Polymarket leverages Pyth's oracle for precise pricing in prediction markets, enhancing asset trading with verified data integration.

The post Polymarket taps Pyth to power stock, commodity, and index prediction markets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Crypto markets face volatility due to heavy short positions and long-term holder selling, despite oil price changes easing inflation concerns.

The post Oil reversal and crowded shorts keep crypto traders on edge appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Circle's inaction during the Drift Protocol attack raises concerns about centralized stablecoin reliability and regulatory oversight effectiveness.

The post Circle took no action during Drift Protocol attack, says investigator appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The bridge collapse highlights Iran's infrastructure vulnerabilities, but market sentiment suggests limited immediate impact on regime stability.

The post Iran’s largest bridge collapses amid crisis appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Trump's diplomatic push may reduce military tensions, influencing market expectations and fostering potential regional stability shifts.

The post Trump urges Iran to make a deal before it is too late appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Coinbase Receives Conditional OCC Approval to Form National Trust Company

Coinbase has received conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish Coinbase National Trust Company, according to a statement from the company. 

The approval marks a regulatory milestone for Coinbase as it expands its federally supervised custody and market infrastructure operations.

The company emphasized that the approval does not authorize it to operate as a commercial bank. Coinbase stated it will not take retail deposits or engage in fractional reserve banking. Instead, the charter is intended to provide federal oversight for its custody business, which the firm says has been a core part of its operations for years.

Under the conditional approval framework, Coinbase will be required to meet specified regulatory conditions before the charter becomes fully operational. The company said it intends to use the structure to bring uniform federal standards to its digital asset custody services and related institutional infrastructure.

Coinbase framed the decision as validation of its long-standing approach of working within the U.S. regulatory system. The company said it has invested heavily in compliance and engagement with regulators and views the approval as part of a broader evolution in how digital asset firms interface with federal banking supervision.

The charter is expected to provide clearer regulatory consistency across jurisdictions, particularly for institutional custody services. Coinbase said it believes the structure could support future expansion into additional financial services, including payments-related products, while remaining within the bounds of trust company oversight.

OCC is adopting pro-crypto activities

Over the past year, federal banking regulators have taken a more active role in defining the perimeter of digital asset activities within the traditional financial system. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued updated guidance on how banks may engage with cryptocurrency custody, stablecoin-related services, and blockchain infrastructure, while continuing to evaluate applications from crypto-native firms seeking trust or banking charters.

Industry participants have pursued federal charters in part to reduce reliance on a patchwork of state licensing regimes and to gain clearer access to national banking rails. Trust bank structures, in particular, have become a focal point for firms seeking to offer custody services without engaging in lending or deposit-taking activities.

The OCC has adapted to institutional interest in regulated custody models and the growing overlap between traditional financial infrastructure and digital asset firms. Exchanges, custodians, and fintech firms have got federal oversight and support for institutional adoption and reduce regulatory uncertainty.

At the same time, policymakers have debated how far federal banking regulators should extend oversight into crypto-native business models, particularly as stablecoins and tokenized assets continue to integrate into payments and settlement systems. 

The conditional approval for Coinbase’s trust charter reflects this broader regulatory shift toward structured supervision rather than ad hoc enforcement.

If finalized, Coinbase’s national trust status would place it among a small number of crypto-linked firms operating under direct federal trust oversight, signaling continued convergence between digital asset infrastructure and the U.S. regulated banking system.

This post Coinbase Receives Conditional OCC Approval to Form National Trust Company first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Wall Street Firms and Crypto Companies to Review New Market Structure Proposal in Private Sessions

Crypto and banking industry representatives are set to review a revised stablecoin yield proposal crafted by Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks this week, as lawmakers attempt to break a months-long lobbying standoff over how — or whether — stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yield.

According to reporting from Politico, a small group of crypto firms and Wall Street institutions will privately review the updated legislative text over the next two days, with crypto companies expected to see the language as early as Thursday and banks on Friday. 

The process remains tightly controlled, with stakeholders permitted to view the draft only in restricted settings and barred from taking copies.

The revised proposal follows a series of staff-level negotiations between industry groups and Senate offices aimed at narrowing disagreements over stablecoin yield provisions. While some participants hope the latest draft will serve as a near-final compromise, it remains unclear whether either side will accept the terms as currently written.

Clarity Act and crypto talks are ongoing

The renewed review of a stablecoin yield proposal comes amid a broader effort in Congress to resolve one of the most contested issues in U.S. crypto regulation: whether stablecoin issuers should be permitted to offer yield-bearing products.

Stablecoins — digital tokens typically pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by cash and short-term securities — have become a core settlement layer in crypto markets, but their regulatory status remains unsettled, particularly around interest and yield.

The fight over a U.S. crypto market-structure bill stems from a broader effort to build on 2025’s landmark stablecoin legislation, the GENIUS Act, which established a federal framework for stablecoins — requiring full backing, transparency and reserve disclosures for digital dollars.

That law was widely seen in the crypto industry as a breakthrough for regulatory clarity while attempting to align digital assets with traditional financial standards.

After the GENIUS Act’s passage, the Senate turned its attention to more expansive digital asset oversight through what’s often referred to as the CLARITY Act or the crypto market-structure bill.

This legislation aims to define how U.S. regulators would police and oversee trading platforms, tokens, custody services and other infrastructure — essentially the backbone of a regulated digital asset ecosystem.

However, negotiations bogged down over one central issue: whether regulated exchanges should be allowed to offer yield-bearing rewards on stablecoin holdings.

Banks and major financial institutions argue that these rewards resemble unregulated deposit-like products that could siphon funds away from FDIC-insured accounts, potentially threatening lending and financial stability.

Crypto firms — including major issuers like Circle and Coinbase — counter that such incentives are crucial for competitive markets and for user adoption of digital money.

The current tentative deal being negotiated between senators and the White House seeks a middle ground — potentially allowing activity-based rewards while restricting passive yield — in hopes of unlocking Senate committee action by April. Whether that compromise holds both bank and crypto support will be decisive for the future of U.S. digital asset regulation.

This post Wall Street Firms and Crypto Companies to Review New Market Structure Proposal in Private Sessions first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

LNVPN Rebrands to Nadanada.me as Privacy Infrastructure Expands with Anonymous eSIMs and Lightning Payments

Offering anonymous eSIM data plans in over 200 countries, disposable and rental phone numbers for SMS verification, WireGuard VPN access and anonymous AI chat tools, LNVPN has outgrown its original brand. The company has grown into a full-spectrum privacy infrastructure service.

The company started in 2022 as LNVPN. It began as a proof-of-concept Lightning Network VPN built for the Oslo Freedom Forum after Alex Gladstein asked the team to create a Lightning-enabled VPN for activists in oppressive regimes. The original focus was short-term VPN access paid with Lightning, allowing users to buy service by the hour or day instead of monthly subscriptions.

The service grew quickly. Users liked the flexibility of short-term access without accounts or contracts. In 2023 the company won a price in the 2023 bolt.fun hackathon and added SMS verification services. Users pay a Lightning invoice for a disposable phone number and receive a one-time confirmation code. The system uses HODL invoices so that if the code does not arrive the payment is refunded automatically.

The company later introduced eSIM data plans available in more than 200 countries. Customers buy fixed data bundles that can activate anonymously. Rental phone numbers followed last November. These let users rent a unique phone number for three, six or nine months to receive unlimited SMS messages without creating an account. At present the rental numbers are available only in the United Kingdom, with United States numbers planned for May. The team also launched anonymous AI chat services that require no sign-up or login and are free to use. 

The name nadanada.me comes from the Spanish phrase for “nothing at all.” As the company stated, “What do we know about our users? Nada. What do we log? Nada. The name is the promise.”

This approach stands in contrast to traditional service providers that collect large amounts of user data, a practice that has led to repeated large-scale breaches at major corporations and government contractors. 

In November 2025, analytics provider Mixpanel was hacked, exposing names, email addresses and approximate location data of some OpenAI API users. In early 2025, U.S. government contractor Conduent suffered a ransomware attack that compromised personal and health records of more than 25 million Americans. In January 2026, cryptocurrency hardware wallet maker Ledger reported that customer names and contact information were exposed through a breach at its third-party payment processor Global-e. Such incidents frequently enable identity theft, as stolen personal details like names, emails, addresses and health or financial records can be used to open fraudulent accounts, file fake tax returns or impersonate victims.

Nadanada.me represents a new generation of privacy services integrated with Lightning in pay-as-you-go models that leave no trace on the financial system or the blockchain, in defense of user privacy.

This post LNVPN Rebrands to Nadanada.me as Privacy Infrastructure Expands with Anonymous eSIMs and Lightning Payments first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Continues Sliding as President Trump Signals Iran Escalation, Raising Risk of Drop Toward $60,000

Bitcoin price fell last night after President Donald Trump signaled a potential escalation in military action against Iran, triggering a broad pullback across global markets and raising questions about whether bitcoin price could test lower support levels.

The price of Bitcoin dropped nearly 4% within hours after Trump’s April 1 address, sliding to below $66,000 early April 2. The decline came as investors shifted away from risk assets following remarks that pointed to harder strikes in the coming weeks, with no timeline for de-escalation.

Equity markets also moved lower. The S&P 500 traded in negative territory, while Asia-Pacific equities reversed earlier gains. At the same time, oil prices surged, with Brent crude rising above $106 per barrel as traders priced in the possibility of prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a key global shipping route.

The move highlights how closely Bitcoin price is tracking traditional markets during periods of geopolitical stress. 

Data shows the 30-day correlation between Bitcoin price and the S&P 500 has climbed to around 0.75, indicating that institutional investors are treating the digital asset more like a high-growth technology proxy than a hedge.

Bitcoin price resilience 

Bitcoin had shown some resilience in recent weeks, ending March with a modest gain and snapping a multi-month losing streak. However, it remains down roughly 45% from its prior peak above $126,000, and demand indicators suggest continued pressure. 

From a technical perspective, Bitcoin is now approaching a key support range between $64,000 and $65,000. The level has held through several recent tests, but a break below it could open the door to a move toward $60,000, near the February low, according to Bitcoin Magazine Pro data.

On the upside, resistance sits around $68,000 and $70,000. Analysts say those levels need to be reclaimed to shift sentiment and support a recovery narrative. 

Until then, price action remains constrained by a pattern of lower highs that has developed since March.

Long-term holder data suggests the market may be moving through a late-stage bear cycle. Investors holding Bitcoin for six months or more now control about 80% of supply, approaching levels that have marked past market bottoms. 

Even so, previous cycles indicate that extended periods of sideways trading often follow before a sustained recovery begins.

On top of this, Bitcoin treasury firms and public companies are offloading BTC as prices fall, adding fresh pressure to the market as long-term holders turn into sellers. Companies including Riot Platforms, MARA Holdings, and Genius Group have trimmed holdings this week to raise liquidity and service balance sheets.

For now, Bitcoin’s reaction to geopolitical developments underscores its current role within the broader macro environment. 

As long as uncertainty around the Iran conflict persists, market direction may remain tied to shifts in risk sentiment rather than a return to the asset’s safe-haven narrative.

This post Bitcoin Price Continues Sliding as President Trump Signals Iran Escalation, Raising Risk of Drop Toward $60,000 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Treasuries Are Cracking as Public Companies Turn into BTC Sellers

A wave of bitcoin selling from public companies and sovereign entities is adding pressure to the bitcoin market, as firms that once called themselves long-term holders sit on long-term losses and move to shore up balance sheets, repay debt, and fund strategic pivots.

Companies including Riot Platforms, Genius Group, and Nakamoto Holdings have all reduced their bitcoin holdings this week, citing liquidity needs and operational priorities. 

The shift marks a drastic change from the accumulation trend that defined the past two years, when firms raced to build BTC treasuries during a period of rising prices.

Bitcoin HODL-ish

Empery Digital (EMPD) said it sold 370 BTC at an average price of $66,632, generating $24.7 million in proceeds. The company used part of the funds to repay its term loan and released about 1,800 BTC that had been held as collateral. 

Following the sale, Empery holds 2,989 BTC, down from a peak position of about 4,000 BTC built after it began accumulating in July 2025. Its shares have fallen 75% from a 2025 high of $15.80.

Genius Group (GNS), an AI-focused education company that once held as much as 440 BTC, has exited its BTC position. The firm sold its remaining 84 BTC to repay $8.5 million in debt, completing a series of reductions that began earlier this year. 

The company said it may rebuild its bitcoin treasury when market conditions improve.

Riot Platforms (RIOT), one of the largest publicly traded bitcoin miners in the U.S., has also been selling. Blockchain data tracked by Lookonchain indicates the company moved 500 BTC, worth about $34 million, to an exchange-linked address, suggesting a sale. This movement took place on April 1. 

The transaction follows roughly $200 million in bitcoin sales in the final months of 2025, as Riot shifts capital toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing infrastructure.

Other firms are merely tapping their holdings. Nakamoto Holdings (NAKA) sold 284 BTC for about $20 million in March, representing around 5% of its reserves. 

The company said the proceeds will support working capital and operations following acquisitions tied to its bitcoin-focused strategy. Nakamoto reported a pre-tax loss of $52.2 million for 2025, driven in part by a decline in the value of its digital assets.

Marathon Digital (MARA) has taken one of the largest steps. The miner sold 15,133 BTC between March 4 and March 25 for about $1.1 billion. It used the proceeds to repurchase $1 billion in convertible notes due in 2030 and 2031, reducing outstanding debt by about 30%. The move lowered its holdings to 38,689 BTC from 53,822 BTC at the start of the year.

The trend extends beyond corporate treasuries. Bhutan has continued to reduce its BTC holdings, selling a total of 3,103 BTC. A single transaction on March 30 accounted for 375 BTC, according to Glassnode data. 

The country had built its position through state-backed mining operations, reaching more than 13,000 BTC at its peak in October 2024.

Despite the recent selling, public companies still hold about 1.16 million BTC, or more than 5% of bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million, according to BitcoinTreasuries.net.

Bitcoin traded near $66,000 at the time of writing, down about 3% on the day.

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

This post Bitcoin Treasuries Are Cracking as Public Companies Turn into BTC Sellers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

XRP enters an identity crisis as oil, inflation fears, and dollar strength hit the market all at once

XRP has reached the hardest phase of the cycle. The asset spent much of the year carrying a cleaner institutional narrative than most large-cap altcoins.

CryptoSlate has already tracked institutional migration into Ripple-linked products, ETF resilience tied to Ripple’s expanding footprint, and the growing tension between XRPL adoption and token value capture. The setup has now tightened.

A sharp overnight jump in oil, stronger dollar conditions, and renewed inflation anxiety have pulled XRP into a macro test that feels more direct than the themes that carried it through the first quarter.

That shift came quickly. Following President Donald Trump’s latest remarks on Iran, AP reported that oil surged more than 6%, while a separate market wrap from Business Insider put Brent near $108.

Brent crude pushed to roughly $108, the U.S. Dollar Index climbed back to about 100, and Bitcoin slid toward $66,666.

XRP price held near $1.35 to $1.36, according to CryptoSlate data, though the weekly move still carried visible pressure. 24-hour volume is near $1.32 billion.

Why this matters: XRP’s core pitch hinges on stress in the global financial system. If higher costs, tighter liquidity, and cross-border friction are increasing, the token should be moving closer to its use-case value. Instead, it is still reacting like a high-beta asset, which raises a more practical question for investors: when does utility start to matter in price?

The connection to XRP runs deeper than broad crypto weakness. Bitcoin usually absorbs the first layer of geopolitical and liquidity shock. XRP sits closer to the payment, liquidity, and settlement conversation.

Ripple has spent months building that frame. The company’s GTreasury acquisition and subsequent Ripple Treasury launch widened its reach into corporate cash management, while earlier reporting on Ripple’s trust-bank ambitions and broader licensing footprint gave XRP holders a practical reason to view the asset through a financial-infrastructure lens.

That lens now cuts both ways. When oil climbs, freight and energy input costs rise, and inflation expectations stiffen, the case for faster, cheaper movement of money gains urgency.

The same macro shock also boosts the dollar, tightens financial conditions, and usually pushes risk assets into a tougher zone. XRP now sits at the intersection of those two forces.

The tension is direct because it touches household budgets, portfolio drawdowns, and the cost of moving capital across borders.

Oil and the dollar have turned XRP’s payments pitch into a real-time stress test

XRP’s use-case narrative has always leaned on efficiency. Cross-border transfers, on-demand liquidity, and enterprise settlement create a cleaner economic pitch when payment rails are under strain.

That pitch becomes easier to grasp during a week when the world suddenly has to price a higher energy bill, a firmer dollar, and the risk of another inflation impulse. The macro map on the chart is blunt.

Brent jumped, DXY rose, and Bitcoin rolled over. XRP followed the pressure lower through the week, even though its long-term pitch should, in theory, become more relevant as global money flows grow more expensive and more fragile.

That contradiction is the center of the setup. XRP rallied for much of this cycle on the idea that Ripple’s regulated expansion, enterprise positioning, and capital-market traction were building a more durable floor under the token.

CryptoSlate covered that process through pieces on institutional DeFi ambitions, legacy financial integration, and recent ETF flow softening. Those themes still carry weight.

They now face a harder question. If a stronger dollar and higher oil create deeper friction across the global economy, why has XRP behaved like a pressured altcoin instead of a market leader?

Part of the answer sits in the liquidity hierarchy. Bitcoin still commands the first response in macro stress, because it carries the deepest liquidity, the broadest institutional recognition, and the strongest reflex move during periods of geopolitical uncertainty.

XRP has a narrower lane. It needs investors to believe that utility can translate into token demand on a timeline that the market can price.

That challenge has shown up repeatedly in the split between Ripple’s business traction and XRPL activity and on XRP’s amplified beta during broad crypto drawdowns. The current move forces that same issue into a macro context.

Ripple can broaden into custody, treasury management, and regulated financial software, yet XRP still trades within a market structure that responds quickly to dollar strength and falling crypto risk appetite.

Bitcoin spent the last several sessions slipping back toward the mid-$66,000s, a visible loss of altitude from the higher zones traders had defended earlier in the week.

The dollar index reclaimed the 100 handle, a psychological level that usually feeds tighter global liquidity conditions. Brent then accelerated back above $108. XRP held around the mid-$1.30s.

That set of moves creates a clean economic message. Payment friction may be rising in the real world, but capital is still seeking safety before it seeks efficiency.

For XRP, that leaves the asset in an identity crisis. Its strongest fundamental narrative says a fractured, expensive, slow-moving global financial system should increase the value of its use case.

Its current market behavior suggests investors still classify it as part of the higher-beta branch of crypto exposure.

The coming macro calendar will press on XRP’s weakest seam

The coming week further compresses the issue, as the macro calendar offers three direct tests. The Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report arrives on Friday, April 3.

The Federal Reserve’s April calendar shows the minutes from the March 17-18 FOMC meeting arriving on Wednesday, April 8. The BLS release calendar then places March CPI on Friday, April 10.

Those releases land directly on top of the new oil shock. They will shape whether markets see the latest rise in energy as a temporary disruption or the start of another inflation leg that keeps policy tighter for longer.

XRP’s response to that sequence could define the next phase of its cycle. A hotter payrolls print would strengthen the view that labor conditions remain firm enough to keep the Federal Reserve cautious.

Hawkish signals in the minutes would add another layer of restraint. A hotter CPI print next Friday would confirm that the oil move has arrived inside an already sensitive inflation backdrop.

That combination usually supports the dollar and squeezes speculative assets. XRP would then enter a zone where every part of its identity gets tested at once.

The company behind it has spent months expanding its institutional reach. The token itself would still need to show that investors are willing to price it as a beneficiary of payment-system stress.

There is a sharper retail hook inside that setup. Many people understand inflation as the price of groceries, gasoline, travel, and borrowing.

Far fewer think about what a stronger dollar and higher energy costs do to cross-border settlements, corporate treasury decisions, and the movement of liquidity through financial rails. Ripple’s own enterprise push, as reflected in its treasury platform strategy, brings XRP closer to that conversation, whether the token captures all the value today or not.

That gap between corporate utility and token pricing is where the emotional trigger sits. People with market exposure can see oil jumping and Bitcoin sliding.

They can see the dollar catching a bid. The harder question then comes into focus: if the world is becoming more expensive and more fragmented, why is the best-known payments token still struggling to trade like a payment asset?

The answer over the next week may come down to acceptance levels in price and acceptance levels in narrative. If oil cools, DXY softens, and payrolls or CPI relieve some pressure, XRP has room to reclaim its enterprise-infrastructure frame, especially with Ripple’s broader footprint still giving investors a structural reason to stay engaged.

If oil holds firm, the dollar extends, and inflation anxiety deepens, XRP may keep trading as macro beta first and payments infrastructure second. That outcome would widen the contradiction between Ripple’s strategic progress and the token’s market role.

It would also leave holders facing a more uncomfortable conclusion. XRP has spent years being sold as a bridge asset for an imperfect global financial system.

A week of higher oil, stronger dollars, and tighter conditions offers a live test of whether the market actually believes that the bridge deserves a premium.

The post XRP’s use case should benefit from global stress, so why is price acting like a risk asset? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The CLARITY Act entered Washington as a bid to impose a durable market structure on crypto. It now sits at the center of a four-way fight over who gets to define that structure, who gets paid inside it, who supervises it, and how much of the existing financial rulebook survives the rewrite.

The bill still includes broad language for jurisdictional clarity, with the Senate Banking Committee majority outlining a framework that draws lines between the SEC and the CFTC while adding tailored disclosures and anti-fraud protections.

Around that frame, the coalition has fractured into four camps with different definitions of success. Senate and industry backers still want a federal market-structure bill that gives crypto firms a workable path into US regulation.

Bank-aligned critics want to seal off stablecoin yield and keep deposit economics from migrating out of the banking system. Regulators have begun moving through their own channels, with the SEC and CFTC signing a new memorandum of understanding and the SEC issuing a fresh interpretation of crypto assets that begins to deliver some of the clarity Congress had reserved for itself.

Structural critics still argue the bill would carve crypto out of core investor protections, a case advanced by groups such as Better Markets and by former CFTC Chair Timothy Massad in prior congressional testimony.

That collision changed the shape of the bill. What began as a question of statutory design has become a contest over bargaining power.

Each camp can slow the process, each camp can claim some version of consumer protection, and each camp enters the next phase with a different source of leverage. Senate and industry backers hold the broadest institutional ambition.

Why this matters: The CLARITY Act was intended to anchor crypto within US law, with clear rules for exchanges, tokens, and custody. If it stalls or narrows, firms remain in a patchwork regime shaped by enforcement and agency guidance, while banks retain tighter control over dollar-based financial activity. The outcome will determine whether crypto can compete directly with traditional deposits and payment rails, or operate inside a more constrained perimeter.

Related Reading

CLARITY Act deadline in weeks could kill stablecoin earnings and push money into Bitcoin

A Senate breakthrough on CLARITY could formalize a US market structure in which Bitcoin becomes the clearest institutional winner.

Mar 31, 2026 · Gino Matos

Banks and their allies hold a choke point around payments, economics, and stablecoin rewards. Regulators hold the power of partial substitution, because every piece of interpretive guidance from the SEC and CFTC narrows the pool of uncertainty that once made CLARITY the singular prize.

Structural critics hold a veto over the debate on legitimacy because their argument speaks to a long-standing Washington fear that crypto bills could create bespoke exemptions that would replace the exemptions older laws once carried.

The calendar tightened the pressure. In January, Senate Banking Chairman Tim Scott said the committee would postpone its markup while bipartisan negotiations continued.

Later that month, the Senate Agriculture Committee advanced related market-structure legislation, keeping momentum alive while underlining that the main bottleneck had shifted into the negotiating room.

By March, the fight over stablecoin rewards had become the central pressure point in the bill, with public reporting and congressional chatter converging on the same conclusion: a framework bill could move forward only if lawmakers found a way to reconcile crypto’s push for broader utility with banking concerns about disintermediation and deposit competition.

That left CLARITY in a familiar Washington posture, broad enough to attract coalitions in theory, specific enough to trigger fracture once the revenue lines came into view.

The first two camps are fighting over the economic core of the bill. The first camp still sees CLARITY as the vehicle that can finally anchor crypto market structure in federal statute.

That camp includes Senate Republicans who have spent months arguing that the industry needs rules written through Congress rather than through case-by-case enforcement, along with a large swath of the industry that wants a lawful path for token issuance, exchange activity, brokerage, custody, and participation in decentralized networks.

The core attraction has always been the same. A federal framework promises a clearer allocation of authority among agencies, a more predictable compliance process, and a narrower zone of ambiguity about what falls under securities law and what falls under commodities regulation.

The Senate Banking majority’s summary reflects that approach, leaning on the idea that a single framework can impose definitional order on a market that has spent years operating inside regulatory overlap.

For crypto firms, the appeal runs deeper than process. A statute holds out the prospect of capital formation under rules that institutions can underwrite, boards can sign off on, and legal teams can defend without having to rebuild the analysis around every enforcement cycle.

Yield politics turned CLARITY into a fight over the economics of digital dollars

The first camp’s ambition runs straight into the second camp, which has focused the fight around stablecoin yield and the economics of digital dollars. The Bank Policy Institute has made the bank-aligned position unusually plain.

Lawmakers, in that view, need to prevent stablecoin structures from recreating deposit-like products outside the traditional banking perimeter, especially if those products begin passing through rewards or yield that look and feel like interest. Under that logic, the danger is structural.

If tokenized dollars can offer returns or functionally similar incentives at scale, then commercial bank deposits face a new form of competition, payments activity migrates, and the prudential perimeter gets thinner exactly where regulators spent years trying to harden it. That is why the stablecoin rewards fight turned into the bill’s main choke point.

It is the place where market structure meets balance-sheet politics.

Those two camps can still describe their goals with overlapping language. Both can say they want consumer protection, operational integrity, and a framework that channels crypto activity into supervised forms.

The overlap ends when the discussion reaches who captures the economics created by digital dollars. The industry camp wants enough room for product development, distribution, and economic pass-through to make federally compliant crypto businesses worth building.

The bank-aligned camp wants a bright barrier around any feature set that could pull value from deposits into tokenized alternatives. That conflict reaches beyond one provision.

It shapes how lawmakers think about payments, exchange design, brokerage economics, wallet architecture, and the degree of freedom crypto firms would have to compete with institutions that already dominate dollar intermediation. Every concession made to one side tends to drain utility from the bill as imagined by the other.

The result is a negotiation whose formal subject is market structure and whose real center of gravity is control over monetary rails. That is why this phase of the CLARITY debate feels more compressed and more political than the earlier debate over jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction can be split in text. Economic control creates winners and losers with organized lobbies, committee relationships, and a direct financial interest in the final wording.

The first camp still wants a durable federal framework. The second camp wants that framework shaped tightly enough that it does not redraw the economics of digital money in a way that benefits crypto firms at the expense of banks.

Both camps can live with progress. Each one defines progress differently, and that difference is what keeps the bill from moving forward.

The third camp sits within the regulatory apparatus itself and introduced a fresh complication into the bill by moving ahead with practical coordination and interpretive guidance. On March 11, the SEC and CFTC announced a new memorandum of understanding designed to improve coordination on crypto oversight.

Days later, on March 17, the SEC issued a new interpretation clarifying how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets, with the CFTC aligning publicly with the effort. By March 20, the CFTC had added crypto-related FAQs that continued the same line of work.

Those actions did not write a statute, and they did not resolve every contested edge case, yet they changed the terrain around CLARITY in a way lawmakers can feel. Congress had been negotiating a bill designed to provide clarity.

Regulators started supplying pieces of that clarity themselves.

Regulators are shaping the field while structural critics keep the legitimacy fight alive

That shift created two immediate effects. First, it gave industry participants some of the operational breathing room they had been seeking, particularly regarding how certain crypto activities are analyzed through the lens of securities law.

Legal practitioners quickly seized on the importance of the change. In a March 19 analysis, Katten described the SEC and CFTC guidance as a major event for the sector, pointing to a more legible treatment of activities such as airdrops, mining, staking, and wrapping.

Second, the guidance changed congressional leverage. Every increment of clarity delivered through agency action reduces the urgency that once surrounded CLARITY as the exclusive route to order.

That creates a subtle but powerful dynamic. A bill under pressure usually gains energy from scarcity.

Once regulators start producing partial substitutes, lawmakers face a harder sell when they ask wavering factions to make politically costly concessions in the name of a breakthrough.

That shift does not weaken the case for statute across the board. A regulatory interpretation sits lower in the durability hierarchy than a congressional framework, and industry participants with long investment horizons still prefer statutory architecture to agency guidance.

Yet the third camp need not erase the case for CLARITY to affect the negotiation. It only needs to be shown that immediate passage is the only way to restore order.

That is already happening. The more the agencies coordinate, the easier it becomes for lawmakers to accept delay, narrower text, or a compromise version of the bill that settles the most acute fights while leaving some larger structural ambitions for another cycle.

For some senators, that can feel like prudence. For some industry players, it can feel like the center of the bill is being negotiated away in real time.

The regulatory camp also exerts pressure in a second way. It offers a political release valve.

Lawmakers who want to say Washington is making progress on crypto can point to the SEC and CFTC without forcing immediate resolution of every issue inside CLARITY. That lowers the cost of postponement and raises the threshold for what kind of final agreement is worth bringing to the floor.

A bill that once looked indispensable now has to demonstrate added value against the backdrop of agency-led adaptation. That is a difficult standard, especially for a coalition already carrying internal conflict over stablecoin rewards, federal preemption, DeFi treatment, and investor-protection language.

The fourth camp continues to ask the question that lies beneath every crypto bill in Washington: Does this framework integrate the sector into existing law, or does it carve out a special lane that weakens protections the rest of finance still carries?

That concern has animated groups such as Better Markets and has appeared in prior testimony from former CFTC Chair Timothy Massad, who argued that proposals such as CLARITY can create artificial distinctions between securities and commodities in ways that reduce the reach of investor protections.

This camp does not have to win the whole argument to shape the bill. It only has to keep the legitimacy challenge alive.

Once that challenge enters the center of the debate, every provision gets viewed through a second lens. A disclosure regime becomes a question about whether disclosure replaces stronger obligations.

A jurisdictional transfer becomes a question about whether oversight is being softened through classification. A pathway for token markets becomes a question about whether the path relies on exemptions that older sectors would never receive.

This is where the four camps collide most sharply. Senate and industry backers want a framework that firms can use at scale.

Bank-aligned critics want to close off yield dynamics that could pressure deposits and payments economics. Regulators are already showing that some clarity can emerge through agency action, reducing the pressure to accept a broad legislative bargain on weak terms.

Structural critics keep pushing on the question of whether the bill preserves the integrity of long-standing protections. A compromise that satisfies the first camp by preserving broad utility may alarm the second and fourth camps.

A compromise that satisfies the second and fourth camps by tightening the perimeter may leave the first camp with a framework that carries less strategic value. A compromise that leans heavily on regulator-led clarity may satisfy lawmakers seeking incremental progress while leaving industry participants with a less durable settlement.

That is why the final question has become a matter of coalition arithmetic rather than conceptual agreement. All four camps can say they want order.

Their conditions for the order point are in different directions.

Midterm pressure is turning a policy negotiation into coalition arithmetic

The midterm calendar sharpens every one of those contradictions. November imposes deadlines on attention, legislative bandwidth, and political appetite for complex financial legislation, generating cross-pressures within both parties.

As the calendar advances, the value of waiting rises for any camp that thinks the current bargain costs too much. Banks can wait if the alternative is stablecoin economics they dislike.

Structural critics can wait if the alternative is a framework they view as too permissive. Regulators can keep moving within their own lane.

Industry groups can keep arguing that delay carries a cost, yet that message weakens if the agencies continue to supply enough guidance to keep large parts of the market functioning.

The coalition that can pass CLARITY, therefore, needs more than a shared talking point around clarity. It needs a settlement that provides the first camp with enough usable structure, the second camp with enough protection around dollar economics, the third camp with a role that fits the statute rather than competes with it, and the fourth camp with enough assurance that core protections remain intact.

That path is narrow. It is still navigable, although the room for error has tightened.

A workable reconciliation would likely require lawmakers to frame the bill less as a maximal rewrite and more as a disciplined allocation of authority, paired with narrow guardrails on stablecoin rewards and stronger language on anti-fraud, disclosure, and supervisory obligations. Even then, the politics stay hard.

Each camp would have to accept a result that falls short of its preferred endpoint. The first camp would accept tighter limits than many crypto firms want.

The second camp would accept a federal framework that still gives compliant crypto business lines room to grow. The third camp would accept that agency guidance is a bridge into statute rather than a substitute for it.

The fourth camp would accept that integration can occur without dismantling the regulatory perimeter. Whether that bargain is possible before November is now the central test around CLARITY.

The bill can still move. The harder question is whether these four camps can converge on a version of movement that each side can live with once the votes are counted.

The post A four-way deadlock is now blocking the US Clarity Act crypto bill — and each side can stop it appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin spent the past 24 hours returning to the key levels on my channel map rather than continuing its breakout. It tested a boundary, failed to convert that test into acceptance, and rotated lower into the next pocket of support memory.

Bitcoin price slid from the upper $68,000s and low $69,000s to around $66,400 by late morning in Europe on April 2. The 24-hour move came in at roughly 3%, with the high near $69,170 and the low near $66,218.

Over 48 hours, the net change stayed close to flat, yet the path inside that window shifted the balance of the chart lower. Price gave up the white shelf near $66,894, rejected a retest, and left the market trading beneath a level that had previously held the local structure together.

Why this matters: What changed is not just the price move but the level it broke. Bitcoin lost a support zone that had been holding the recent structure together, and failed to reclaim it on the first retest. At the same time, the dollar and oil moved higher together, a combination that tends to pressure liquidity and risk appetite. That pairing raises the bar for any immediate recovery and puts the next lower support zones back into focus.

That pattern sits squarely inside the 2024 channel framework, first laid out in Bitcoin channel predictions, aligning with market movements over 6 months. The premise was simple and practical.

Repeating close prices on the 30-minute chart can identify where leverage, stop placement, and spot liquidity tend to cluster. Those shelves have kept showing up at the turning points.

They have framed rebounds, capped rallies, and guided the path between them with more consistency than many of the more elaborate narratives built around Bitcoin.

The last two days developed in three steps. First, Bitcoin spent time in the upper half of the near-term range, pushing back toward the yellow boundary near $67,995.

Second, the move stalled before any real acceptance could build above that shelf. Third, the chart rolled over sharply and carried price through the white line at $66,894 before finding a temporary footing in the mid $66,000s.

That sequence shows where control sits right now. Buyers still have a path back into the range, though that path starts with repair.

Price needs a reclaim of $66,894, then a push back through $67,995, before the structure looks constructive again.

Bitcoin lost the shelf it needed to hold, and the near-term structure turned lower

The same logic that led Bitcoin to fail 7 times to break $71,500. Repeated failure at a level adds weight to the next test.

A ceiling becomes a lid when sellers step down and meet price earlier, and a floor becomes vulnerable when buyers lose the urgency to defend it on first contact. In that February piece, the key level was $71,500, with the next friction zones above at around $72,000 and then $73,700 to $73,800.

Below, I flagged the same shelves visible on the current chart: $68,000, then $66,900, with deeper support in the low $61,000s. That ladder remains intact today.

The difference is that Bitcoin has now moved one rung lower.

The practical sequence is straightforward. The market had room to recover while it held above the white shelf.

Once it lost that level and failed the retest, the burden shifted to buyers to prove that the drop was a flush rather than a new acceptance at a lower level. So far, the rebound has lacked authority.

A brief pop back toward the broken shelf printed the kind of weak retest that usually accompanies a market still under pressure. The candles after the drop look smaller, the bounce looks labored, and the range compression is taking place under resistance rather than above support.

The 24-hour numbers reinforce that view. Bitcoin fell around 3.02% from the close 24 hours earlier, while the 48-hour change stayed only marginally positive.

That combination often appears when a market has spent one day building a base and the next day giving it back. In other words, the chart preserved the wider range while damaging the near-term structure.

For a general audience, that distinction keeps the analysis anchored to thresholds rather than emotion. The market remains inside a ladder of known shelves.

It has moved from one shelf to the next. The immediate job for bulls is to recover $66,894, then $67,995.

The immediate risk for anyone leaning bullish is that continued trading below those levels draws attention to the lower white boundary around $61,726.

That lower target should already be familiar from my original channel work, where the channels were built to identify support and resistance rather than force a single directional call. It also lines up with the roadmap in “Bitcoin to $73k? Be prepared with the price levels to watch during a bear market“, where the key point was to treat lower shelves as historical liquidity pools.

The chart here fits that framework closely. Bitcoin is trading beneath a broken support shelf, and the next meaningful repair level sits above the current price.

Until that changes, the burden of proof remains on the upside.

Support memory still follows the same channel logic that shaped the earlier calls

These levels have held up well because they are built from where the market repeatedly closed, paused, and built positioning. Some zones carry memory because they spent hours or days there.

Other zones looked dramatic on the way up or down, yet offered weaker support because Bitcoin moved through them quickly, and the market built less inventory there.

That distinction shaped my October 2024 analysis in “Above the all-time high of $73.7k these could be the new resistance levels to watch”, where I argued that Bitcoin was trading at the top of a core price channel between $67.9k and $71.5k and that the zone between $71.5k and $73.7k had relatively little historical price action.

The implication was clear. Above the well-traded shelf, the market entered thinner territory where movement could become more abrupt.

The same logic applied later on the downside. In “It’s foolish to pretend Bitcoin’s story doesn’t include $79k this year”, I described the green band around $79,000 as a more substantial region because Bitcoin had spent time consolidating there during earlier legs of the cycle.

Below that sat the deeper structural supports in the red and blue channels, roughly $49,000 to $56,000, the area Bitcoin defended repeatedly before the move toward six figures. Then, in “Akiba’s medium-term $49k Bitcoin bear thesis – why this winter will be the shortest yet“, I framed $49,000 as a cyclical support case tied to miner stress, fee share, hashprice, and ETF flow elasticity.

Those longer-horizon calls operate on a different scale than the current 30-minute move, though they all rely on the same discipline: identify the shelf, assess how well the price is holding it, and define the next level that becomes relevant when it breaks.

The current move fits that sequence cleanly. Bitcoin approached the lower yellow boundary near $67,995 and could not hold it.

It then slid beneath the white shelf near $66,894. A 30-minute breakdown candle early on April 2 accelerated the move from the high $68,000s into the upper $67,000s, and follow-through selling pulled the price down toward the low $66,000s.

Once there, the market printed a small rebound and then drifted sideways beneath broken support. That behavior usually signals a market still negotiating lower inventory rather than preparing for an immediate reversal.

Anyone following the latter channel work through the six-figure phase will recognize the same design principle in “Bull or Bear? Today’s $106k retest decided Bitcoin’s fate” and “Bitcoin price next move: $92k or $79k? Let’s break it down”. The exact prices changed as Bitcoin moved through new territory, yet the method stayed the same.

A retest that holds opens the next band. A retest that fails hands control to the lower shelf.

The current chart falls into the second category. Price still sits below the broken shelf, which keeps the lower ladder in play.

Dollar strength and higher oil arrived at the same time as the breakdown, leaving reclaim levels above and deeper support below

The broader market context over the last 24 to 48 hours adds another layer to the chart. Alongside Bitcoin moving lower, the comparison view showed the U.S. Dollar Index rebounding above 100 while Brent crude pushed toward $108.

That combination tightens conditions around risk assets. A firmer dollar usually weighs on global liquidity at the margin, and higher oil prices can amplify inflation concerns, rate sensitivity, and geopolitical caution.

Bitcoin tends to trade with greater friction when both markets are moving in the same direction, against a softer risk backdrop.

That setting sits comfortably inside the framework of the later channel pieces. In the $79k piece, I wrote that liquidity could become the problem if ETF outflows intensified and risk appetite faded.

In the $49k bear thesis, I argued that negative 20-day ETF flows, alongside weaker miner economics, would increase the probability of sharper downside legs. In the seven failures at $71,500 analysis, I pointed to a macro environment where yields remained high enough to keep conditions tight.

The current move reflects that same type of pressure from a shorter time frame; a structurally important shelf gave way while the macro backdrop offered little relief.

For the practical map, the levels now do the heavy lifting. Resistance begins with $66,894, then expands to $67,995.

If Bitcoin regains both and spends time above them, the near-term damage begins to heal, and the next higher levels come back into view: $71,523, then $72,017, then the pair around $73,519 and $73,764, and then the upper extension near $77,056. Those higher levels are already familiar from the price discovery work above the old all-time high.

Support begins with the intraday low in the low $66,000s, though the stronger structural memory sits much lower, near $61,726. That leaves Bitcoin in a narrow but important condition.

It is close enough to reclaim broken support if buyers return with urgency, and close enough to invite a deeper sweep if they do not.

The conclusion remains the same one the chart has been offering since these channels were first drawn in early 2024. Bitcoin respects shelves until one gives way, and when one breaks, the next shelf tends to become the destination.

Over the last 24 hours, Bitcoin lost the shelf it needed to hold to keep the bounce credible. Over the last 48 hours, it preserved the wider range while shifting the short-term structure lower.

The next move now hinges on whether the price can climb back above $66,894 and $67,995 quickly enough to change the feel of the chart. Failing that, the lower white boundary near $61,726 moves back into focus as the next serious test on the ladder.

The post Bitcoin breaks critical support as dollar and oil move together, raising risk of a deeper drop appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Treasury's first proposed GENIUS rule landed on April 1 as a notice of proposed rulemaking.

The text inside it builds the operational architecture for US stablecoin governance, addressing which institutions may issue payment stablecoins, under what conditions, and at what scale before federal oversight becomes mandatory.

Why this matters: This shifts stablecoins from a fragmented regulatory patchwork toward a nationally coordinated system. For users, it affects how safely dollars can be redeemed and moved. For issuers, it defines whether they can scale independently or must transition into a federal regime as they grow.

By defining when a state licensing regime qualifies as “substantially similar” to the federal framework, Treasury is now defining those terms.

The stablecoin market already holds roughly $316 billion, with USDT accounting for about 58% of the supply, per DeFiLlama.

Retail-sized volume for USDC, USDT, and PYUSD grew from $500 million to $69.8 billion between 2019 and 2025. FSOC's 2025 annual report described the GENIUS framework as a federal prudential system designed to onshore stablecoin innovation, protect holders in the event of insolvency, and support the US dollar's international role.

Treasury's NPRM now shows how that prudential vision operates on the ground.

Related Reading

Trump signs GENIUS Act into law, activating America's first regulatory framework for stablecoins

In addition to sign the stablecoin framework into law, Trump vowed to approve the market structure bill next.

Jul 18, 2025 · Gino Matos

The hidden fight over who governs

The Treasury chairs the interagency review committee that certifies state stablecoin regimes, which includes leadership from the Fed and the FDIC.

That committee's judgment rests on the “substantially similar” test, and Treasury's proposal defines that test to include the GENIUS Act itself, as well as the implementing regulations and interpretations issued by federal agencies over time.

Treasury says that substantial similarity would be hard to administer, and state and federal standards could “starkly deviate.”

As OCC, Treasury, the Fed, FinCEN, and OFAC add implementing rules, the standard Washington uses to measure states shifts with them. State regimes approved today must track a benchmark that Washington keeps building.

Treasury organizes the rule around two categories. The first, called uniform, covers the parts that establish trust in the instrument itself: reserve assets, redemption, monthly reserve publication, limits on rehypothecation, accountant examinations, BSA/sanctions compliance, lawful-order capability, and core activity limits.

State implementation of each uniform requirement must be consistent with the federal framework “in all substantive respects,” with no material deviations in definitions or scope. For BSA and sanctions specifically, states must cross-reference federal rules directly, with no room for state-drafted substitutes.

The second category allows calibration around some capital, liquidity, reserve diversification, risk management, applications, licensing, and certain redemption mechanics. Treasury still constrains that room, and state choices in the flexible bucket must produce outcomes “at least as stringent and protective” as the federal framework.

For example, a state may allow additional reserve assets only if the OCC has already approved them as similarly liquid federal government-issued assets. That is federal pre-clearance administered through state paperwork.

The $10 billion ceiling and what it produces

The GENIUS Act caps the state option at issuers with no more than $10 billion in consolidated outstanding payment stablecoins.

Treasury adds that state transition rules cannot impede a move to federal oversight once an issuer crosses that line, and issuers in a state that fails certification must either stop issuing payment stablecoins or move into the federal licensing framework.

The $10 billion ceiling is the structural tell, since the state lane functions as an entry point for smaller issuers. At scale, the federal framework becomes the only durable home.

Citi's updated 2026 forecast puts its base-case estimate for the 2030 stablecoin market at $1.9 trillion. Standard Chartered projected the market could reach $2 trillion by the end of 2028.

Related Reading

Treasury’s $2 trillion stablecoin vision meets a reality check as USD1 depegs

Binance controls most USD1 liquidity, so a rumor there could turn minutes of pain into something far uglier.

Feb 24, 2026 · Gino Matos

A market at that scale runs on uniform reserve, redemption, and compliance standards and rewards issuers capable of absorbing national-style regulatory overhead.

Visa's concentration data already reflects the current destination: as of October 2025, more than 97% of the stablecoin supply had converged on USDT and USDC. Treasury's design standardizes the conditions that large, compliant issuers are already built to meet.

Standard Chartered estimated stablecoins could pull roughly $500 billion in deposits out of US banks by the end of 2028.

The number frames the context correctly: stablecoins are becoming claims on dollar liquidity that sit alongside traditional bank deposits, and the institution that governs the terms of stablecoin issuance governs an expanding piece of dollar infrastructure.

Treasury's proposal positions Washington as that institution.

Two paths through the same architecture

The bull case runs from clarity to scale. Uniform national rules on reserves, redemption, and compliance remove the uncertainty that has kept banks, card networks, and enterprise treasury teams cautious about deep integration with stablecoins.

Along that path, supply tracks toward the Citi and Standard Chartered forecasts, Visa's 130-plus card programs are overlaid on stablecoin wallets, and the state lane serves as a launch ramp for smaller issuers before they graduate to federal supervision.

Treasury's tight architecture then reads as the operating manual for US digital dollar expansion, which is a framework that made the market credible enough to absorb institutional demand at scale.

The bear case runs the same architecture in reverse. The forthcoming BSA/AML and lawful order rules, which both Treasury and the OCC have flagged as still pending in separate rulemakings, could entail heavy operational requirements.

If certification proves slow, costly, or politically fraught, smaller issuers may find the state lane functionally inaccessible even before they approach the $10 billion threshold.

The result would be a market that is legally cleaner but structurally oligopolistic, with innovation relocating to distribution and infrastructure, away from issuance.

Treasury frames a different goal. The predictable market response to high uniform compliance floors and a hard ceiling on state-lane scale is concentration, and Visa's existing market data shows the market was already moving in that direction before the rule arrived.

Washington holds the baseline

This NPRM is part of a larger regulatory framework. OCC's February proposal covered the required GENIUS regulations, except those tied to BSA, AML, and OFAC sanctions, which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking coordinated with Treasury.

Treasury's own NPRM flags that rules on lawful-order compliance are forthcoming as well. The full compliance map for stablecoin issuers awaits completion.

The $316 billion market and $10 trillion transaction volume settled the question of stablecoins belonging in the US finance. Treasury is deciding who gets to shape them as they enter it.

The first proposed GENIUS rule makes the answer clear: Washington accepts state participation in stablecoin issuance within a federal architecture that the Treasury continues to build, on Washington's terms.

The post US Treasury’s first GENIUS rule now redraws who controls stablecoins at scale appeared first on CryptoSlate.

On Mar. 31, Moody's assigned provisional Ba2 ratings to up to $100 million in taxable revenue bonds for the Waverose Finance Project. The bonds are secured by a loan to NH CleanSpark Borrower Trust 2026-1, with Bitcoin (BTC) as the pledged collateral.

Those numbers set the conditions under which traditional finance agreed to work with Bitcoin at all: 72.06 cents of credit for every dollar of collateral value, a two-day exposure window to act on price moves, and 1.60x initial collateral coverage, which forces action when it drops to 1.40x.

Bitcoin has spent years auditioning for legitimacy as a store of value, a corporate treasury reserve, and an ETF asset. The New Hampshire deal points to Bitcoin as collateral.

Collateral is where an asset earns credit utility, something institutions can borrow against inside structures that credit markets can understand, price, and, when necessary, liquidate fast. That is the line Bitcoin just crossed.

Why this matters: This is the first time Bitcoin has been formally translated into credit terms that public markets understand. Instead of being held or traded, BTC is now being assigned a borrowing value, a liquidation threshold, and a stress price, turning it from an asset into usable financial collateral. That shift opens a new source of liquidity for holders, but also introduces a system where price drops can trigger automatic selling across multiple structures at once.

The opening price of trust

The Waverose structure is a taxable conduit revenue bond.

New Hampshire’s role ends at the conduit, and bondholders carry all loss risk. This is limited-recourse, institutional plumbing.

Two things follow from that structure. First, it keeps risk quarantined: if the collateral breaks down, bondholders absorb the loss. Second, it lays out the precise terms on which traditional finance decided Bitcoin could enter the credit system.

At 1.60x initial collateral coverage, the bond starts with debt equal to about 62.5% of collateral value. The 1.40x trigger, at which automatic action kicks in, implies a debt of roughly 71.4%.

The structure hits its wire trip when BTC falls by approximately 12.5% from issuance pricing, a move Bitcoin has executed routinely.

Moody's stressed the collateral value at 72.06% of the market price. Mapped to Bitcoin's Apr. 1 price in the $68,000 zone, the stress zone lands near $49,600.

Standard Chartered put its near-term bear case for Bitcoin at $50,000, and the traditional finance firms calibrated their first public finance haircut on Bitcoin almost exactly on top of a downside path that one of the world's largest banks still considers reachable.

From owned to pledged

New Hampshire arrived alongside two other recent moves pointing in the same direction.

In February, S&P assigned the first-ever rating to a structured finance transaction backed by Bitcoin. The transaction was the Ledn Issuer Trust 2026-1, with roughly $199.1 million in loans secured by 4,078.87 BTC, carrying a fair market value of approximately $356.9 million, implying an LTV of about 55.8% at inception.

In March, Better and Coinbase launched what they called the first crypto-backed conforming mortgage, in which a borrower pledges $250,000 in BTC to fund a $100,000 down payment, while the first lien stays Fannie Mae-backed.

Bitcoin received three credit wrappers in roughly six weeks, each with different haircuts, liquidation mechanics, and regulatory constraints. Together, they describe a process in which Bitcoin enters credit markets through multiple doors at once, and those doors are edging closer to ordinary household finance.

The US municipal market carried $4.4 trillion in outstanding bonds as of the fourth quarter of 2025. Households held 48% directly and about 21% through mutual funds.

Munis occupy a specific psychological slot in American savings culture, sitting where advisors park money for clients who want safety adjacent to tax efficiency.

The Waverose bond lands in the taxable conduit corner. Taxable muni issuance ran only about $33 billion in 2025, less than 6% of the market total. At $100 million, this deal represents roughly 0.0023% of the outstanding muni market.

One mechanism for two potential futures

For Bitcoin holders and treasury-heavy firms, collateral utility cuts in opposite directions depending on where the price goes.

Strategy held 762,099 BTC as of Mar. 31. Between Mar. 4 and 25, MARA sold 15,133 BTC for about $1.1 billion to fund a debt repurchase, which were outright spot sales to cover a balance sheet obligation.

A functioning BTC-collateral market sits between the two postures of full accumulation and outright liquidation, while providing credit against reserves that lets holders raise capital while keeping their Bitcoin position.

Fidelity noted in March that public companies and ETFs together hold roughly 12% of Bitcoin's circulating supply, and that 2025 was Bitcoin's least volatile year on record, based on annualized realized volatility.

If that holds and Bitcoin trades toward the $100,000-$150,000 range Bernstein projected for late 2026, the collateral channel becomes genuinely attractive. BTC-rich firms carry large reserves at lower realized volatility, lenders build confidence in liquidation assumptions, and the haircut required to access credit shrinks across successive deal cycles.

Each rated transaction adds data to Bitcoin's nearly empty track record as pledged collateral. A second deal, a third, a cluster, and the pricing of trust starts to compress.

The bear case runs through the opposite direction of the same mechanism. Bitcoin revisiting $50,000, near Standard Chartered's downside projection and close to the Moody's stress zone from current prices, turns the operational question live.

Firms start to wonder whether the liquidation mechanics work cleanly when every BTC-backed structure needs to exit at once.

S&P's rating work on the Ledn ABS flagged operational and counterparty risk, event risk, and liquidation mechanics as the core uncertainties for Bitcoin-backed credit. It noted the market's ability to absorb forced selling from multiple structures tripping triggers inside the same price window.

A structure that reduces forced selling in calm markets can concentrate it in turbulent ones. That is the inherent geometry of collateralized credit, and Bitcoin's volatility makes the geometry sharper than it would be for any conventional pledged asset.

The first version of Bitcoin-backed public finance is small, speculative-grade, and built for taxable conduit territory. The architecture is constrained because those constraints were the only terms on which the credit system would engage.

What Moody's released on Mar. 31 was a pricing schedule for Bitcoin's entry into credit markets: the conditions under which bond investors set for accepting it as collateral.

Future deals will be negotiated on that schedule, tightening haircuts if volatility falls, widening them if it rises, testing different custody arrangements, and pushing toward the investment-grade boundary.

Each iteration adds institutional memory to a market that currently has almost none.

Bitcoin took years to become something institutions could buy through regulated channels. Becoming something they can lend against will follow the same logic of incremental, conditional growth, built on an accumulating track record.

The post Moody’s prices Bitcoin at a 28% haircut — and sets the trigger for forced selling appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin ($BTC) plummeted below the critical $66,000 threshold on April 2, 2026. This sudden downward movement has sent shockwaves through the derivatives market, resulting in the liquidation of over $251,940,000 worth of long positions within the last 24 hours.

Why is Bitcoin Dropping Today?

The current decline is fueled by a "perfect storm" of fundamental and technical factors. Reports indicate that rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and a hawkish shift in U.S. trade policy—specifically recent tariff announcements—have pushed investors toward a "risk-off" stance.

Furthermore, institutional demand through spot $Bitcoin ETFs has cooled significantly. Data shows net outflows exceeding $170 million in recent sessions, suggesting that the aggressive buying pressure seen in previous months is tapering off. This lack of immediate demand has left the market vulnerable to the "long squeeze" we are currently witnessing.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: Why is Bitcoin Down?

Analyzing the 4-hour chart of BTC/USD, several bearish signals are evident that traders should monitor closely.

1. The Descending Resistance Line

A prominent yellow trend line (descending resistance) has been capping Bitcoin's price action since mid-March. Every attempt to break above this line has been met with aggressive selling pressure. As of April 2, Bitcoin remains trapped beneath this diagonal resistance, currently situated near the $67,500 – $68,000 zone.

2. Immediate Support Levels

Bitcoin is currently testing a horizontal support zone identified on the chart at $65,581.

• Crucial Support: The $65,500 – $65,800 range is acting as the primary line of defense for bulls.
• Secondary Target: If $65,500 fails to hold, the next significant psychological and technical floor is at $63,000.

3. RSI and Momentum

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) is currently hovering around 38.02. This indicates that while the market is approaching "oversold" territory (typically below 30), there is still room for further downside before a relief bounce becomes a high-probability event. The momentum is clearly in favor of the bears in the short term.

Market Sentiment and Liquidation Heatmap

The $251 million in long liquidations suggests that many retail traders were positioned for a breakout that failed to materialize. When these positions are forcibly closed (liquidated), it adds "sell-side" pressure to the market, often leading to a cascading effect where the price drops further, hitting more stop-losses.

According to data from CoinGlass, the majority of these liquidations occurred on major exchanges like Binance and OKX.

Bitcoin Future Outlook: Bull Trap or Consolidation?

The big question is whether this is a "healthy correction" before a move toward $100,000 or the start of a deeper bearish phase. For a bullish reversal to be confirmed, Bitcoin must:

• Hold the $65,500 support on a daily closing basis.
• Break out above the yellow descending trend line with significant volume.
• Reclaim $70,000 to shift the narrative back to a positive bias.

Safe Havens Are Failing — What’s Happening Right Now?

Global markets are entering an unusual phase where traditional safe havens are no longer behaving as expected. Despite escalating geopolitical tensions and ongoing military threats involving Iran, assets like gold and silver are declining instead of rising.

Silver has dropped below $70, losing nearly 7–8% in a single day, while gold has fallen under $4,600, wiping out over $1 trillion in market value. At the same time, oil prices are surging above $100, reflecting growing fears of supply disruptions.

Meanwhile, crypto markets are also under pressure, with Bitcoin struggling to hold key levels and altcoins seeing sharper declines.

👉 This is not a normal market reaction.

Why Gold and Silver Are Dropping During a War

In a typical risk-off environment, investors rotate into safe-haven assets like gold. However, this time the opposite is happening.

The reason lies in inflation expectations and interest rate pressure.

Rising oil prices are increasing fears of sustained inflation. When inflation rises:

• Central banks are less likely to cut rates
• Interest rates remain higher for longer
• Yield-bearing assets become more attractive

Gold and silver, which do not generate yield, become less appealing in this environment.

👉 As a result, even traditional safe havens are being sold.

The Oil Shock Is Driving Everything

The key driver behind this market behavior is the surge in oil prices.

Following statements that the US will continue strikes on Iran for the next 2–3 weeks, markets are now pricing in prolonged geopolitical instability. At the center of this risk is the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global oil route responsible for nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply.

Any disruption in this region could push oil prices significantly higher.

👉 And higher oil means higher inflation.

This creates a chain reaction across all markets.

Why Crypto Is Falling Despite Bullish News

Under normal conditions, recent developments should support crypto markets:

• Progress on stablecoin regulation
• Continued institutional involvement
• Growing adoption narratives

Yet, crypto is declining.

This is because macro conditions are overriding crypto-specific fundamentals.

When liquidity tightens and uncertainty increases, investors reduce exposure to risk assets — and crypto is one of the first to be sold.

👉 Bitcoin is not trading on news — it is trading on macro.

The Real Risk: A Liquidity Shock

What markets are facing now is not just geopolitical uncertainty — it is the risk of a broader liquidity tightening cycle.

The sequence is clear:

• Oil prices rise
• Inflation expectations increase
• Rate cuts get delayed
• Liquidity shrinks

This environment puts pressure on all major asset classes simultaneously — including stocks, commodities, and crypto.

👉 That’s why everything is falling together.

What Investors Should Watch Next

The next phase of the market will depend on a few critical developments:

• Escalation or stabilization in the Iran conflict
• Movement in oil prices above or below $100
• Signals from central banks regarding rate policy

If oil continues to rise, markets could see further downside across both traditional and digital assets.

Conclusion: This Is No Longer a Normal Market

The current environment marks a shift from isolated market movements to a fully interconnected macro-driven system.

Safe havens are failing. Risk assets are under pressure. And geopolitical uncertainty is dictating market direction.

👉 This is no longer a crypto market — it’s a macro battlefield.

As tensions in the Middle East reached a boiling point, risk assets—including $Bitcoin and major altcoins—faced a sharp "risk-off" liquidation. However, as diplomatic channels begin to signal a potential de-escalation, savvy investors are looking at the "blood in the streets" as a generational entry point.

Historically, markets overreact to geopolitical shocks. If a resolution is reached in early April, the pent-up liquidity currently sitting in stablecoins is expected to flood back into high-conviction projects that were unfairly hammered during the panic.

Is April a Good Time to Buy Crypto?

Potentially, as April 2026 is shaping up to be a prime recovery month. With many tokens trading at 20-30% discounts from their Q1 highs, the current "oversold" conditions on the RSI (Relative Strength Index) suggest a relief rally is imminent.

1. Ethereum (ETH): The Race Back to $3,000

$Ethereum remains the backbone of the decentralized economy. During the recent March turbulence, ETH slipped below its psychological support, but the fundamentals remain unshaken.

• Recovery Catalyst: The successful implementation of the "Prague" upgrade earlier this year has further reduced Layer-2 costs.
• Price Target: Analysts expect a swift recovery to the $3,000 mark as institutional ETH ETFs see renewed inflows once the global macro outlook stabilizes.

Investors should monitor the ETH price closely, as its recovery usually leads the broader altcoin market.

2. PEPE: The Volatility King

For those with a higher risk appetite, $PEPE remains the go-to memecoin for catching rapid bounces. Memecoins often act as high-beta plays on market sentiment; when the market turns green, PEPE tends to move twice as fast as the majors.

• Current State: PEPE lost significant ground in March but has maintained a strong community floor.
• Why Buy: Its extreme volatility makes it an ideal candidate for a "relief rally" play. As retail investors return to the market in April, the low-unit bias of PEPE often attracts massive speculative volume.

3. XRP: Regulatory Clarity Meets Institutional Adoption

$XRP has faced a double-whammy of geopolitical pressure and a temporary "capital flight" toward safer havens. However, its role in cross-border payments, especially in the Middle East, makes it a unique asset to watch as regional stability returns.

• Market Position: Having secured full regulatory clarity in late 2025, XRP is no longer a "gamble" but a utility-driven asset.
• Outlook: It has lost nearly 15% in the last month, making the XRP price highly attractive for those betting on the continued expansion of RippleNet.

4. Cardano (ADA): The "Deep Value" Opportunity

$Cardano is currently one of the most oversold "blue-chip" altcoins. While critics point to its slower price action, the network's resilience and growing DeFi TVL (Total Value Locked) suggest it is undervalued.

• The Dip: ADA has hit multi-month lows, hovering near critical demand zones.
• The Play: Historically, ADA performs well in the second stage of a market recovery.

5. Solana (SOL): The Ecosystem Powerhouse

No "Top 5" list for 2026 is complete without $Solana. Despite the market-wide dip, Solana continues to lead in retail transaction volume and NFT activity.

• Technical Outlook: SOL has shown incredible strength in bouncing off the $80-$100 support range.
• Why April: With the Firedancer upgrade nearing full optimization, Solana's throughput is unmatched. Any return of "risk-on" sentiment will likely see SOL outperform Bitcoin in percentage gains. You can compare Solana's performance against other majors on our exchange comparison page.

Top 5 Cryptos to Buy in April 2026

A major development has just hit the crypto industry. The U.S. Department of Justice has charged multiple individuals linked to crypto “market-making” firms for allegedly manipulating token prices and trading volumes.

According to the allegations, these actors engaged in coordinated schemes to artificially inflate volume and prices — commonly known as wash trading and pump-and-dump operations.

👉 In simple terms:

• Fake volume was created
• Prices were pushed higher
• Retail investors bought in
• Then positions were offloaded

This isn’t a new suspicion in crypto — but this time, it’s being formally prosecuted.

How Fake Volume Has Been Shaping Crypto Prices

For years, a significant portion of crypto trading activity has been questioned. Some market makers didn’t just provide liquidity — they allegedly manufactured it.

This artificial activity created the illusion of strong demand, tighter spreads, and active markets. In reality, part of that liquidity may have been recycled capital, designed to attract real buyers into inflated conditions.

👉 This matters because markets rely on liquidity to function smoothly.

If part of that liquidity was fake, then price stability itself may have been partially artificial.

What Changes Now?

If regulators successfully crack down on these practices, the immediate impact won’t necessarily be bullish. Instead, markets could enter a transition phase where:

• Liquidity becomes thinner
• Order books become less stable
• Price movements become sharper and less predictable

👉 In other words:
Crypto markets may become more “real” — but also more brutal.

Why This Comes at a Critical Time

This shift is happening while markets are already under pressure from broader macro conditions.

Geopolitical tensions, rising oil prices, and tightening liquidity are creating a fragile environment for risk assets. Even strong or bullish news has struggled to sustain upward momentum in recent sessions.

👉 That means crypto is now facing a double pressure:

• External macro stress
• Internal structural changes

What This Means for Investors

For traders and investors, this new phase changes how the market should be approached.

Lower artificial liquidity means:

• Breakouts may fail faster
• Dumps may accelerate more aggressively
• Volatility may increase across all timeframes

At the same time, this transition could ultimately strengthen the market.

With less manipulation, price discovery becomes more transparent, and long-term trust in the ecosystem can improve.

Final Thought

Crypto may not just be correcting — it may be recalibrating.

As fake volume disappears and enforcement increases, the market is shifting from an artificially supported environment to a more natural one.

👉 And in that transition, price action could become significantly more unforgiving.

Panic Grips the XRP Ledger Community

Early this morning, traders on a major US-based cryptocurrency exchange witnessed a terrifying anomaly: the $XRP price appeared to disintegrate, falling from its stable market value of $1.34 to exactly $0.01. The "crash" happened in a matter of seconds, creating a massive red candle on the hourly charts that suggested a total collapse of the asset’s valuation.

Did XRP Really Drop to $0.01?

If you saw the price alert on your phone and felt your heart skip a beat, you aren't alone—but you can breathe easy. XRP has not actually crashed to 1 cent. This was an elaborate April Fools' Day prank executed by the exchange’s interface team to mock the "XRP to $0.01" memes that have circulated in bear markets for years. While the UI displayed a penny valuation, the global XRP price remained steady at its actual market rate across all other global platforms.

Liquidity vs. UI Glitches

In the world of crypto trading, there is a huge difference between a real market event and a visual one:

• Real Flash Crash: Occurs when massive sell orders exhaust all available buy orders (liquidity), causing the price to hit bottom for a few milliseconds.
• UI "Prank" or Glitch: A change in how the data is shown to the user without affecting the actual underlying trades or the blockchain's integrity.

Today’s event was purely a visual trick. Actual orders placed at $0.01 were not filled, as the exchange's matching engine was still operating at the real market price of $1.34.

Ripple’s Regulatory Context in 2026

The timing of the prank was particularly effective because of the high-stakes environment surrounding Ripple. As of today, April 1, 2026, Ripple has officially activated its National Trust Bank status under new OCC rules, a milestone that has kept XRP news at the forefront of the financial world.

How to Protect Yourself from Real Market Volatility

While today's 1-cent price was a joke, real volatility is a constant in the crypto space. To ensure your assets are safe from actual exchange failures or technical errors, consider the following:

• Self-Custody: Move your long-term holdings into hardware wallets to avoid being affected by exchange-side UI glitches or outages.
• Verify via Aggregators: Always cross-reference prices on sites like CoinMarketCap before making a panic-driven trade.
• Exchange Diversity: Use multiple exchanges to ensure that a localized glitch on one platform doesn't freeze your entire portfolio.

Prank vs. Reality Comparison

Researchers from Loughborough University are looking into a new type of computer chip that could make AI far more energy efficient.

Quip Network's creators say it's optimized for mining by quantum computers—a positive, unlike the looming quantum threat to Bitcoin.

Coinbase said Thursday that it is the latest crypto firm to secure a conditional bank charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin detailed his local-first AI stack in a new blog post, including custom tools that rely on human approval.

Jonathan, a nearly 200-year-old tortoise, was widely mourned Wednesday—but his purported demise was a hoax, and there's a crypto connection.

Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple, breaks down Ripple Prime's new BBB investment rating from Kroll.

Total of 39.9 million RLUSD has been permanently removed from circulation in mere minutes, sparking discussions among the community.

Leading derivatives marketplace CME Group announces key date that may concern BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA, LINK and XLM traders.

Cardano's Charles Hoskinson delivers a sharp, ironic response to Emin Gün Sirer's April Fools' prank on Ripple.

Bloomberg Intelligence's Mike McGlone warns of a potential Bitcoin return to $10,000 in 2026. Among the reasons are post-pandemic bubble bursts and millions of new tokens that dilute the market.

Key Takeaways

• The OCC has granted Coinbase conditional authorization to establish a federally chartered trust entity
• This charter is limited to custody operations and market infrastructure, excluding retail deposits and traditional banking
• Final approval hinges on Coinbase completing multiple regulatory and administrative requirements
• The federal designation is anticipated to expand Coinbase’s reach among institutional investors
• Coinbase’s current New York state trust charter and BitLicense continue operating without interruption

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued conditional authorization for Coinbase (COIN) to launch Coinbase National Trust Company, a federally chartered trust institution.

This OCC charter is tailored exclusively for custody operations and market infrastructure services. The crypto exchange will not accept consumer deposits or function as a conventional fractional reserve banking institution under this authorization.

According to Greg Tusar, Co-CEO of Coinbase Institutional, the clearance provides “federal regulatory uniformity to the custody and market infrastructure business we have been building for years.”

Coinbase filed its national trust charter application with the OCC in October of last year. The platform currently operates under a limited-purpose trust charter issued by the New York Department of Financial Services, which authorizes digital asset custody services at the state level through Coinbase Prime, its institutional division.

Coinbase Global, Inc., COIN

The federal charter represents a significant upgrade. “We’re the custodian to over 80% of the world’s digital asset ETFs, but there are a number of other asset managers and hedge funds and others that would like to see the entity that they face have this kind of charter,” Tusar explained.

Essentially, the OCC certification unlocks opportunities that state-level authorization alone cannot provide.

Coinbase’s institutional division reported $245.7 billion in assets under custody as of June 2025 — representing approximately 7% of the entire cryptocurrency market, based on figures from its charter filing.

Outstanding Requirements for Final Approval

Conditional authorization differs from full approval. Before the charter becomes operational, Coinbase must convene its inaugural board meeting, implement corporate bylaws, set up payment infrastructure, and successfully complete a pre-launch examination by the OCC.

The company has committed to collaborating closely with OCC regulators to satisfy all outstanding conditions.

Meanwhile, Coinbase’s existing New York BitLicense and state-level trust charter remain active and unchanged. Coinbase, Inc. continues its operations under NYDFS supervision without disruption.

Other Applicants Pursuing Federal Charters

Coinbase isn’t the only crypto firm seeking this regulatory status. The OCC granted conditional approvals to multiple digital asset companies late last year, including BitGo, Circle Internet Group, Fidelity Digital Assets, Ripple, and Paxos.

Additionally, EDX Markets — backed by Morgan Stanley and Citadel Securities — along with World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s most significant cryptocurrency initiative, have submitted national trust charter applications.

The federal charter also establishes infrastructure for emerging payment solutions and complementary financial services, targeting both institutional partners and retail users as primary beneficiaries.

While Congress has moved forward with market structure legislation, federal supervision of crypto custody providers has remained inconsistent. This OCC approval fills that regulatory void for institutional services without requiring completed legislative action.

The post Coinbase (COIN) Stock Secures Preliminary Federal Trust Charter Approval from OCC appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Shares of Delta Air Lines (DAL) increased 2.1%, starting Thursday’s session at $67.91
• The airline announced a partnership with Amazon for Leo satellite technology installation across 500 planes beginning in 2028
• TD Cowen reduced its target from $77 to $76, and Susquehanna lowered its forecast from $85 to $81; both maintained Buy recommendations
• Analyst consensus stands at “Moderate Buy” with a mean target price of $78.84
• Company executives and insiders offloaded 620,550 shares totaling approximately $44.1M in the last three months, with transactions from the CEO and EVP

Shares of Delta Air Lines advanced 2.1% Thursday, shrugging off multiple analyst downgrades thanks to excitement surrounding a major connectivity partnership with Amazon.

Delta Air Lines, Inc., DAL

TD Cowen adjusted its DAL price objective downward from $77 to $76 while preserving its Buy recommendation. This revised target suggests approximately 11.9% upside potential from Thursday’s opening price. Meanwhile, Susquehanna reduced its forecast from $85 to $81 while keeping its “positive” stance, indicating roughly 19% potential appreciation.

These weren’t isolated revisions. Citigroup lowered its target from $87 to $77, Wells Fargo decreased its estimate from $87 to $75, and Rothschild & Co Redburn trimmed its projection from $72 to $70. Conversely, Jefferies increased its target from $72 to $78, while Goldman Sachs elevated its forecast from $77 to $80, maintaining a Buy recommendation.

Overall, 22 Wall Street analysts assign a Buy rating to the airline’s stock, with one Strong Buy, one Hold, and one Sell recommendation. The consensus price objective stands at $78.84.

Jet fuel expense projections are influencing these calculations. Multiple analysts have adjusted their valuation models downward as elevated fuel cost assumptions work their way into forecasts. One valuation shifted from approximately $80.57 to $79.89 — a modest adjustment, yet indicative of the stock’s vulnerability to energy price fluctuations.

Amazon Connectivity Agreement

The most significant positive development this week came from Delta’s unveiling of a partnership with Amazon to deploy Leo satellite connectivity technology on an initial fleet of 500 aircraft, with implementation scheduled to commence in 2028. This enhancement is projected to elevate in-flight internet performance, boost passenger satisfaction metrics, and potentially create additional revenue opportunities.

Wall Street analysts have generally maintained their constructive outlook on DAL despite broader economic challenges, with reports indicating that investor confidence in the airline has persisted even as fuel expenses remain elevated.

Executive Stock Sales

Insider transaction data paints a contrasting picture. Throughout the past 90 days, Delta executives and insiders disposed of 620,550 shares valued at roughly $44.1 million. CEO Edward Bastian divested 100,000 shares in February at an average price of $70.26, decreasing his holdings by 6.83%. He had previously sold 173,230 shares in January at $71.00. EVP Alain Bellemare offloaded 35,212 shares at $75.20, reducing his position by 20.31%. EVP Steven Sear sold 38,600 shares at $75.05, representing a 26.99% decrease.

Institutional investors continue to hold 69.93% of outstanding shares. Wellington Management expanded its position by 137.4% during Q4, acquiring approximately 7.99 million additional shares. Pacer Advisors increased its holdings by 1,579.2%, while AQR Capital added 44.3% to its stake.

Delta’s most recent quarterly results showed earnings per share of $1.55, marginally exceeding the $1.53 consensus forecast, although revenue of $14.61 billion fell short of the $15.80 billion projection. Management has issued Q1 2026 EPS guidance ranging from $0.50 to $0.90 and full-year guidance between $6.50 and $7.50.

Analysts highlighting near-term earnings risks suggest Delta could encounter challenges from both revenue composition and fuel cost pressures before its upcoming earnings announcement.

The post Delta Air Lines (DAL) Stock Gains Despite Price Target Reductions and Major Insider Selling appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Blue Owl Capital faced $5.4 billion in withdrawal requests across two flagship private-credit funds during the first quarter of 2026.
• Withdrawal demands reached 21.9% of assets in the $36B Credit Income fund and 40.7% in the $3B technology-focused vehicle.
• The firm is limiting redemptions to 5% quarterly, consistent with established fund guidelines.
• Shares of OWL declined 5.4% to $8.24 on Thursday, extending year-to-date losses beyond 40%.
• The private credit industry faces widespread pressure, with sector peers like Ares Management also experiencing declines and more than $11B exiting funds across two quarters.

Blue Owl Capital (OWL) shares closed at $8.24 on Thursday, sliding 5.4% following disclosure of substantial investor withdrawal demands from its two premier private-credit investment vehicles.

Blue Owl Capital Inc., OWL

The alternative asset manager saw shares fall 4.6% during Wednesday’s session and has now surrendered more than 40% of its market value in 2026 — placing it among the hardest-hit publicly listed alternative investment firms.

Withdrawal requests totaling $5.4 billion hit Blue Owl Credit Income Corp. and Blue Owl Technology Income Corp. (OTIC) throughout the opening quarter of 2026. These requests account for 21.9% of the Credit Income vehicle’s $36 billion asset base and 40.7% of OTIC’s approximately $3 billion net asset value.

Both investment vehicles are implementing the 5% quarterly redemption ceiling — a restriction embedded in the original fund documentation when capital was initially committed. Applying this threshold, Credit Income will process roughly $988 million in withdrawals, while OTIC will honor $179 million in redemption requests.

Capital inflows continue despite the withdrawal pressure. Credit Income attracted $872 million in new investments, resulting in a net capital decline of $116 million. OTIC secured $127 million in fresh commitments, producing a net outflow of approximately $52 million, representing about 2% of its net asset value.

Blue Owl reported that Credit Income maintains $11.3 billion across cash reserves, available credit facilities, and liquid portfolio holdings — sufficient liquidity to satisfy at least eight consecutive quarters of maximum redemptions without liquidating any loan positions.

Factors Driving Investor Withdrawals

Redemption momentum has intensified over recent months. Escalating worries about potential corporate loan defaults, excessive lending exposure to software sector companies, and artificial intelligence’s disruptive impact on software business fundamentals have collectively shifted investor attitudes.

OTIC’s loan book demonstrates significant concentration in debt extended to software companies acquired through private equity transactions. Blue Owl challenged the pessimistic interpretation, emphasizing that its software sector borrowers operate essential products, achieving 10% revenue expansion and 14% cash operating profit growth. The vehicle has generated 9.6% annualized returns since launching in 2022.

Credit Income’s borrower base similarly shows strong operational metrics, recording 9% revenue growth alongside 10% cash operating income expansion. Non-performing loan levels remain minimal. The fund has produced 9.2% returns since inception.

“We continue to observe a meaningful disconnect between the public dialogue on private credit and the underlying trends in our portfolio,” wrote Blue Owl’s Craig Packer and Eric Bissonnette.

Industry-Wide Challenges

Blue Owl isn’t experiencing these headwinds in isolation. Ares Management (ARES) dropped 4.6% Thursday to $100.86. Private credit investment vehicles collectively have experienced over $11 billion in capital outflows throughout the previous two quarters.

Competing managers are adopting varying approaches to redemption management. Blackstone and Cliffwater have processed 7%–8% withdrawals to demonstrate portfolio confidence. Apollo, Ares, and BlackRock have maintained the 5% quarterly limitation.

Meanwhile, Saba Capital’s founder Boaz Weinstein proposed in February to acquire stakes from Blue Owl fund investors at 65%–80% of net asset value — a transaction that highlights the magnitude of sentiment deterioration.

The broader regulatory landscape intensifies scrutiny: the Trump administration alongside investment firms have advocated for incorporating private credit into 401(k) retirement plans. The Treasury Department convened a Wednesday meeting with regulatory bodies to examine sector vulnerabilities.

Blue Owl’s first quarter 2026 disclosure, published Thursday, revealed Credit Income garnered $872 million in new capital commitments against $988 million in redemption payments, producing a quarterly net outflow of $116 million.

The post Blue Owl Capital (OWL) Stock Plunges 5.4% Amid $5.4B Withdrawal Wave from Private Credit Funds appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Rocket Lab achieved $602 million in 2025 revenue with 38% year-over-year growth, maintaining a $1.85 billion backlog and receiving Moderate Buy ratings from analysts
• Intuitive Machines generated $210 million in 2025 sales, though its backlog exploded to $943 million by February 2026, with revenue projections of $900 million to $1 billion for 2026
• Planet Labs delivered fiscal 2026 revenue of $307.7 million, representing 26% growth, while achieving positive adjusted EBITDA and maintaining a $900 million backlog
• Analyst opinions vary across all three companies, with Rocket Lab receiving the most favorable ratings while Intuitive Machines faces the most polarized views
• Recent stock price appreciation has raised valuation questions for all three space sector players

The commercial space industry continues capturing investor interest, with three publicly traded companies emerging as focal points: Rocket Lab, Intuitive Machines, and Planet Labs. These firms occupy distinct niches within the broader space economy, and Wall Street analysts maintain varying perspectives on each investment opportunity.

Rocket Lab has established itself as a prominent player in the public space market. The company delivered approximately $602 million in full-year 2025 revenue, representing a 38% increase over the previous period. Finishing the year with a backlog approaching $1.85 billion, the firm demonstrated expanding gross margins and business diversification beyond its core small satellite launch services.

Rocket Lab USA, Inc., RKLB

Wall Street’s assessment of Rocket Lab trends favorable. According to MarketBeat data, the stock carries a Moderate Buy consensus rating, supported by 9 Buy recommendations and 4 to 5 Hold ratings, with zero Sell calls. However, following significant share price gains, certain analysts have adopted a more measured stance, citing less attractive valuation metrics compared to earlier periods.

Intuitive Machines: Massive Backlog Growth Amid Execution Questions

Intuitive Machines focuses heavily on lunar exploration and NASA-affiliated contracts. The company recorded approximately $210 million in 2025 revenue. While year-end backlog registered at $213.1 million, management disclosed that this metric had surged to approximately $943 million as of February 28, 2026.

Intuitive Machines, Inc., LUNR

Management has set 2026 revenue expectations between $900 million and $1 billion. Successfully achieving this target would represent a substantial expansion, contingent on anticipated major contract conversions materializing as planned.

Analyst opinions remain notably split. MarketBeat data shows a Hold consensus comprising 8 Buy ratings, 3 Hold ratings, and 2 Sell ratings. Optimistic observers envision the company evolving into a comprehensive space prime contractor. Skeptics highlight execution challenges and uncertain government program timelines as primary risk factors.

Path to profitability remains dependent on a significant revenue ramp that hasn’t yet fully materialized in reported financial results.

Planet Labs: Defense Sector Fuels Revenue Expansion

Planet Labs specializes in Earth observation services and has experienced accelerating demand from defense and government clients. The company posted fiscal 2026 revenue of $307.7 million, marking 26% growth. Fourth-quarter revenue specifically jumped 41% to $86.8 million.

Planet Labs PBC, PL

Planet also achieved positive adjusted EBITDA on a full-year basis. With approximately $900 million in backlog, the company offers greater forward revenue visibility than many emerging space ventures.

Analyst consensus stands at Hold according to MarketBeat, featuring 6 Buy ratings, 4 Hold ratings, and 1 Sell rating. While strengthening business fundamentals have bolstered confidence, some analysts express concern that recent stock appreciation has outpaced current financial performance.

Expanding defense-related revenue streams have emerged as a particularly bright spot in recent reporting periods.

Across these three space companies, fundamental business growth remains evident. Rocket Lab demonstrates the strongest operational trajectory and most robust analyst backing. Intuitive Machines presents the largest potential upside tied to prospective contract awards. Planet Labs combines improving financial metrics with ongoing valuation debates that keep analyst opinions divided.

Bottom Line

Each of these three companies is experiencing growth while serving distinct segments of the space industry. Rocket Lab currently exhibits the most proven operational execution. Intuitive Machines offers the highest potential returns if anticipated contracts materialize successfully.

Planet Labs continues building consistent revenue streams, though share price performance may need to align more closely with fundamental expectations before analysts adopt more bullish stances. For investors monitoring the commercial space sector, these three stocks provide clear perspectives on both opportunity and risk within this evolving industry.

The post Space Sector Showdown: Comparing Rocket Lab (RKLB), Intuitive Machines (LUNR), and Planet Labs (PL) appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Needham reduced HOOD price target from $100 down to $90 while maintaining its Buy recommendation
• Compass Point lowered its target from $127 down to $108, retaining its Buy stance
• March data revealed declining volumes across equity, options, and cryptocurrency trading
• HOOD shares have plummeted 52% in the last six months and 38% since the year began
• The company’s banking arm has exceeded $1.5 billion in total deposits

Robinhood Markets has encountered significant headwinds this week as several Wall Street analysts have lowered their price expectations following the release of disappointing March trading data.

Robinhood Markets, Inc., HOOD

On Wednesday, Needham’s John Todaro revised his price target downward from $100 to $90, though he maintained his bullish Buy rating. His decision stemmed from observations of decelerating growth throughout virtually all segments of the platform.

“We view HOOD as the most advanced financial services platform in its evolution toward a comprehensive financial super app, however the latest volume data and reduced net interest income suggest a more subdued operating environment,” Todaro explained.

The March performance report, published March 30, indicated equity notional trading volumes reached approximately $196 billion. The platform processed 187 million options contracts, while cryptocurrency trading notional volumes totaled $16 billion.

Todaro adjusted his equities and options projections for the first quarter of 2026 downward but maintained his cryptocurrency volume forecasts unchanged, noting that declines in that sector had already been incorporated into previous models. He also reduced revenue expectations for both 2026 and 2027, primarily due to anticipated lower trading activity and diminished net interest income.

His revised $90 target price reflects 27 times Needham’s discounted fiscal 2027 EV/EBITDA calculation.

This adjustment came one day after Wolfe Research’s Steven Chubak lowered his target from $115 to $81 — representing approximately a 30% reduction. His revision followed a decline in cryptocurrency transaction revenues, further pressured by broader digital asset market weakness.

Compass Point Joins Downgrade Chorus

Compass Point’s Ed Engel similarly decreased his price objective on Wednesday, moving from $127 to $108 while preserving his Buy rating. His forecasting models project Q1 revenue coming in 9% beneath consensus expectations, with shortfalls anticipated across all three primary business lines.

Engel observed that retail trading activity typically decelerates after five to six straight months of volatile market conditions, and that most retail investor favorites have generally declined since early October.

He made a comparison to April 2025, when analysts were reducing forecasts ahead of Liberation Day. Engel proposed that should markets recover, Robinhood could emerge as a significant beneficiary considering the 2026 IPO calendar.

HOOD shares have now declined 52% during the past six months and trade 46% beneath their 52-week peak of $153.86. The stock currently carries a P/E multiple of 34.14 and commands a market capitalization of $63.1 billion. InvestingPro’s analysis indicates the stock appears overvalued at present price levels.

Banking Segment Provides Encouraging Signs

Despite trading challenges, not all indicators are negative. Robinhood’s banking operation has surpassed $1.5 billion in deposits, serving nearly 100,000 funded customers — representing an approximately 50% deposit increase over a recent timeframe.

Bernstein SocGen Group reduced its price target from $160 to $130 while maintaining an Outperform rating. The investment firm continues to forecast 25% earnings per share expansion by 2026 and a 30% revenue compound annual growth rate spanning 2025 through 2027.

Jefferies launched coverage with a Buy recommendation and an $88 price target, highlighting opportunities from expanding global retail participation and a diversified product offering.

According to TipRanks, HOOD maintains a Strong Buy consensus recommendation based on 15 Buy ratings and 2 Hold ratings, with an average price target of $117.33 — suggesting approximately 67% potential upside from current trading levels. The most optimistic price target among analysts reaches $147.

The company’s complete first-quarter earnings report is scheduled for release in May.

The post Robinhood (HOOD) Stock Faces Wave of Analyst Downgrades Amid Slowing Trading Volumes appeared first on Blockonomi.

Raising capital is often treated as the finish line. The 2026 reality is that, for crypto teams, it is the starting point.

Funding matters, of course, as it gives a project the resources to hire, build, and grow. But in crypto, capital alone rarely creates momentum. Markets move fast, product cycles are compressed, communities form opinions early, and distribution can matter just as much as the technology itself. That means founders should expect more from a VC fund they partner with than money in the bank.

The best relationships with a VC partner are operational, strategic, and ecosystem-driven from day one. Let’s unpack how it works.

How Crypto Venture Differs from Traditional VC

Traditional venture capital often follows a familiar playbook: back a team, help with hiring and introductions, then support the company as it scales over several years. Crypto is different because the company, product, token, and community may all be developing simultaneously.

Founders are not only building a business. They may also be shaping tokenomics, ecosystem incentives, governance structures, exchange relationships, and developer participation. Public market forces can appear much earlier in a crypto company’s lifecycle than in a traditional startup.

That changes the role of a crypto venture fund such as DWF Ventures: Web3 founders need investors who understand market structure, token strategy, community growth, and ecosystem expansion, not just board meetings and quarterly check-ins.

Incubation Support: Product, Token Design, Team Building

Early-stage support in crypto should go much deeper than high-level advice.

On the product side, founders benefit from pressure-testing the core use case, narrowing the value proposition, and identifying what can realistically ship first. In fast-moving markets, clarity beats complexity. A strong crypto venture fund — some renowned names include DWF Labs, a16z Crypto, and Selini — helps teams focus on what users will actually adopt rather than what sounds impressive in a deck.

Token design is another major area where expectations should be higher. Founders need help thinking through utility, incentives, emissions, treasury planning, and alignment among short-term growth and long-term viability. Good support here is not about overengineering. It is about building a model that is credible, understandable, and durable.

Team building matters just as much. The right investor can help founders recruit across product, engineering, growth, business development, and ecosystem roles. In crypto, one strong hire can accelerate an entire roadmap.

GTM Strategy: Positioning, Community, Integrations, Distribution

A strong product does not guarantee traction. In the Web3 industry, go-to-market strategy needs to be deliberate from the start.

That begins with positioning. Founders need a clear answer to a simple question: why does this product matter now? If the story is vague, adoption will be too. Messaging should be easy to understand for users, partners, and the wider market.

Community is another core part of GTM, but it should not be treated as noise generation. The best communities are built through transparency, consistency, and real value creation. Founders should focus on attracting the right early supporters, not just the largest possible audience.

Integrations and distribution also play an outsized role. Crypto wallets, exchanges, infrastructure providers, market makers, launch platforms, and ecosystem partners can all accelerate growth. In crypto, distribution often comes through networks rather than just paid channels.

On-Demand Liquidity Provisioning: Launches, Listings, Volatility Management

Liquidity is one of the most overlooked growth drivers for a crypto startup.

Project teams should not view liquidity as a post-launch technical issue. It affects user assurance, market quality, trading experience, and overall project perception. Token launches and listings can create opportunities, but they can also cause volatility if they are not handled carefully.

This is why many teams look for crypto venture firms that understand liquidity provisioning at a high level and can help them navigate early market conditions more responsibly. That includes thinking through launch structure, exchange readiness, market depth, and how to reduce unnecessary instability during key milestones.

The goal is not to “manage the market.” It is to support healthier trading conditions and a stronger foundation as the project grows.

Partnerships and BD: How Network Effects Compound Faster than Ad Spend

One more law of the crypto market: the right partnership can do more than a large marketing budget.

Business development creates leverage because it compounds. One integration can unlock new users. One strategic ecosystem relationship can lead to five more. One key distribution partner can create trust faster than months of paid promotion.

That is why Web3 founders should look closely at the actual network a crypto venture partner fund to the table. Warm introductions to exchanges, infrastructure providers, protocols, wallets, custodians, market participants, and regional communities can materially change a project’s trajectory.

In this market, credibility travels through relationships. Smart BD creates momentum that advertising alone rarely can.

Developer activation: grants programs, hackathons, ecosystem incentives

For many crypto projects, developers are not just contributors. They are multipliers.

A healthy ecosystem often depends on making it easy and attractive for builders to participate. Grants programs can help attract early experimentation. Hackathons can surface new use cases, talent, and community energy. Ecosystem incentives can encourage the development of tools, integrations, and applications that make the core product more valuable over time.

This kind of developer activation does more than create activity around a brand. It helps turn a project into a platform. And that transition — from product to ecosystem — is where long-term value is often built.

Founders should expect serious support here if their project has ecosystem ambitions.

DWF Labs as a Modern Crypto VC: Ecosystem-Based Support

The modern crypto venture funding model is not only about deploying capital. It is about helping projects move across multiple fronts at once.

For one, it’s reflected in DWF Labs offering ecosystem-based services. Beyond funding, the focus is on supporting Web3 teams through product refinement, go-to-market planning, partnership development, exchange and ecosystem relationships, and broader growth strategy. That includes helping founders think through how to build traction, create meaningful market visibility, and expand reach through the right connections.

Another important piece is developer and ecosystem engagement. Hackathons, builder programs, and broader developer relations can play a central role in helping projects gain adoption and attract long-term contributors.

For teams, that kind of hands-on support can be the difference between raising capital and actually building momentum. And DWF Labs proved that, being one of the biggest crypto venture funds with a portfolio of over 1,000 projects.

The 2026 Crypto VC Playbook

As we learned, Web3 teams should never judge venture funding by the term sheet alone.

The real question is what happens after the wire transfer lands: who helps sharpen the product, strengthen the token model, open distribution, support partnerships, activate developers, and guide the project through launch and growth.

In crypto, capital is important. But ecosystem support, execution help, and network access are what often turn promising ideas into long-term businesses. That is what top crypto venture funds such as DWF Labs actually deliver in 2026.

Disclaimer: The above article is sponsored content; it’s written by a third party. CryptoPotato doesn’t endorse or assume responsibility for the content, advertising, products, quality, accuracy, or other materials on this page. Nothing in it should be construed as financial advice. Readers are strongly advised to verify the information independently and carefully before engaging with any company or project mentioned and to do their own research. Investing in cryptocurrencies carries a risk of capital loss, and readers are also advised to consult a professional before making any decisions that may or may not be based on the above-sponsored content.

Readers are also advised to read CryptoPotato’s full disclaimer.

The post Beyond the Term Sheet: What Founders Should Expect from Crypto Venture Funds in 2026 appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The biggest meme coin by market capitalization has been hovering within a tight $0.08-$0.09 range over the past week, with one key indicator signaling a major breakout in the near future.

Most analysts believe a move north is the more likely option, but the bearish conditions of the crypto market may continue to suppress the valuation.

Prepare for Turbulence?

While DOGE has followed the new red wave passing through the digital asset sector, its daily decline has been much less painful than that of other leading cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), and others.

One person who discussed the meme coin’s recent performance is the renowned analyst Ali Martinez, who noted that its Bollinger Bands have squeezed on the 24-hour chart. The indicator consists of a middle moving average and two outer lines that expand and contract in response to the latest price dynamics. Their tightening usually reflects a period of slight volatility, which could be a precursor of a major move in any direction.

In September last year, the Bollinger Bands squeezed again, leading to an impressive yet brief rally in the following days. It remains to be seen whether the same pattern will play out this time.

It seems like most industry participants who recently gave their two cents on DOGE expect a pump rather than a pullback. X user Hailey LUNC XRP argued that the asset “is sitting at a generational buying zone,” envisioning a future explosion beyond $10.

For their part, Trader Tardigrade thinks the meme coin’s current setup mirrors that observed in mid-2024, which was followed by a bull run. “If history rhymes, DOGE could be gearing up for a massive breakout,” they added.

These Indicators Also Flash Buy Signals

Dogecoin’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) reinforces the bullish scenario. Its ratio has dropped to 22, indicating the token is oversold and could be on the verge of a short-term resurgence. The technical analysis tool ranges from 0 to 100, with anything above 70 considered a warning of an impending correction.

One should also take a look at Dogecoin’s exchange netflow. Over the past weeks, outflows have consistently surpassed inflows, suggesting that many investors have moved their holdings to self-custody and are in no rush to cash out.

The post Dogecoin (DOGE) Could be on the Verge of a Huge Move: Crash or Rally Comes Next? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Coinbase, the largest US-based cryptocurrency exchange, has officially secured a conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for a national trust charter.

The move seems to be a major stride toward regulatory clarity and the culmination of multiple years of rigorous compliance efforts and proactive collaboration with regulators.

Naturally, this doesn’t mean that Coinbase will transform into a traditional commercial bank – it means that there will be uniform and federal oversight to the firm’s existing custody and market infrastructure services.

The OCC charter itself is tailored to safeguard user assets, and Coinbase plans to use it to ensure institutional-grade security and regulatory consistency for the assets that it holds on behalf of its clients.

Speaking on the matter was Greg Tusar, Co-CEO of Coinbase Institutional, who said:

We are proud of what this milestone represents, not just for Coinbase, but for an industry that has worked hard to demonstrate that innovation and accountability are not in conflict. We look forward to working closely with OCC staff through the conditions of approval and to continuing to build a financial system that works better for everyone.

The post Coinbase Secures Conditional Approval for US National Trust Charter appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Several crypto assets declined on Friday after Donald Trump’s speech triggered panic across global markets. Defying expectations for restraint, Trump outlined plans for potential military action against Iran over the next two to three weeks.

Ethereum, for instance, saw heavy sell pressure flood the derivatives market.

Massive Derivatives Sell-Off

According to the latest analysis by CryptoQuant, there has been a sharp surge in Ethereum sell activity following remarks by Trump that escalated tensions around the Iran conflict.

Markets had initially expected a de-escalatory tone. But, in the address, Trump said Operation Epic Fury had achieved major results after one month, including weakening Iran’s military and reducing its missile capabilities. He added that goals are close to completion and warned that stronger attacks would continue over the next two to three weeks. In response, traditional markets reacted immediately, as seen with US Treasury bonds moving higher and the S&P 500 losing approximately $500 billion in market capitalization within minutes.

The impact quickly extended to the cryptocurrency market, particularly derivatives trading. CryptoQuant stated that Ethereum recorded more than $1 billion in sell volume in derivatives markets within a single hour as short-term bearish pressure intensified. Of this, around $968 million occurred on Binance, which currently accounts for the largest share of global crypto trading volume.

The sudden influx of sell orders contributed to a decline of over 4% in ETH’s price over the same period. The financial markets are now “facing a period of extreme uncertainty and volatility, making price action increasingly erratic and unstable,” the crypto analytics firm added.

Weakening Institutional Support

Spot Ethereum ETFs saw eight straight days of outflows as rising geopolitical tensions weighed on investor sentiment and risk appetite. This selling trend briefly reversed, as these investment vehicles recorded inflows over the next two sessions. However, the recovery was brief, as weakening institutional support led to renewed outflows. On April 1, spot Ethereum ETFs again faced pressure, recording more than $7 million in net outflows.

With both derivatives and institutional flows showing signs of strain, analysts at Bitunix explained,

“The market has entered a new phase dominated by ‘supply chain destruction.’ Energy, metals, and geopolitics are converging to elevate inflation expectations without providing growth support, creating a classic misalignment between risk and pricing. In the absence of a policy anchor or a clear exit path from conflict, asset prices will continue to be driven primarily by liquidity conditions and shifts in risk appetite.”

The post Ethereum Derivatives Flooded With $1B in Sells as Markets React to Trump appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ratings agency KBRA assigned a BBB issuer rating to Ripple Prime (formerly known as Hidden Road), which is the company’s prime brokerage arm.

This major credibility win in traditional finance for the entity behind XRP and RLUSD comes shortly after its CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, praised Ripple Prime’s progress since last year’s acquisition.

Why Such a Rating

The investment-grade rating, announced earlier today, applies to both the holding company and its core operating subsidiary, signaling growing confidence in Ripple’s expanding role beyond crypto and into institutional finance. It highlights Ripple’s Prime’s rapid growth trajectory, particularly in clearing and intermediation services across exchange-traded derivatives (ETDs) and fixed income repo markets.

Since the launch of the ETF platform two years ago, the company has scaled quickly, while the repo business, which is focused on short-duration US Treasuries and agency securities, reached meaningful transactions in 2025.

Ripple Prime has already achieved profitability in 2025, supported by roughly $500 million in capital injections from Ripple after acquiring Hidden Road. The balance sheet has also expanded significantly over the past year, reinforcing its position as a growing institutional player.

Just a few days ago, Ripple’s CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, outlined the positive first year Ripple Prime had, saying that it had tripled its revenue rates in 12 months.

Strong Backing

The statement highlighted Ripple’s strong financial backing as a key factor behind the impressive rating, which comprises nearly $5 billion in cash reserves, alongside holdings of over 40 billion XRP.

KBRA added that Ripple is highly likely to provide financial assistance if needed, especially given the strategic importance of its brokerage arm within its broader ecosystem. This expectation of parental support played a “central role” in aligning the ratings of both the operating company and its holding structure.

The agency also said it expects margin expansion for Ripple Prime in 2026, since it’s still in an early growth phase. It’s likely to be driven by a larger balance sheet, operational leverage, and continued capital support from the company behind it.

Nevertheless, the report also mentioned a key consideration: Ripple’s revenues remain heavily tied to digital asset activity, including XRP sales. Consequently, earnings could be sensitive to crypto market volatility, particularly during prolonged downturns.

Ripple is also planning to diversify its revenue streams, with new initiatives like Delta1 products, as well as expansion into equity prime brokerage services. Yesterday, the firm announced the launch of a new product line, Digital Asset Accounts and Unified Treasury, to allow corporations to manage fiat and cryptocurrencies side by side in a single system.

The post Wall Street Just Gave Ripple (XRP) a Big Vote of Confidence: What the New BBB Rating Really Means appeared first on CryptoPotato.