of the CLARITY Act. Alongside the possibility of a government shutdown, has created a sense of dread among crypto stakeholders.

Many in the industry were hopeful that the legislation would provide much-needed clarity on the classification of digital assets, stablecoin regulations. However these efforts now seem more vulnerable than ever.

Furthermore, the situation is exacerbated by the recent withdrawal of Coinbase’s support for the bill. CEO Brian Armstrong voiced concerns over several provisions in the CLARITY Act.

He described it as a “de facto ban” on tokenized equities and restrictive regulations on decentralized finance (DeFi). With major players like Coinbase distancing themselves from the bill, the chances of passing remain slim, leaving the crypto industry in a state of limbo.

As the deadline for government funding approaches, the future of the CLARITY Act hangs in the balance. With political infighting and regulatory uncertainty casting long shadows over the crypto landscape.

The post Polymarket Predicts 77% Chance of US Government Shutdown This January appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Sui Group raised $450M in PIPE funding to increase holdings from 3% to 5% of SUI’s circulating supply. 
• SuiUSDE stablecoin directs 90% of fees to buy SUI tokens or fund Sui-native DeFi ecosystem projects. 
• Protocol-level privacy using ZK-proofs hides transaction details while maintaining regulatory compliance. 
• Institutional inflows reached $5.7M weekly as Sui positions itself as bank-friendly blockchain infrastructure.
  

Nasdaq-listed Sui Group Holdings has announced a fundamental shift from a foundation-backed digital asset treasury to an operating business model focused on accumulating SUI and generating recurring yield. 

The company currently holds approximately 108 million SUI tokens, valued at roughly $160 million and representing about 3% of the circulating supply. 

Sui Group aims to increase its holdings to 5% of the float through strategic acquisitions and partnerships.

Sui Group Raises Capital and Launches Yield-Bearing Stablecoin

The company secured approximately $450 million through a private investment in public equity (PIPE) transaction. Galaxy Digital serves as the custodian for these digital assets.

According to @martypartymusic, Sui Group is launching SuiUSDE, a yield-bearing stablecoin developed in collaboration with the Sui Foundation and Ethena. The stablecoin structure directs 90% of generated fees back to Sui Group and the foundation.

These funds will be used to purchase SUI tokens or support Sui-native decentralized finance protocols. Additionally, Sui Group has established a revenue-sharing agreement with Bluefin DEX.

The firm targets an effective yield of approximately 6% from its operations. Management has already repurchased 8.8% of outstanding shares while maintaining roughly $22 million in cash reserves.

The strategic positioning aims to establish Sui Group as the central economic actor within the Sui ecosystem. This approach combines treasury management with active participation in ecosystem development.

The company intends to generate sustainable returns through multiple revenue streams rather than passive token holding.

Protocol-Level Privacy Features Attract Institutional Capital

Sui blockchain is implementing protocol-level privacy features that differentiate it from competing networks. Unlike traditional blockchains, where complete wallet histories remain publicly visible, Sui’s new zero-knowledge proof architecture enables “Confidential DeFi” functionality.

Transaction details become hidden from public view while remaining verifiable for regulatory purposes. @Altcoinbuzzio reported that this architecture positions Sui as a “bank-friendly” high-performance ledger.

Institutional capital has responded positively to these developments. Weekly inflows reached $5.7 million during the current month.

The “S2” StackStack framework simplifies development operations for builders constructing applications on the network. This combination of privacy features and developer tools attracts both institutional investors and technical teams.

The privacy implementation moves beyond typical marketing narratives focused on competitor comparisons. Instead, the technical infrastructure addresses specific regulatory and institutional requirements.

Financial institutions require transaction privacy while maintaining compliance with reporting obligations. Sui’s zero-knowledge proof system provides this balance through cryptographic verification methods.

The convergence of Sui Group’s operating business model and the protocol’s privacy features creates a unique positioning.

Enterprise adoption often requires privacy guarantees that public blockchains traditionally cannot provide. However, regulatory frameworks demand transparency for compliance purposes.

These developments address both requirements simultaneously through technical innovation and strategic business structure.

The post SUI Group Shifts to Operating Business Model with $450M Raise and Protocol Privacy Launch appeared first on Blockonomi.

A Passaic County man has been sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for his role in a large-scale fentanyl distribution and money laundering conspiracy that involved the use of Bitcoin to pay overseas drug suppliers, according to the latest press release shared by the US Department of Justice.

William Panzera, 53, of North Haledon, New Jersey, was sentenced following his conviction for drug trafficking conspiracy and international promotional money laundering conspiracy.

Counterfeit Pills, Real Fentanyl

According to court documents and statements made in court, Panzera was a member of a drug trafficking organization responsible for importing and distributing hundreds of kilograms of fentanyl analogues and other controlled substances. Prosecutors said Panzera and his co-conspirators agreed to import and distribute fentanyl analogues, MDMA, methylone, and ketamine.

The drugs were sourced from suppliers in China and were distributed across New Jersey, both in bulk form and as counterfeit pharmaceutical pills that contained fentanyl analogues rather than legitimate medication.

Authorities said the conspiracy resulted in the importation of more than a metric ton of fentanyl-related substances and other drugs into the United States. To pay for the shipments, members of the organization sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to China using a combination of wire transfers and Bitcoin (BTC).

Panzera was convicted at trial in January 2025. The Justice Department stated that eight other defendants connected to the case have previously pleaded guilty.

Fentanyl Trafficking on Dark Web

This case comes as part of a broader crackdown on fentanyl trafficking and illicit drug networks coordinated by US and international authorities. In May 2025, the Department of Justice announced the results of Operation RapTor, a large-scale international law enforcement initiative targeting dark web drug markets.

The operation led to the arrest of 270 individuals worldwide and the seizure of more than $200 million in cash and digital assets.

According to the DOJ, the effort focused on vendors, buyers, and administrators involved in the online trafficking of opioids, particularly fentanyl, and other narcotics. Operation RapTor was conducted in coordination with law enforcement agencies from 10 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, and Brazil, and was described as the largest takedown in the history of the agency’s Joint Criminal Opioid and Darknet Enforcement (JCODE) team.

Authorities seized more than two metric tons of drugs, including 144 kilograms of fentanyl-laced substances, in addition to over 180 firearms. The investigation relied on intelligence gathered from previously dismantled darknet markets such as Nemesis and Tor2Door. The operation also saw the first use of sanctions by the Office of Foreign Assets Control as part of a JCODE action.

The post New Jersey Man Gets 12 Years After Using Bitcoin to Pay Chinese Fentanyl Suppliers appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Online gambling platforms linked to sanctioned guarantee networks have processed over 414 million USDT in revenue in less than two months, with millions flowing directly to major cryptocurrency exchanges.

New data from blockchain intelligence firm Bitrace shows how these operations continue at scale despite recent law enforcement actions against their payment providers.

Gambling Platforms Keep Operating After Huione-Linked Shutdowns

According to Bitrace’s investigation, a specific trio of crypto wallets, namely Huione Telegram Wallet, Wangbo Wallet, and HWZF (referring to both Huionepay and Overseaspay), act as the main settlement tools for gambling operations connected to the Huione and Tudou Guarantee platforms.

These Telegram-based guarantee markets were designed to facilitate transactions for goods and services but evolved into hubs for illicit activity, including scam operations and money laundering.

Bitrace revealed that online gambling platforms often join the platforms, which act as escrow-style marketplaces on Telegram. Once onboarded, the gambling sites integrate third-party crypto payment providers through Telegram mini apps, allowing players to deposit and withdraw funds without interacting directly with exchanges.

While Huionepay and Tudou Guarantee have already shut down, Bitrace pointed out that gambling platforms that depended on their services are still running and processing large volumes of crypto. The firm said these gambling-related entities received a combined 414 million USDT during a 53-day period, mainly through the Telegram-based payment tools.

Multiple intelligence sources cited by Bitrace linked Huione Telegram Wallet, Wangbo Wallet, and HWZF to fund settlement for gambling operations connected to Huione, Haowang, and Tudou Guarantee. The firm said Wangbo Wallet and Huionepay appear to share the same software backend, meaning user funds are pooled rather than kept separate.

Despite repeated warnings from payment providers advising users not to send funds directly to centralized exchanges, Bitrace tracked around 9 million USDT flowing straight into platforms such as Binance, OKX, and HTX during the same 53-day window. The firm said these transfers risk triggering compliance reviews, but are still moving regardless.

Telegram Markets and Exchanges Part of the Same Pipeline

The findings follow years of scrutiny on Huione Group, which U.S. authorities labeled a “primary money laundering concern” in October 2025 after a joint action by OFAC, FinCEN, and UK agencies. Prosecutors also unsealed charges and a $15 billion civil forfeiture case tied to Huione-linked operations.

Huione Guarantee, later rebranded as Haowang Guarantee, processed more than $24 billion in transactions before its shutdown in May 2025. After Telegram removed thousands of channels, vendors migrated to Tudou Guarantee, which absorbed much of the activity.

Investigations by Elliptic and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) show that these marketplaces support scam groups, money launderers, and online gambling operators using USDT for settlement. Even after sanctions, Huione-linked entities sent hundreds of millions of dollars through major exchanges between mid-2024 and mid-2025, ICIJ reported in November 2025.

Bitrace’s latest data suggests the same model remains active. Wallet branding changes, shared infrastructure, and Telegram-based tools allow gambling syndicates to keep collecting revenue while limiting direct exposure.

For exchanges and regulators, the continued flow of funds points to unresolved gaps between marketplace shutdowns, wallet providers, and exchange-level controls.

The post Inside the Crypto Laundering Networks of Gambling Syndicates appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ripple’s native cross-border token has joined the broader market in the past few hours, posting new losses that took it south to its 2026 starting position.

This means that the asset has plunged by almost 25% since January 6, when it peaked at over $2.40.

CryptoPotato reported earlier today that the latest uncertainty unravelling in the US, including the expected government shutdown, ongoing protests in some states, and tariff threats from the POTUS against Canada, has harmed the market.

At the time, BTC had dipped to $87,500, but it continued its descent to a new 2026 low of just under $87,000. Bitcoin’s crash took the altcoins with it, leaving over $300 million worth of liquidations in the past four hours alone.

XRP is no exception. The asset has dropped by 4.5% in the past 24 hours and more than 11% weekly. It slipped below $1.83 minutes ago, which became its lowest price tag since the start of the year.

Following its latest retracement, XRP plunged to important levels, as flagged by popular analyst ERGAG CRYPTO. In a new post on X, they argued that $1.75 is the asset’s first key defense, which is close to being tested.

This lower-range support could be pivotal in determining XRP’s short-term performance, as the analyst asked whether the next move is a “sweep and bounce or a breakdown” if that level is tapped.

#XRP – Sweep & Bounce or Breakdown?

Price just tagged the lower range support.
This is the decision zone.
Liquidity sweep scenario → V-shaped reclaim
Structure still intact above macro trendline
Breakdown only confirmed if we lose support with volume

Levels to watch:… pic.twitter.com/qj33Em0utS

— EGRAG CRYPTO (@egragcrypto) January 25, 2026

The post Ripple Price Warning: XRP Plummets to Critical Support as 2026 Gains Vanish appeared first on CryptoPotato.

After a relatively quiet weekend when neither the buyers nor the sellers could regain control, BTC’s price is once again heading south to a new multi-day low of well below $88,000.

The altcoins are in a similar situation, with ETH plunging beneath $2,900 and SOL dropping by over 2.5% in just an hour.

BREAKING: Bitcoin falls below $88,000 as $60 million worth of levered longs are liquidated in 30 minutes.

A government shutdown is now expected and President Trump has threatened 100% tariffs on Canada.

US stock market futures will open in less than 7 hours. pic.twitter.com/40GxrMdRTI

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 25, 2026

As the analysts from the Kobeissi Letter indicated, the most probable reasons behind the ongoing corrections are the expected US government shutdown after the Minneapolis shooting, which would be the second during Trump’s term now, and the tariffs the POTUS threatened to impose on Canada.

As reported yesterday, he warned that he may slap a 100% tariff on its northern neighbor if it chooses to sign a significant deal with China.

Similar to the events that took place during the previous weekend, BTC remained relatively stable at first but started to break down as the opening of the futures markets neared.

This time, BTC dumped to a five-day low of $87,500 (for now), after it was rejected at $89,000 earlier today. The past hour has been violent for most altcoins, with some, such as SUI, SOL, ARB, PEPE, ENA, and ADA, dropping by over 2%.

Ethereum has lost 1.5% of its value in the past 60 minutes alone and now struggles well below $2,900. The total value of wrecked positions in the past day sits at $250 million, but over 50% of that amount came in the last hour ($131 million, according to CoinGlass data).

Over 130,000 traders have been wrecked daily, with the single-largest liquidated position taking place on Hyperliquid and was worth $6.3 million.

The post Bitcoin Price Suddenly Plunges Below $88K as Hourly Liquidations Explode appeared first on CryptoPotato.

ARK Invest estimated in its “Big Ideas 2026” report that the market for smart contract networks and pure-play digital currencies could reach $28 trillion in total market value by 2030. The firm said these digital assets, which are used as stores of value, mediums of exchange, and units of account on public blockchains, could expand at an annual growth rate of about 61% through the end of the decade.

ARK projected that Bitcoin could account for roughly 70% of the overall market, while the remainder is expected to be dominated by smart contract networks such as Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL).

Bitcoin Leads ARK’s 2030 Outlook

Under ARK’s forecast, BTC’s market capitalization could rise at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 63% over the next few years, increasing from nearly $2 trillion to about $16 trillion by 2030.

The investment management firm estimated that the market capitalization of smart contract platforms could grow at a 54% annual rate to roughly $6 trillion by 2030, which is expected to be supported by annualized revenue of about $192 billion at an average take rate of 0.75%. ARK said two to three Layer 1 platforms could take most of that market.

Meanwhile, the US Bitcoin ETFs and public companies held 12% of the total bitcoin supply in 2025, up from 8.7% previously. The firm found that the ETF balances rose 19.7% during the year, increasing from about 1.12 million BTC to almost 1.3 million BTC.

Public company BTC holdings also expanded, after climbing 73% from around 598,000 BTC to approximately 1.09 million BTC.

ARK also observed that BTC’s risk-adjusted returns surpassed those of most other large-cap cryptocurrencies and indexes for most of 2025. It said bitcoin’s average yearly Sharpe Ratio exceeded that of ETH and SOL, and the average of the other nine components in the CoinDesk 10 Index since the latest cycle low in November 2022, the start of 2024, and the beginning of 2025.

It added that Bitcoin has become less volatile as it grows into a safe-haven role.

Only a Few Coins Will Survive?

Additionally, Layer 1 networks were also found to be evolving from revenue-generating platforms into monetary assets. Applying a high-growth revenue multiple of 50x to Ethereum’s network revenue, ARK estimated that more than 90% of Ethereum’s market value is attributed to its role as a monetary asset. On the other hand, ARK stated that Solana generated $1.4 billion in revenue, which means that around 90% of its valuation is driven by network utility.

The firm added that only a few digital assets will retain monetary properties and serve as liquid stores of value based on its research.

The post Bitcoin to $16 Trillion? ARK Says BTC Could Eat 70% of the Entire Crypto Market appeared first on CryptoPotato.