The political process has positively impacted Bitcoin by replacing ineffective regulators and halting detrimental policies. Traditional financial institutions require regulatory clarity more urgently than crypto builders to invest significantly in the sector. The current reliance on courts for re...

The post Chris Giancarlo: Legislative clarity is vital for crypto’s future | The Pomp Podcast appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The Australian dollar is currently trading away from its fundamental value, indicating potential misalignment with economic indicators. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) targets a flexible inflation range of 2% to 3% to manage consumer price stability. Australia's unique economic conditions dur...

The post Laurence Bristow: The Australian dollar’s significant misalignment with fundamentals, RBA’s flexible inflation targeting between 2% to 3%, and the shift to a demand-driven reserve system | Macro Musings appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Political influence on the Fed could lead to significant policy errors. The Fed may cut rates more aggressively than currently anticipated. Forecasts should be prioritized over current data for better inflation management.

The post David Rosenberg: Fed rate cuts coming sooner than expected | Macro Voices appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Payroll is a major pain point for small businesses, often leading to frustration among owners. Effective payroll management can unlock valuable employee data for solving broader business challenges. Selecting the right initial customers is crucial for long-term success and word-of-mouth growth.

The post Tomer London: Payroll is a major pain point for small businesses, selecting the right initial customers drives growth, and building trust is essential for mission-critical software | a16z Live appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Market dynamics are influenced by numerous macro factors and consensus positions. Low volatility is crucial for the development of smooth market trends. Secular growth mega-cap tech stocks dominate a significant portion of the market.

The post Charlie McElligott: Bitcoin’s hedge status is under fire amid market shifts | Odd Lots appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Reclaims $70,000 After Deep February Slide

The bitcoin price climbed back above $70,000 on Saturday, rebounding from a sharp drawdown earlier this month as cooler-than-expected U.S. inflation data helped revive risk appetite across markets. The recovery comes after a brutal stretch that saw billions in realized losses and persistent signs of investor anxiety.

Bitcoin was trading around $70,215 at press time, up roughly 2% over the past 24 hours, with daily volume near $43 billion. The move leaves the bitcoin price sitting just below its seven-day high of $70,434, according to market data, and pushes its global market capitalization back above $1.4 trillion.

The latest upside followed January’s Consumer Price Index report, which showed inflation rising 2.4% year-over-year, slightly under the 2.5% forecast. The softer print strengthened expectations that the Federal Reserve could begin cutting rates sooner than previously anticipated, a shift that typically benefits higher-beta assets like cryptocurrencies.

Prediction markets reflected the change in sentiment. Traders on Kalshi increased the implied odds of an April rate cut to 23%, while Polymarket pricing also moved higher over the week.

Bitcoin price analysis and related equities 

The rebound in bitcoin price into the weekend also spilled into crypto-linked equities. On Friday, Coinbase (COIN) surged 18% and Strategy (MSTR) jumped 10% as investors rotated back into digital-asset exposure. 

The move came even as Coinbase continues to navigate a difficult earnings backdrop, including a $666.7 million Q4 2025 loss tied to weaker trading revenue.

Strategy, meanwhile, remained closely tethered to bitcoin’s volatility, while reaffirming its long-term treasury approach. The company disclosed another bitcoin purchase of more than 1,100 BTC this week and posted a steep quarterly loss driven largely by mark-to-market declines on its holdings, underscoring the balance-sheet risks of its aggressive positioning.

It’s been a rough couple of months for the bitcoin price, with Bitcoin sliding sharply from its October peak above $120,000 into the mid-$60,000 range after an extended multi-month downturn. 

The sell-off intensified in early February when BTC broke below the key $70,000 psychological level

Research firm K33 suggested the plunge toward $60,000 may have marked a “local bottom,” pointing to capitulation-like conditions in volume, funding rates, options positioning, and ETF flows. 

Still, the rally has not erased the deeper unease lingering beneath the surface. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index remains stuck in “extreme fear,” levels last associated with the 2022 bear market and the collapse of major industry players. 

This post Bitcoin Price Reclaims $70,000 After Deep February Slide first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

How Silent.Link Solves SIM-Swap Risks and Roaming Hassles for Traveling Bitcoiners

Silent Link, a Bitcoin native SMS and mobile data company, has quietly grown into an international service provider for privacy-oriented users worldwide, at competitive rates. But how can a young company compete with the mobile data giants?

Born from the Bitcoin industry, the brainchild of cypherpunk thought leaders like Matt Odell, Silent Link is a modern mobile data and SMS company that challenges the complicated and mediocre customer service of phone service providers around the world.

A founding member of Silent Link, who asked not to be named, and thus we will call Bob, told Bitcoin Magazine in an exclusive interview the genesis story of this company that’s solving one of the most common pain points of the international and travel-savvy Bitcoiner, getting data and SMS authentication messages anywhere in the world. The company offers eSIM-only services globally, with no physical sim card support, making it an entirely digital business. Its Bitcoin native design shows up on its pricing, which Bob says has only gone down over time, already dropping 20% in 2026.  

Bitcoin Native and Privacy Focused

Born during the 2020 COVID lockdowns, Bob recalled that he went on a Matt Odell podcast marathon during which he was inspired to run his own BTCPay Server instance. He figured if he could come up with a digital business that earned Bitcoin, he would have a solid way stack sats directly to self-custody.

After setting up the basic payments suite common to many Bitcoin companies, made up of BTCPay servers, an open source stack with Lightning support, full invoicing and accounting back end, Bob realised he now needed a product. It was not long before him, and his growing team realised that providing a modern data and SMS service might just be the perfect product.

Today, Silent Link offers users worldwide data rates competitive with phone service giants, as well as incoming SMS texts often needed for authentication to legacy companies like banks, and many online web platforms. The company does not offer outgoing texts, nor does it support normal phone calls. Bob explained that these are terrible protocols, fully surveilled by governments throughout the world, and his target audience uses more secure and sophisticated messaging apps anyway. 

As such, Silent Link is a privacy-first Bitcoin company. Instead of connecting your phone services to your personal information, which in many countries ends up deeply integrated with the financial system, even showing up in credit scores, Silent Link provides essential services in the digital age, while collecting no personal information from its users. Bob added that “not even the local data carrier knows your phone number”. 

Silent Link eSIMS can be purchased even without giving the company an email. Bob explained that if you have no user information, there’s nothing to hack and there’s no honey pot to go after, adding that so far they have received “zero requests for user information” from governments. Furthermore, it aligns incentives between the company and its users, rather than turning the user’s data into a product to be sold to third parties. According to Bob, the company is also entirely self-funded and profitable, another critical decision that he feels aligns incentives with its users, adding that “you can not serve two masters”.

Users get a special link when they purchase an eSIM, a code that they can back up in a similar way as they would store the 12 words to their Bitcoin wallet, and this simple secret information serves as their key and authentication to their eSIM service. Bob added that this model of authentication nullifies the infamous “sim card swap” attacks, which have led to multi-million dollar hacks in the industry throughout the years. 

Roaming and Travel Automated

Further polishing the user experience, clearly designed to serve an audience that travels often and is sensitive to cybersecurity risks, Silent Linkautomates and hides roaming-related decisions when users move from one country to another, be it for travel or otherwise. Bob says users can expect the same phone number to work in most countries, without having to worry about getting a local temporary sim card, having to buy roaming access, getting overcharged, or having to talk to customer service to make a special purchase at all. Silent Linksimply connects to data providers in the local network and draws from the balance on the user accounts, minimising friction and staying competitive on price. 

According to Bob, Silent Link can get around state firewalls, including the Chinese firewall, and users report they can use WhatsApp from Dubai, which has restrictions on Voice over IP (VoIP) protocols. The eSIM model actually has a lot to do with this censorship resistance quality unlocked by Silent Link.

Data sharing hotspot features are not throttled either, essential for perpetual travellers and those Bitcoiners hopping from conference to conference around the globe as they work online.

This post How Silent.Link Solves SIM-Swap Risks and Roaming Hassles for Traveling Bitcoiners first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Coinbase (COIN) Surges 18%, Strategy (MSTR) Jumps 10% as Crypto Stocks Jump 

U.S. markets saw a rotation into risk assets today and crypto-linked stocks, like Coinbase and Strategy, led some of the brightest gains of the day’s session. Even as broader indexes such as the Dow and S&P 500 traded mixed on inflation and economic data, digital-asset exposure helped certain high-beta names outperform.

Coinbase (COIN) was among the standout performers. COIN surged more than 18% on the day, finishing well ahead of most traditional technology stocks as traders “bought the dip” in crypto exposure. 

The daily gain came despite a difficult earnings backdrop: Coinbase reported a $666.7 million Q4 2025 loss, its first in several quarters, driven by lower trading revenue as crypto volumes sagged. 

Long-term revenue lines like subscription and services — particularly stablecoin revenue — showed strength, helping cushion sentiment.

Over the last couple of months, Coinbase shares have slid as the broader crypto market weakened and analysts grew more cautious. 

Monness Crespi & Hardt downgraded $COIN from buy to neutral, setting a $120 price target and warning of downside risk tied to softer market conditions. 

The stock has struggled in early 2026, falling roughly 34% year-to-date as Bitcoin dropped about 30% in the past month and altcoins posted even steeper losses. Lower crypto prices have reduced trading volumes, squeezing one of Coinbase’s main revenue drivers. 

Meanwhile, CEO Brian Armstrong sold more than 1.5 million shares worth about $545 million, calling it a diversification move. 

Strategy’s (MSTR) strong day

Strategy (MSTR) also posted notable upside on the day, with shares rising around 10% in line with a rebound in Bitcoin prices. Strategy shares have swung dramatically alongside bitcoin’s price, falling hard during the broader crypto sell-off before rebounding later into the week as markets stabilized. 

Despite the turbulence, Strategy is staying committed to adding to its bitcoin treasury. The firm disclosed another purchase of more than 1,100 BTC this week, spending roughly $90 million at an average price near the high-$70,000 range. 

Strategy also announced its latest earnings results, which reflected the risks of its bitcoin-heavy balance sheet. 

The company posted a multi-billion dollar quarterly loss, largely tied to mark-to-market declines on its bitcoin holdings, underscoring how price downturns can heavily impact reported financial performance even as the firm maintains a long-term holding posture.

Executive Chairman Michael Saylor continued to publicly defend the strategy, reiterating that the company does not intend to sell bitcoin through downturns and arguing that Strategy is positioned to withstand extended volatility in Bitcoin’s price. 

Other crypto-related stocks saw gains as well today, with Circle (CRCL) climbing roughly 7% and Galaxy Digital (GLXY) rising 6.5%, continuing the sector’s upward momentum.

This post Coinbase (COIN) Surges 18%, Strategy (MSTR) Jumps 10% as Crypto Stocks Jump  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

White House Executive Director: Trillions Are Waiting To Enter Bitcoin And Crypto, Working Hard on Market Structure Bill

Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, discussed the ongoing push for the crypto legislation and the federal government’s management of Bitcoin during a Yahoo Finance interview earlier today, stressing the need for regulatory clarity and institutional engagement.

Witt explained that the House passed its version of the Clarity Act last year, and the Senate is drafting its own amendments. 

Sections of the bill addressing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have cleared the Agriculture Committee, while portions covering the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) remain in the Senate Banking Committee. A markup scheduled for January was postponed, and Witt said discussions are underway to resolve outstanding issues. 

“We are taking it so seriously,” he noted, emphasizing the need for compromise on concerns such as stablecoin yields and deposit flight.

“We’ve taken it so seriously,” he said, “It’s why we’ve hosted the different interested stakeholders here at the White House, and we’re going to continue to stay at the table and encourage them to find a compromise on this issue.” 

Crypto held by the U.S. government

While the Clarity Act focuses on regulatory clarity, Witt highlighted the government’s Bitcoin holdings as a separate but critical priority. 

Following an executive order, agencies halted uncontrolled liquidation of digital assets, preventing potential losses that “could have been tens of billions of dollars.” 

He said efforts are underway to centralize oversight, ensure proper accounting of wallets holding Bitcoin and other digital assets, and explore ways to increase the government’s holdings in a budget-neutral manner.

Witt pointed to existing legislation from Senator Cynthia Lummis and a forthcoming House bill from Representative Begich, which would formalize authority over government digital assets. 

“Ultimately, if Congress decides, we could add to that stockpile with outright purchases,” he said, noting that such acquisitions would require appropriations approval.

Witt spent some time in the interview stressing the broader implications for U.S. leadership in digital finance. Centralizing asset management safeguards public resources while positioning the United States to engage more strategically in Bitcoin markets. 

“There are trillions of dollars in institutional capital on the sidelines waiting to get into this space,” Witt said via X regarding the interview. 

Witt also noted that improved regulatory clarity under the Clarity Act allows both banks and crypto firms to operate with confidence, creating opportunities for innovation and institutional participation.

He emphasized that banks and crypto companies are moving toward collaboration. “There’s tremendous opportunity for the JPMorgans of the world to engage in crypto activities,” he said.

With committee reconciliation and Senate floor time still pending, Witt signaled a sense of urgency. 

“We’ve got to get this done,” he said, framing crypto legislation and government Bitcoin oversight as complementary steps to secure U.S. influence in crypto.

This post White House Executive Director: Trillions Are Waiting To Enter Bitcoin And Crypto, Working Hard on Market Structure Bill first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Brazil Proposes National Bitcoin Reserve, Targets 1 Million BTC Over Five Years

Brazilian lawmakers have reintroduced a bill to create a national Strategic Sovereign Bitcoin Reserve, known as RESBit, proposing the gradual acquisition of one million bitcoins over five years. 

The bill, presented by Federal Deputy Luiz Gastão (PSD/CE), outlines a comprehensive framework to integrate Bitcoin into the country’s financial strategy and diversify national reserves.

The proposed legislation establishes several guidelines for RESBit. First, the plan calls for a gradual accumulation of at least 1,000,000 BTC over five years. It prohibits the sale of bitcoins seized by Brazilian judicial authorities, ensuring that these assets remain within public control. 

The bill also allows for the collection of Brazil’s federal taxes in Bitcoin and offers incentives for public companies to engage in Bitcoin mining and storage.

Transparency is a central feature of the proposal. The bill mandates public disclosure of RESBit’s bitcoin holdings through internet-based platforms, enabling auditing by the public.

It emphasizes secure storage of digital assets using technologies such as cold wallets, multisignature wallets, and other internationally recognized mechanisms.

In addition, the legislation permits temporary holdings of spot ETFs backed by bitcoin in the reserve portfolio, subject to urgent and limited circumstances.

If approved, Brazil could join a small group of countries actively holding Bitcoin at a national level, potentially surpassing major holders like the United States and China. 

Other countries like Brazil exploring Bitcoin reserves 

Quite famously, El Salvador holds the mantle as the ‘world’s first country’ with a strategic Bitcoin reserve, reporting over 7,560 Bitcoin under President Nayib Bukele’s program.

Despite scaling back mandatory Bitcoin acceptance under IMF agreements, the government has maintained regular purchases, citing long-term financial sovereignty and reserve diversification. The National Bitcoin Office now splits holdings across multiple addresses to bolster security and transparency.

The Central American nation’s approach has inspired policymakers worldwide. In the United States, the BITCOIN Act of 2025 proposed somewhat of a federal strategic Bitcoin reserve, while several states, including New Hampshire and Arizona, have passed or proposed laws allowing portions of public funds to be invested in digital assets.

President Trump’s March 2025 executive order further directed federal agencies to explore Bitcoin accumulation from seized assets without new taxpayer costs.

In Europe, the Czech National Bank has a similar allocation in bitcoin, while Switzerland sees a citizen-led initiative proposing a constitutional mandate for Bitcoin holdings. 

Hong Kong, Ukraine, and Pakistan are also exploring frameworks to hold Bitcoin at the national level, with Pakistan pledging never to sell its future reserves.

This post Brazil Proposes National Bitcoin Reserve, Targets 1 Million BTC Over Five Years first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Cboe wants to bring back all-or-nothing options, a contract that pays a fixed amount if a condition is met and pays zero if it isn't.

While that might sound like a small product refresh, the timing makes it hard to ignore. Prediction markets have trained a new retail reflex: turn a belief into a number that reads like odds, then buy or sell that number.

Cboe’s proposal to the SEC is an attempt to package that same instinct inside US exchange rules, clearing, and brokerage distribution.

However, it's important to note that Cboe isn't trying to replicate Polymarket feature-for-feature. The company is actually trying to compete for the same mental model with regulators watching: the simple yes/no frame, the single price, and the quick feedback.

If it works, probability trading will stop being a crypto-native curiosity and become a mainstream retail format that sits next to equities and standard options, with the same compliance wrappers.

If it fails, it won't be because the payoff shape is unfamiliar, but because permissioned markets have limits on what they can list and how close they can drift toward anything that looks like sportsbook behavior.

A prediction market in a suit

Binary options are easy to explain and even easier to understand, which is part of the appeal.

A buyer pays a price today for a contract that settles at a fixed payout if a specific condition holds at expiry. In many designs, the contract trades inside a tight band between “no chance” and “certain,” so the price feels like implied odds, even though fees, market frictions, and risk premiums keep it from being a clean probability readout.

That single number is the hook: you don't need to learn the Greeks to understand what you own.
Binary options also have a long paper trail. Cboe itself launched binary options in 2008 and later stepped away when uptake was thin.

The current push is tied to discussions with retail brokerages and an aim to offer a regulated alternative to fast-growing prediction venues, while sticking to financial market outcomes rather than open-ended event questions.

So the 60-second explanation of binary options is that you're buying a condition, not upside that scales with how far a market moves. Either it settles in the money, and you receive the fixed payout, or it settles out of the money, and you receive nothing.

That fixed-payoff feel is why many retail traders describe these contracts more like odds than options, and why they slot neatly into the mental category that prediction markets popularized.

The crucial difference between them is where the contract lives.

Cboe’s version would sit inside the regulated exchange stack: standard broker rails, surveillance, margin rules, and clearing.

Prediction markets span a wide range of designs and regulatory environments, from US-regulated event contracts to offshore or crypto-native venues that rely on smart contracts, oracles, and venue-level rulebooks.

That distinction is what decides who gets access, what can be listed, how disputes get handled, and how quickly the product can evolve.

Why binaries keep returning

There's a reason why binary options keep reappearing in waves.

Retail demand repeatedly clusters around markets and assets that feel simple and bounded. A fixed-loss, fixed-payout contract offers a nice and clean way for sizing risk. You can decide what you're willing to lose before you press the button, and you never have to translate a one standard deviation move into a payoff curve.

What changed in the last few years is the interface people learned.

Prediction markets normalized the idea that you can trade beliefs as a price. They made probability legible to people who don't care about what's under the hood.

A contract that says “yes 62” or “no 38” is a triumph of user experience because it compresses uncertainty into a single tradable number, and it makes the act of updating your view feel like moving a slider instead of building a strategy.

All of this means we can see Cboe's bet for what it really is: a distribution play. Exchanges already have the infrastructure and the broker pipes. Cboe itself has been explicit that it's focusing on areas tied to prediction markets and crypto as part of its growth agenda, even as it benefits from an options boom in its core business.

There's also an uncomfortable, unavoidable history lesson here. Binary options became a dirty phrase in the retail world because of fraud and abusive offshore marketing that used the simplicity of the product to sell something that was anything but fair market. That legacy raises the bar for any US exchange effort.

The pitch cannot just be that these contracts are simple. It has to be that they're simple inside a structure that is surveilled, standardized, and very, very hard to game.

The real contest is distribution and trust

When you put the two stacks side by side, the competition becomes permissioned odds versus open odds.

The regulated exchange stack has three built-in advantages.

First, it already sits inside the brokerage apps where quite a bit of retail trading happens.

Second, it comes with a clearer set of guardrails around custody, clearing, and standardized settlement.

Third, it can be framed as a financial instrument rather than a social betting product.

But that stack also carries constraints that aren't negotiable. A US exchange can't list “anything that people want to argue about.” Product scope is bounded by what regulators will tolerate, what surveillance can support, and what doesn't trigger the view that the exchange is running a casino.

Crypto-native and other open venues thrive precisely where those constraints are weakest. They move faster, they can iterate on market design quickly, and they can list culturally relevant questions that capture attention beyond finance.

Their problem is legitimacy and trust at scale.

When the contract is built around an oracle, a dispute process, or a venue rulebook, the user has to believe the settlement will be handled cleanly in edge cases. That's a hard sell for mainstream retail, even for users who like the format.

This is where the US-regulated prediction market story complicates things. Kalshi has argued for years that event contracts can sit inside the federal commodities framework, and it has fought legal battles on where state gaming rules end and federal oversight begins.

In early February, a Massachusetts judge ordered Kalshi to stop offering sports-related contracts in the state unless it gets a state gaming license, a reminder that even a federally regulated issue can still collide with state-level gambling regimes.

Copying the interface is easier than copying the universe

The biggest limitation on a Cboe-style product is the “listable reality” problem: what a permissioned venue can place on its shelves.

Prediction markets draw energy from relevance. The flywheel is cultural. People trade the relevant thing, the thing they're already arguing about, and the price of those contracts becomes part of the conversation. That's going to be very hard to reproduce inside a narrow lane of financial outcomes without losing much of what made the format magnetic.

Even in the regulated world, the boundary has been contested.

Kalshi’s attempt to list political contracts led to a high-profile legal fight with the CFTC, and an appellate decision in 2024 became a key reference point in debates about whether certain political event contracts can be treated as permissible under the commodities regime.

That dispute isn't what Cboe is proposing, but it shows the terrain: the closer you get to markets on everything, the more you invite arguments about gaming, public policy, and incentives.

So, a Cboe product that stays anchored to financial thresholds may avoid the loudest fights, but it also risks feeling sterile next to platforms that can list the questions that dominate the group chat.

The exchange can borrow the probability-shaped UI, but it can't easily borrow the universe of topics that powered prediction markets’ cultural momentum.

The gambler’s interface problem

Probability trading carries a second tension, and it won't go away just because the rails are regulated.

A yes/no frame lowers the psychological barrier to participation. That's good for accessibility, but it also invites criticism that the format is engineered for compulsion: quick resolution, simple narratives, and the sense that you are buying odds rather than taking risks.

There are also market-structure risks that matter even in a clean, well-run venue. Thin liquidity can make prices jumpy, which turns probability into a noisy artifact.

Settlement incentives can attract attempts to game the reference process, especially around boundary conditions where the contract definition matters more than the underlying economic truth.

And ambiguous wording is poison. If a contract leaves room for interpretation, the first dispute becomes the story, and trust evaporates quickly.

Regulated venues can reduce some of these risks. They can standardize definitions, publish settlement procedures, and police abusive activity. But they can't remove the core temptation critique, because the critique is about design. A contract that turns uncertainty into a single tradable number will always look, to some observers, like a financialized version of betting, regardless of whether it clears through a well-known clearinghouse.

What to watch if Cboe actually launches

If Cboe gets this product out of the idea stage and into accounts, success will show up in boring microstructure details.

You'd want to see tight spreads that persist beyond the novelty phase, and volume that sticks after the first week, not just a launch spike. You'd also want to see brokers place it somewhere visible rather than bury it, because distribution is the entire point of doing this on an exchange.

You'd also want to see how quickly the contract menu expands without triggering a regulatory fight. A narrow set of equity-index thresholds would be an early proof of life. A broader set of economically meaningful event-style contracts would be proof that the format can grow inside the fence.

The other tell will be the political tone that surrounds it.

Quiet acceptance is a form of permission. Loud objections can freeze expansion, even if they don't kill the product. The Kalshi disputes show how quickly the conversation can turn from a new market format to unlicensed gambling, and how that can become a state-by-state grind.

Cboe’s move, in the end, is a recognition that prediction markets exported something valuable to the wider financial world: a compact way to trade beliefs. The open venues built the culture and taught users the interface.

The regulated venues have the distribution and the legitimacy that large pools of retail capital still prefer. The question is whether that legitimacy can coexist with a format that looks, at first glance, like odds.

Wall Street isn't going to turn into a prediction market any time soon. But it seems to be trying hard to absorb the part of prediction markets that retail found easiest to understand, then fit it inside a structure that can survive regulators, politicians, and the inevitable backlash cycle that follows anything popular and simple.

Whether that becomes a durable new retail habit will depend on what permissioned markets can safely list, and how much of the markets on everything energy they can capture without stepping over the line that turns a trading product into gambling.

The post Wall Street is desperate to copy crypto’s prediction markets as Cboe files for “Yes/No” options appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin’s February drop to about $60,000 was the kind of single-day panic people will remember as a bottom.

But the more accurate reading of this washout is harder and more useful: this cycle quit in stages, and the sellers rotated.

A Feb. 10 report from Checkonchain framed the move as a capitulation event that arrived fast, on heavy volume, with losses large enough to reset psychology.

It also argues that the market had already capitulated once before, in November 2025, and that the identity of the sellers was different in each act.

So if we really want to understand where the weak points were, we have to look past the most dramatic candle and start looking at who actually sold, and why they had to.

Capitulation, in plain terms, means surrender.

It’s panic selling that accelerates a decline, usually because investors decide they cannot tolerate another leg down. In crypto, that surrender leaves a very visible footprint on-chain as realized losses.

The data suggests that what we saw in February was a flush that forced loss-taking at record scale. It also came after a first purge months earlier.

The numbers are blunt: short-term holders saw about $1.14 billion of losses in a single day, while long-term holders took about a $225 million hit that same day.

When we net losses against profit-taking, the net realized loss rate was around $1.5 billion per day during the heaviest window. When focusing only on realized losses, we can treat November 2025 and February 2026 as separate capitulation events that each exceeded $2 billion per day in realized loss.

It’s useful to frame this as two separate events because it explains a common frustration in this cycle.

Price can look like it is stabilizing and then collapse anyway, because the group still holding the risk changes.

One cohort can survive a drawdown, but another cohort can’t survive the boredom, the second failure, or the moment they realize their dip buy was just the first of many dips.

Act I: November broke the class of 2025

The first capitulation came in November 2025, when Bitcoin fell to about $80,000.

We can reasonably call this capitulation because realized losses in that November event were about 95% dominated by the “class of 2025.”

The idea behind this cohort is as interesting as it is useful. A cohort here means coins grouped by when they were acquired. If you know when a coin last moved on-chain, you have a timestamped cost basis for that unit.

Aggregate that across the network, and you can talk about who’s underwater and who’s not. That same logic sits behind realized price, commonly described as the average on-chain cost basis of coins in circulation.

In November, the sellers were the people who had lived through a year where the market never gave them the clean resolution they expected.

The report’s phrasing is that they gave up after a year of macro-sideways trading. That’s a specific kind of capitulation you might call exhaustion.

It’s the moment when time pain becomes price pain, because investors decide they would rather be wrong and flat than right and stuck.

That’s also why a lot of the talk about market cycles misfires here.

In previous bear markets, you could tell a neat story about a single final flush that cleared out leverage and broke the last believers.

This time, a lot of that work was done earlier and slower, through the calendar grind that made people stop caring.

The report even floats the idea that the long sideways stretch in 2025 should count as part of the bear’s duration. It argues that period paid time pain up front and loaded the spring for an earlier puke.

You don’t necessarily have to agree with that to see the point: sellers were already primed.

Act II: February broke the dip buyers, and dragged the rest with them

February is the second act, and it had a much different emotional signature.

Bitcoin touched a low of around $60,000, with the seller map shifting to a roughly even split between the class of 2025 and the class of 2026. In other words, the newer buyers became sellers.

Data shows those 2026 buyers were people who bought the $80,000 to $98,000 bear-flag zone, thinking they were buying the bottom. That’s capitulation by broken confidence.

The remaining 2025 cohort most likely sold because they regretted not selling at $80,000 and decided to sell at $60,000 instead.

That’s an ugly but realistic behavior pattern.

People don’t sell just because they’re down. They sell because they held through a chance to de-risk, and because a second crash makes the earlier mistake not to sell feel permanent. This is where the “two capitulations” framework earns its keep.

In November, the sellers were mostly one class.

In February, the market had to clear two classes at once: the exhausted holders from last year and the fresh dip buyers who learned they were early.

That combination is why the realized-loss numbers get so large, and why the emotional vibe gets so dark.

The report calls the realized loss spike in February the largest realized loss event in history in absolute dollar terms. The net realized loss flow was about $1.5 billion per day during the flush, because profit-taking was muted while losses exploded.

That ratio matters more than raw price, because it shows this wasn’t a run-of-the-mill redistribution. It was people hitting the eject button en masse.

The other tell is that the flush didn’t happen quietly.

Volume across spot, ETFs, futures, and options surged.

Aggregate spot volume was around $15.4 billion per day, while ETF weekly trade volume reached an all-time high of about $45.6 billion.

Futures volume jumped to over $107 billion per day from about $62 billion per day. Options volume doubled since January to about $12 billion per day, with around half tied to IBIT options. That put it above Deribit, at about $4 billion per day.

This kind of spike in volume is important because capitulations have to trade.

They’re a mass argument about value, with forced selling on one side and high-conviction buying on the other.

And February had that argument going on in every venue at once.

The bottom is a band, because cost basis is a band

There is a temptation, especially after a dramatic wick, to turn the whole episode into a single-number debate.

Was $60,000 the bottom, yes or no?

But there’s a better way to think about it: bottoms are processes that play out around cost basis, not moments that appear because a candle looks dramatic.

We can anchor that process to two reference levels.

One is the realized price, which the report places at around $55,000. Realized price is the network’s average cost basis, built from the last on-chain movement price of coins in circulation.

The other is the true market mean, now about $79,400.

Bottom formation tends to start below the mean but above the realized price. But spending meaningful time below the realized price weakens that thesis. That gives us a usable band.

If Bitcoin is above its realized price, the market is still, on average, holding above the network’s cost basis. If it’s below the higher mean, the market is still working through the damage.

The report also frames the $60,000 wick as landing close to the 200-week moving average, another long-cycle level traders watch. The 200-week moving average is a level Bitcoin has tended to respect during bear markets.

If you combine those ideas with the cohort rotation, the story tightens.

February wasn’t about a magical line in the sand, but about a point where forced selling finally ran into a wall of buyers willing to take the other side.

Why the calendar crowd keeps getting this wrong

After capitulation events, people reach for calendars because they offer a nice, clean way of measuring things: four-year cycles, 12-month lows, neat anniversaries.

But we should resist the urge to frame this flush like that, in part because this bear market may have paid a lot of its pain early through the sideways year. Time-based heuristics work best when the pain is mostly delivered in one mode.

But this cycle delivered it in two.

First, it delivered stagnation that drained attention and conviction.

Then it delivered a fast price break that forced both exhausted holders and fresh dip buyers to capitulate in the same chapter. When that happens, the “when” matters less than the “who.”

Bitcoin’s washout came in acts.

The first act cleared out people who endured a year of disappointment.

The second act cleared out people who thought they were early to the bottom and learned they were not.

The market got quieter because a large chunk of the marginal sellers either sold in November, or sold in February or got forced out when the wick took their risk management away.

If we frame the drawdown like this, then the next phase is about digestion: realized-loss pressure cooling, price spending more time between cost-basis anchors, and a slower rebuild of risk appetite that is earned rather than willed into existence.

Two capitulations aren’t a guarantee that we’ll have a straight line back up. But they do give us a map of where the weak hands were, and which cohorts have already paid to leave.

In a market that loves single-candle folklore, that seller map is the more durable story.

The post Bitcoin hit $60,000 because two different groups finally surrendered — on-chain data shows who blinked appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto winter has a branding problem.

The phrase makes it sound like the chain goes quiet, wallets stop moving, and the whole machine turns cold. However, the cleanest proof of retail pulling back rarely lives on-chain.

The people who vanish first aren’t the power users bridging stables into DeFi or the long-term holders shuffling coins between cold storage addresses. They’re the casual participants who show up when risk feels fun, open a broker app, tap market buy, and then disappear without leaving a neat on-chain footprint.

That’s why the most usable retail barometer sits in an often overlooked place: the earnings lines of Robinhood and Coinbase.

When retail activity thins out, brokers feel it as fewer trades, lower notional, and less transaction revenue. When retail warms up, it shows up as higher engagement and higher take.

You can have a Bitcoin chart that looks alive while participation is shrinking, because price is now carried by a narrower set of buyers using ETFs, futures, and other structured products.

A participation recession can coexist with a price rebound. You only need to look at what these two companies just reported to see how that split looks in practice.

Robinhood’s fourth quarter made the point in numbers that are hard to argue with. Total net revenues rose 27% year over year to $1.28 billion, with transaction-based revenues up 15% to $776 million.

But the composition of that revenue is important.

Options revenue came in at $314 million, up 41%, and equities revenue hit $94 million, up 54%. Crypto revenue, on the other hand, fell to $221 million, down 38% YoY.

That’s what a retail rotation looks like.

Coinbase, which many still treat as a proxy for retail crypto demand, reported the same chill from a different angle.

In its Q4’25 shareholder letter, total revenue was $1.781 billion, with transaction revenue at $982.7 million and subscription and services revenue at $727.4 million. Consumer transaction revenue was $733.9 million for the quarter, down from $843.5 million in Q3. Institutional transaction revenue rose to $185.0 million from $135.0 million. The company also reported a $667 million net loss for the quarter.

Put those together, and you get the same problem as Robinhood: retail activity cooled, the business leaned harder on non-transaction lines, and the quarter made more from its services stack than trading.

Related Reading

Bitcoin bear market ends when 3 signals flip, and one is already starting to twitch

Watch for sustained closes back above long term averages, steady inflows, and a clear fade in downside hedging premiums.

Feb 4, 2026 · Gino Matos

The retail barometer lives in broker P&L

On-chain metrics can tell you whether whales are distributing, whether long-term holders are spending, whether stablecoin supply is expanding, and whether the base layer is busy.

But they can also mislead you about retail participation because the retail cycle is about people actively trading, not just coins moving.

A lot of today’s flow sits inside wrappers where the chain never sees it. If someone buys exposure through a broker, hedges it with listed options, or trades within an internal venue, the user experience is busy, but the chain can look calm.

Robinhood is built around that user experience, so we can look at its quarterly report like a behavioral survey with a P&L attached. The company ended Q4 with 27 million funded customers and an ARPU of $191.

Those might not be crypto-native metrics, but they’re exactly what you want when you’re trying to answer one plain question: are people still participating?

The participation answer in Robinhood’s case is yes.

But the risk answer is more specific: retail has leaned into instruments that offer defined outcomes and fast feedback, with options and event contracts being the most popular.

Operating data makes that clearer.

Options contracts traded hit 659 million in Q4, up 38% year over year. Crypto notional trading volumes were $82 billion, with $48 billion tied to Bitstamp and $34 billion on the Robinhood app, where notional fell 52% year over year. Event contracts traded reached 8.5 billion in Q4.

Robinhood can call 2025 a record year and still show you a crypto winter in the exact place it actually hurts a retail-facing broker: the crypto revenue line and the app’s crypto notional.

Transaction-based revenue got a lift from equities and options, while crypto lagged at $221 million and missed expectations that clustered higher. That helped explain why the quarter disappointed, even with record net revenue.

That matters because it frames crypto winter weakness as a participation issue, not a product failure. The platform kept its audience, but the audience just did less crypto trading.

Related Reading

Coinbase just lost $667M, which raises an uncomfortable question for Bitcoin ETFs

Custody is supposed to be boring, but concentration risk makes every bad quarter feel like a stress test.

Feb 13, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Coinbase is different because it sits closer to the core venue economy. Retail and institutional flow share the same brand even when they behave differently.

The shareholder letter spells out the mix shift without needing any extra interpretation: transaction revenue for Q4 was $983 million, down 6% quarter over quarter.

Coinbase attributes the consumer decline to weaker consumer spot volume and mix shifts. Institutional transaction revenue rose quarter over quarter, even as institutional spot volume fell.

When a quarter looks like that, it means retail is stepping back while institutional flow becomes relatively more important.

It also means the business model is moving toward recurring revenue, so it doesn’t live and die on the next trading frenzy. That kind of winter-proofing is easiest to see in the subscription and services section.

Coinbase reported $727.4 million in subscription and services revenue in Q4 and $364.1 million in stablecoin revenue alone. Stablecoin revenue helped cushion the hit from weaker trading volumes.

That is, without a doubt, the most misunderstood part of the cycle, because the market assumes that crypto winter equals inactivity.

However, in practice, crypto winter often means that the business of crypto moves toward rails, custody, and yield-like revenue streams that keep working even when retail goes home.

Price can recover while participation stays thin

A crypto winter becomes easier to understand once you separate the price of Bitcoin from the breadth of participation around it. Price can be supported by a smaller set of buyers using regulated wrappers, hedging instruments, and institutional balance sheets.

That can keep the chart alive while the culture of participation feels muted. You see it when the big numbers concentrate in fewer pipes and the spillover into everything else fades.

Coinbase’s own operating notes hint at that concentration. Consumer spot trading volume was $56 billion in Q4, while institutional spot trading volume was $215 billion.

You don’t have to romanticize institutional adoption to see what that implies. In quarters like this, the market can function with fewer participants, but it behaves differently. It can rally on reallocations, hedge flows, and macro positioning, without lighting up the broader set of behaviors that people associate with a full mania.

Robinhood’s quarter gives you the retail version of that.

People are still trading, but crypto is no longer the default outlet for that energy. Options revenue was up 41% year over year, and event contracts became a central product line that the company chose to spotlight.

The appetite for action got redirected into instruments that feel more controllable, more game-like, or more legible in a market where sentiment turned sour.

That redirection also explains why staring at on-chain activity can be confusing.

On-chain can look stable because the users who remain are the ones who actually use the rails.

Meanwhile, the marginal participant who drives the emotional volume of a cycle can disappear without leaving a neat signature, because that participant’s entire relationship with crypto was mediated through apps, wrappers, and broker interfaces.

Related Reading

Vitalik Buterin takes shot at Coinbase's corporate control of Base which dominates 60% of layer 2 income

As Ethereum reduces transaction costs, Base must innovate beyond serving as a cheaper Layer-2 solution.

Feb 4, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Coinbase tied its weak quarter to a broader crypto selloff and pointed to the way trading volumes can collapse quickly when risk sentiment breaks.

Robinhood made a similar point from the other side, showing that equities and options can keep the retail engine running even when crypto cools.

So where did retail risk go?

Robinhood’s numbers hand you three answers.

First, it went into listed options, with 659 million contracts traded in Q4. Second, it went into event contracts, with 8.5 billion traded in the quarter. Third, some of it just stopped expressing itself through crypto notional on the Robinhood app, which the company said fell 52% year over year.

Coinbase’s answer is that retail cooled, institutional flow held up better, and the company leaned harder on stablecoin-driven revenue and other subscription and services lines to keep the business less dependent on retail churn.

All of this tells us that when retail steps back, the industry rebalances around the parts that can keep earning.

However, markets can recover before people do, and price can stabilize while participation stays selective.

The first place you'll see the crypto winter ending and the crowd coming back will be the earnings line that records whether people are clicking, trading, and paying spreads again.

The post Robinhood’s $221 million crypto revenue drop shows crypto winter isn’t on chain and retail already moved appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin derivative traders are increasingly positioning for further downside rather than a clean bounce as the leading cryptocurrency continues to trade in a tight range below $70,000.

According to CryptoSlate's data, BTC price bottomed at $65,092 during the last 24 hours but has since recovered to $66,947 as of press time. This continues a weeklong tight trading that has failed to yield any momentum for the bellwether crypto.

That fragility is showing up most clearly in derivatives, where traders are increasingly leaning into short positions designed to profit from further weakness rather than a clean rebound.

This setup creates a familiar tension in crypto markets. Crowded shorts can become fuel for sudden upside, but a market shaped by recent liquidation trauma and shaky spot demand can also stay pinned in defensive mode for longer than contrarian traders expect

Related Reading

Global markets crash as everything including Bitcoin sells off at once erasing trillions

Over $800 million in long positions were wiped out in minutes as the US open turned into a brutal liquidity bloodbath for unsuspecting traders.

Jan 29, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Funding shows a crowded downside trade

Santiment’s funding-rate metric, which aggregates major exchanges, has dropped into negative territory, indicating that shorts are paying longs to keep their positions open.

The crypto analytics firm described the drop as the most extreme wave of short positioning since August 2024, a period that coincided with a major bottom and a sharp multi-month recovery.

Funding rates exist because perpetual futures do not expire. Exchanges use periodic funding payments to keep perpetual prices aligned with spot prices.

When funding is positive, leveraged longs pay shorts. When it is negative, shorts pay longs. Deeply negative funding usually signals a one-sided trade; the crowd is paying up to stay short, often with leverage.

That creates squeeze risk even in an otherwise weak tape. If spot prices lift, even modestly, losses on leveraged shorts can force buybacks. Those buybacks can push prices higher, thereby triggering additional forced covering.

However, the negative funding is not a guarantee of a rally. It is a measure of how positioning is leaning, not a measure of how much spot demand is waiting on the sidelines.

In early 2026, several signals still read as defensive, which helps explain why bearish funding can persist.

Related Reading

Something broke for crypto in October, data shows how the market changed

Major exchanges are suffering from a "drought" in order book depth, creating a volatility trap where even modest selling triggers massive price swings.

Dec 23, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

October’s “10/10” crash still shapes risk appetite

The reason the short trade has traction is rooted in the trauma of October 2025’s historic deleveraging, an event traders shorthand as “10/10.”

CryptoSlate previously reported that more than $19 billion in crypto leverage was liquidated in roughly 24 hours on that day.

The episode was triggered by a macro shock (trade-war tariff headlines) that hit already-crowded positioning and then collided with vanishing order-book depth.

That context matters because it helps explain why extreme negative funding can persist longer than contrarians expect.

After repeated liquidation cascades, many traders treat rallies as opportunities to hedge, reduce exposure, or press shorts into resistance.

In that environment, bearish positioning can become a default posture, rather than a tactical trade that quickly flips.

Glassnode’s latest weekly framing captures the push-and-pull. The firm described Bitcoin as being absorbed within a $60,000 to $72,000 “demand corridor,” a range in which buyers have repeatedly stepped in.

However, it also flagged overhead supply likely to cap relief rallies, pointing to large supply clusters in unrealized loss around $82,000 to $97,000 and $100,000 to $117,000.

Together, those levels sketch a map for traders: there is room for a squeeze inside the corridor, but there are also clear zones where previous buyers may look to sell into strength.

Related Reading

Here is why Bitcoin registered its first red October in 7 years

The October slump exposed Bitcoin's vulnerability as committed sellers outweighed fading buyer enthusiasm.

Oct 31, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Options pricing shows fear is being paid for

Derivatives markets beyond funding are reinforcing caution.

Deribit’s Weekly market report showed that BTC funding fell to its most negative level since April 2024 and that short-dated futures traded at strong discounts to spot, a pattern consistent with bearish demand for leverage.

The same report said downside hedging demand surged, with 7-day BTC volatility exceeding 100%.

Moreover, BTC Options pricing showed fear being priced for, not just discussed.

The report said volatility smiles priced their largest premium for puts since November 2022, indicating that traders were willing to pay a premium for crash protection even after a bounce.

When puts become that expensive, it usually reflects two things at once: anxiety about sharp downside moves, and skepticism that dips will be orderly.

Spot ETF flows offer a second, less technical window into sentiment, and they look mixed rather than convincingly supportive.

The SoSo Value daily spot Bitcoin ETF table showed outflows returning on key sessions this week, including net outflows of about $276.3 million on Feb. 11 and roughly $410.2 million on Feb. 12, with multiple funds reporting negative returns.

Those numbers matter because the ETF wrapper has become a central transmission mechanism between traditional portfolios and Bitcoin exposure. When it bleeds, it can weaken the spot bid, even if offshore markets are trading actively.

Essentially, the message is clear that BTC's selling pressure is not easing, and a stable bid for the top crypto has not reasserted itself.

In that gap, bearish derivatives positioning can remain dominant, and short squeezes can occur without turning into sustained uptrends.

Three paths from here: squeeze, grind, or breakdown

In light of the above, BTC's next move may hinge less on any single funding print and more on whether the market shifts from liquidation-driven repositioning into stabilization.

Against that backdrop, traders are framing the next phase in three broad scenarios.

The first is a squeeze rally that runs into overhead resistance.

In this scenario, positioning is too one-sided, and deeply negative funding becomes fuel. If spot demand improves, Bitcoin could retest the upper end of the $60,000-$72,000 corridor and approach $79,200, the True Market Mean identified by Glassnode.

After that, the key test would come above that, where Glassnode’s overhead supply clusters fall within the $82,000 to $97,000 range. The story in that case is not a clean return to a new bull market; it is a reflexive rally into a region packed with potential sellers.

The second is a range grind that is consistent with the view that risk sentiment has not fully recovered.

In this situation, the funding rate remains volatile but drifts toward neutrality as open interest and leverage remain subdued following repeated washouts.

In that world, short crowding can still spark bursts higher, but inconsistent spot flows and persistent hedging demand keep rallies from turning into trends.

The third is a structural breakdown from BTC's current levels.

If the $60,000 to $72,000 corridor fails decisively, valuation gravity shifts toward the roughly $55,000 realized price anchor flagged by Glassnode, especially if macro risk-off flares again while options continue to price elevated downside.

Meanwhile, macro remains the lid on all three paths. With the Federal Reserve holding rates at 3.5% to 3.75% and explicitly flagging elevated uncertainty, crypto’s sensitivity to broader risk conditions remains high.

That is part of why this has become a high-convexity regime where crowded shorts can ignite sudden upside volatility, while defensive hedging and fragile liquidity can still pull prices lower in bursts.

For now, the dominant theme is straightforward: traders are increasingly positioned to profit from downside movements, and the market is volatile enough that it can punish them or reward them with speed.

The post Bitcoin shorts just hit their most extreme level in years as BTC defiantly holds above $70k appeared first on CryptoSlate.

On Feb. 12, RippleX, Ripple's development arm, announced that Token Escrow is now live on the XRP Ledger’s (XRPL) mainnet.

The change, labeled Token Escrow (XLS-85), extends conditional locking and release to trustline-based tokens (IOUs) and Multi-Purpose Tokens (MPTs).

This expands the network’s escrow function beyond XRP to cover issued assets used for stablecoins and tokenized instruments.

The upgrade lands as stablecoins continue to expand as crypto’s most established product line. CryptoSlate's data show that the total circulating supply of these assets is hovering around $308 billion and continues to rise week over week.

At the same time, tokenized real-world assets are also scaling in parallel. Data from RWA.xyz show that tokenized US Treasuries are valued at roughly $10 billion on public chains, with tens of billions more across categories such as private credit and commodities.

For XRPL, that market context is the point. The new feature is less about adding another optional tool for developers and more about introducing an on-chain settlement primitive that institutions can use to move assets only after conditions are met.

Escrow expands beyond XRP, but issuers keep the controls

XRPL has supported escrow for years, but the feature historically applied only to XRP.

Token Escrow broadens that scope to issued tokens, which is where most institution-facing use cases sit.

On XRPL, stablecoins, tokenized Treasuries, and other tokenized instruments are generally not recognized as native coins. Instead, they are seen as issued assets.

XRPL documentation makes the issuer control model explicit. Token escrow is permissioned at the issuer and token levels and is not automatically available for every asset issued on the network.

For trustline tokens, issuers must enable an “Allow Trust Line Locking” flag before escrow can be used with that issuance. For MPTs, issuers must enable “Can Escrow” (and related flags) for an issuance to support escrow.

That design matters for regulated issuers, which often want policy hooks and control points embedded in the asset’s lifecycle.

It also means the adoption path is not automatic. A live amendment does not guarantee immediate volume if issuers do not opt in and if wallets and venues do not build user flows around it.

The feature is designed for workflows that require conditional settlement. In traditional finance, those conditions are handled through intermediaries, contracts, and operational processes.

On-chain settlement can compress those steps if the base ledger locks the value and releases it only when predefined rules are satisfied.

In practical terms, token-enabled escrow can support delivery-versus-payment settlement, time-locked distributions and structured payouts, over-the-counter trade settlement that reduces counterparty risk, and collateral and margin mechanics that require conditional release rather than immediate transfer.

Each of those workflows becomes easier to model when the escrow primitive can hold the same asset types institutions use in settlement, rather than forcing the process to route through XRP alone.

XRPL’s reserve model turns object growth into structural XRP demand

XRPL’s reserve model creates a second-order mechanism that can translate greater ledger usage into baseline XRP balances held for operational reasons, rather than for transaction fees.

On mainnet, accounts must hold a 1 XRP base reserve plus 0.2 XRP per owned ledger object (owner reserve). Those requirements were sharply lowered on Dec. 2, 2024, a change that made resource-intensive applications more feasible.

That matters because Token Escrow is an object-driven feature. Each escrow created on the ledger is an owned object. As escrow-based settlement workflows scale, they can increase the owner reserve requirements for the entities that own those objects.

A simple scenario range illustrates the mechanical relationship.

If Token Escrow adoption drives an additional 100,000 escrow objects, that implies an incremental 20,000 XRP in owner reserves (100,000 × 0.2). At 1,000,000 new escrow objects, the total XRP is 200,000. At 10,000,000, it is 2,000,000 XRP.

Those figures are not a forecast of adoption, and they are not a price call. However, they show how XRPL’s design links usage to reserve requirements.

For institutions, that reserve functions more like operational collateral than a fee and it remains because the system requires it to run resource-intensive workflows.

This is one reason XRPL developers focus on “plumbing” features.

In a reserve-based model, the unit economics of growth are tied to whether more meaningful objects exist on the ledger, not to whether transaction fees rise.

The bigger push is a permissioned stack, not a single amendment

Meanwhile, Token Escrow is being introduced alongside a broader set of changes that XRPL developers have framed as a “permissioned” toolkit, designed for regulated participation on a public ledger.

Permissioned Domains (XLS-80) were activated on mainnet earlier this month.

These domains are controlled environments that “do nothing on their own,” but enable other features, including permissioned decentralized exchanges and lending protocols, that can restrict access and support on-chain compliance.

RippleXDev noted on X that the Permissioned DEX had reached validator consensus to activate shortly after.

When viewed as a combined architecture, these features answer three distinct questions for institutional participants.

Permissioned Domains address who is allowed to participate in a transaction. Token Escrow addresses how assets settle conditionally and safely. Lastly, the Permissioned DEX addresses where compliant liquidity and price discovery occur.

This triad of features suggests a shift in the XRPL’s fundamental value proposition.

It is moving away from being viewed solely as a payments chain with a central limit order book and toward a role as an institutional settlement layer defined by gated participation, controlled venues, and native conditional settlement.

The premise is straightforward. Stablecoins and tokenized assets are scaling, and regulated entities often prefer not to interact with open pools where participant identity and access controls are undefined.

If the ledger can support gated participation and conditional settlement without relying entirely on external systems, it becomes easier to map real-world compliance and operations onto on-chain rails.

What comes next, and what could slow it down

The activation of Token Escrow represents a forward-looking bet that the future of blockchain lies in compliance-compatible stacks rather than purely permissionless systems.

The first pillar is regulated liquidity formation, where permissioned venues reduce the compliance friction that currently prevents many institutions from accessing open liquidity pools.

The second is the standardization of RWA settlement. With tokenized treasuries and other assets already scaling, conditional settlement primitives could make production workflows easier to ship.

The third pillar is expanding stablecoin utility beyond simple transfers. Escrow capabilities unlock structured settlement and treasury automation, use cases that resemble back-office operations more than active trading.

Significant implementation risks remain, as issuers must opt in to token escrow capabilities by enabling the required flags. At the same time, wallets and exchanges must integrate the new flows to make them accessible to users.

Additionally, the rise of permissioned domains carries the risk of fragmenting liquidity if the ecosystem splits too sharply between open and gated markets.

The post Token Escrow on XRPL could force new XRP demand, but only if this adoption hurdle breaks appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Peter Steinberger's open-source AI agent OpenClaw hit 180,000 GitHub stars and spawned MoltBook chaos. Now Meta and OpenAI want to buy it, but he's determined to keep it free.

A mother in Texas said that crypto helped her overcome financial abuse.

Bitcoin developers lay the groundwork for post-quantum upgrades, but experts vary on whether the threat is years or decades away.

Mark Moran is using a meme coin on Solana to elevate his U.S. Senate bid, rallying degens against a pro-crypto Democrat in Virginia.

Despite its 45% fall since its October peak, Bitcoin has not yet found its bear market bottom, according to a new report from CryptoQuant.

On-chain data confirms that two 1,000 BTC Casascius coins were activated on Sunday after sitting dormant for more than 13 years.

Why your boss will not pay you in Bitcoin...yet. Binance founder CZ and Barry Silbert agree on the "privacy gap" stopping crypto payments from replacing bank transfers.

Cardano (ADA) restores its $10 billion market cap, but digital assets market dynamics and the rise of BCH and DOGE have raised the top 10 entry bar. Explore the two key factors ADA needs to maintain its elite status.

Strategy (ex. MicroStrategy) eyes a 99th Bitcoin purchase to lower its $76,056 average cost per BTC. Discover how Michael Saylor plans to turn unrealized losses worth about 9% into gains again.

Various XRP metrics in green amid short-term positive price momentum.

TLDR:

• Brazil targets one million Bitcoin accumulation over five years through RESBit strategic reserve framework.
• Bill 4501/2024 permits Brazilian taxpayers to settle tax obligations directly using Bitcoin payments.
• Legislation prohibits sale of seized Bitcoins, retaining confiscated assets under public control.
• Brazil becomes first G20 nation to codify Bitcoin as sovereign reserve asset through formal legislation.

Brazil has reintroduced legislation to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve targeting one million BTC over five years. Federal Deputy Luiz Gastão presented the expanded version of Bill 4501/2024 on February 13, 2026.

The proposal positions Brazil as the first G20 nation to codify cryptocurrency as a sovereign reserve asset. The bill creates RESBit, Brazil’s Strategic Sovereign Bitcoin Reserve, with funding potentially drawn from national foreign exchange holdings.

Legislative Framework and Reserve Target

The updated bill represents an expansion of earlier legislative efforts from late 2024. Federal Deputy Eros Biondini originally introduced the measure, which advanced through committee stages and public hearings in 2025. The reintroduced version carries substantially broader ambitions than its predecessor.

MartyParty, a crypto industry commentator, highlighted the development on X, stating “Brazil introduces 1m Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Bill – first G20 country to codify.”

The observation reflects growing institutional interest in cryptocurrency as a hedge against traditional financial risks.

Several nations have discussed similar measures, yet Brazil appears positioned to implement such policy first among major economies.

The target of one million Bitcoin represents approximately 5% of the total supply that will ever exist. Brazil’s foreign exchange reserves currently stand between $300 billion and $370 billion.

Earlier versions of the bill proposed capping allocations at 5% of reserves, though the expanded target suggests a larger commitment.

At prevailing Bitcoin prices between $66,000 and $70,000, the full reserve would cost approximately $66 billion to $70 billion.

However, the five-year implementation timeline spreads acquisition costs across multiple budget cycles. This phased approach aims to minimize market impact while building the reserve gradually through planned purchases.

Implementation Provisions and Strategic Goals

The bill establishes RESBit as the formal mechanism for managing Brazil’s Bitcoin holdings. The reserve structure includes several operational provisions beyond simple acquisition.

Seized Bitcoins from judicial and law enforcement actions would be retained rather than sold, keeping them under public control.

The legislation permits Brazilian taxpayers to settle obligations using Bitcoin. This provision could accelerate cryptocurrency adoption while providing another avenue for reserve accumulation.

The government would receive Bitcoin directly through tax payments rather than exclusively through open market purchases.

State-owned or state-supported Bitcoin mining operations receive encouragement under the proposal. Domestic mining would allow Brazil to acquire Bitcoin through production rather than purchase alone.

The bill also promotes federal custody standards and blockchain technology adoption across government operations.

The reserve aims to diversify Brazil’s monetary holdings beyond traditional assets like US dollars and gold. Currency risk reduction and inflation hedging represent core objectives.

By holding Bitcoin, Brazil seeks to protect against potential depreciation of conventional reserve assets while participating in the emerging digital asset economy.

The proposal awaits further legislative action before implementation. Congressional approval would mark a historic shift in sovereign asset management and cryptocurrency legitimacy within major economies.

The post Brazil Proposes Historic 1 Million Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Bill appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Silver trading at $78 per ounce establishes new range between $70-$90 after climbing from $30 in 2025. 
• Mining profit margins expand significantly with production costs at $15-$25/oz for silver, $1,500-$2,000/oz for gold. 
• Aya Gold & Silver’s Boumadine project will increase output sixfold to 36 million silver-equivalent ounces by 2030. 
• Silver X Mining plans to double production to 2 million ounces by 2027, with capacity for 6 million long-term.

Silver and gold prices remain at historically elevated levels, with silver trading near $78 per ounce and gold reaching $5,000 per ounce.

Market analysts are examining whether these price points represent a new stable range for precious metals. Investment focus has shifted toward mining companies that can expand production capacity at current valuations.

Financial observers note that mining stocks have not fully reflected the sustained higher commodity prices in their market capitalizations.

Mining Profitability Expands at Current Metal Valuations

Analysis from market commentator Wall Street Mav indicates silver has entered a consolidation phase following significant gains.

The metal climbed from $30 to $121 per ounce between June 2025 and January 2026. Current trading patterns suggest a new range between $70 and $90 per ounce may be forming.

Gold and silver miners are experiencing substantial profit margins at these price levels. Production costs for gold typically range from $1,500 to $2,000 per ounce, while silver mining costs average $15 to $25 per ounce.

The spread between production costs and market prices has created favorable conditions for mining operations.

Supply constraints continue to support precious metals pricing. Market observers point to evidence of silver supply shortages affecting industrial demand.

Demand destruction for silver is estimated to occur around $135 per ounce, where solar panel manufacturers would transition to copper-based alternatives.

The duration of elevated prices will determine mining company strategies. Extended periods at current levels enable debt reduction, stock buybacks, and dividend increases. Companies with the capacity to increase production stand to benefit most from the sustained price environment.

Production Growth Differentiates Mining Investment Opportunities

Aya Gold & Silver (AYASF) operates the Zgounder mine in Morocco, producing 6 million ounces of silver annually. Production costs at the facility run approximately $20 per ounce, generating gross profits exceeding $300 million yearly. Free cash flow is estimated at $250 million under current operations.

The company’s Boumadine project represents a significant expansion opportunity. This development will be six times larger than the existing Zgounder operation. Production is scheduled to begin by 2030, with output equivalent to 36 million ounces of silver annually.

Silver X Mining (AGXPF) operates in Peru, home to the world’s largest silver reserves. Current production stands at 1 million ounces per year. Management projects doubling output to 2 million ounces by 2027 through operational improvements.

Long-term development plans suggest Silver X could scale production to 6 million ounces annually. The company’s reserve base supports this expansion trajectory.

Geographic diversification remains a consideration for investors evaluating regional mining operations and associated operational risks.

The post Silver Mining Stocks Poised for Growth as Precious Metals Stabilize at Record Highs appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• AI industry currently spends $400 billion per year while generating only $50-60 billion in revenue annually. 
• Debt-based financing distinguishes current AI boom from dot-com bubble, creating potential systemic risks. 
• Circular funding patterns keep revenue within AI ecosystem without generating actual profits for businesses. 
• Power grid limitations delay data center construction, pushing revenue timelines further while debt payments remain due.

A cryptocurrency analyst has raised concerns about the artificial intelligence industry’s financial sustainability. Alex Mason, who claims to have accurately predicted market movements in 2022, posted warnings on X about what he describes as an impending AI bubble collapse.

His analysis points to a significant gap between industry spending and revenue generation. The timing of potential stress, according to Mason, aligns with 2026.

Revenue Gap and Circular Funding Raise Questions

The AI sector currently burns approximately $400 billion annually while generating between $50 billion and $60 billion in revenue.

Mason argues this disparity represents a structural problem rather than typical early-stage challenges. Major AI companies reportedly lose tens of billions each year. Meanwhile, most businesses implementing AI solutions see no meaningful returns on their investments.

Mason points to circular funding patterns within the industry. Large players fund each other through partnerships that appear substantial on paper.

However, much of the revenue remains within the ecosystem itself. This creates activity without generating actual profits, according to the analyst’s assessment.

The lack of a clear profitability timeline adds to concerns about the sector’s sustainability. Costs continue to rise while profit margins remain uncertain.

Many companies rely on the assumption that scaling operations will eventually resolve financial challenges. Mason also notes a shift toward government and defense contracts, which he interprets as a defensive move rather than genuine growth.

Infrastructure limitations present another obstacle to AI expansion. The power grid cannot support all planned data center construction.

This pushes potential revenue generation further into the future while debt obligations remain immediate. Companies must service their borrowings regardless of when profits materialize.

Debt Structure Creates Systemic Vulnerabilities

The current AI boom differs fundamentally from the dot-com bubble in its financing structure. The earlier tech bubble primarily involved equity investments.

When it burst, investors suffered losses but the broader financial system remained stable. Today’s AI expansion relies heavily on debt financing, with companies borrowing substantial amounts based on future profit expectations.

Private credit markets have already allocated hundreds of billions to technology-related loans. Insurance companies hold significant exposure to these investments.

Banks maintain connections through leverage arrangements and credit facilities. This interconnected web of obligations creates potential systemic risks if AI companies fail to achieve profitability.

Consumer financial stress compounds these concerns. Foreclosure rates are climbing across housing markets. Automobile repossessions have increased in recent months.

Student loan defaults continue to spread while credit card delinquency rates rise. These trends exist before any potential AI-related financial disruption.

Mason clarifies that he does not predict AI technology will disappear entirely. Instead, he suggests markets may be underestimating the pain associated with the industry’s path to profitability.

The analyst indicated he will publicly announce when he believes markets have bottomed and investment timing becomes favorable.

The post AI Bubble Warning: Analyst Predicts 2026 Crisis as Industry Burns $400B Annually appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Dogecoin recorded the highest trading volume among all memecoins during the recent rally phase. 
• Memecoins outperformed Bitcoin significantly before entering correction while BTC remained stable. 
• Historical cycles show Dogecoin surged 95x and 310x in past rallies with third cycle developing. 
• The memecoin index tracks twelve tokens showing aggressive capital rotation into speculative assets.
  

Dogecoin spearheaded a speculative rally that pushed memecoins ahead of Bitcoin and other altcoins in recent days.

Trading volume for the leading memecoin exceeded all other tokens in its category. The surge reflects a clear shift toward higher-risk assets as market participants chase amplified returns.

Memecoins as a group delivered significant gains compared to Bitcoin’s steadier performance. The rally entered a correction phase over the weekend while Bitcoin maintained relative stability.

Trading Volume Surge Reflects Speculative Capital Shift

Dogecoin emerged as the standout performer among memecoins with the highest number of trades recorded. Market analytics platform Alphractal noted the exceptional trading activity in a weekend post.

The platform tracks a memecoin index composed of twelve tokens, including Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, Pepe, Dogwifhat, Floki, and Bonk. The index also monitors Ordinals, 1000SATS, Book of Meme, Meme, ConstitutionDAO, and Neiro.

The index showed clear outperformance against Bitcoin during the recent trading sessions. This performance gap illustrates how capital rotates aggressively into speculative assets during risk-on market phases.

Traders typically abandon conservative positions in favor of memecoins when seeking higher percentage gains.

Alphractal’s analysis highlighted that memecoins significantly outperformed Bitcoin and other altcoins over several days.

The rotation pattern matches behavior seen during previous speculative episodes in cryptocurrency markets. Retail investors often drive these movements as momentum builds around lower-priced tokens.

However, the memecoin rally showed signs of exhaustion as Sunday trading progressed. Memecoins started correcting while Bitcoin held steady at its current price levels. The divergence suggests profit-taking among traders who capitalized on the recent price spike.

Historical Patterns Suggest Extended Rally Potential

Market analyst Bitcoinsensus examined Dogecoin’s historical price cycles in recent commentary on the token. The analysis compared the current market environment to two previous bull cycles. During the first cycle, Dogecoin experienced a roughly 95-fold surge from consolidation levels.

The second cycle proved more explosive with a rally approaching 310 times the starting price. The third cycle remains in development without a clear peak forming yet.

Bitcoinsensus suggested Dogecoin could potentially reach the five-dollar zone if current patterns mirror past cycles.

Historical data shows Dogecoin performs best during strong risk-on environments across cryptocurrency markets. These rallies typically emerge after extended consolidation periods where the token trades sideways.

The breakout phase then attracts speculative capital as momentum traders enter positions.

The current market structure displays similarities to setup conditions observed before previous major rallies. Technical patterns and trading behavior show familiar characteristics from earlier cycles.

Market participants remain divided on whether historical performance will repeat given evolving market dynamics and regulatory landscapes.

The post Dogecoin Dominates as Memecoins Surge Past Bitcoin in Risk-On Trading Frenzy appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin’s hard cap of 21 million coins no longer controls price due to unlimited synthetic derivatives exposure 
• Single Bitcoin can back multiple financial instruments simultaneously, creating fractional-reserve dynamics 
• Wall Street institutions manufacture inventory through cash-settled futures and perpetual swaps to control markets 
• Price discovery shifted from blockchain fundamentals to derivative positioning and liquidation flow mechanisms
  

Bitcoin has dropped below $70,000, prompting renewed debate about the cryptocurrency’s price discovery mechanism.

A crypto analyst argues that the digital asset no longer trades on simple supply and demand principles. The market structure has fundamentally changed due to derivatives layering, according to the analysis.

This shift mirrors what happened to traditional commodities when Wall Street introduced complex financial instruments. The original Bitcoin thesis may be under pressure from synthetic supply creation.

Derivatives Disrupt Bitcoin’s Scarcity Model

Bitcoin’s value proposition rested on two core principles: a hard cap of 21 million coins and resistance to rehypothecation. These foundations have been challenged by the introduction of multiple derivative products.

Cash-settled futures, perpetual swaps, options, ETFs, and wrapped BTC now dominate trading volume. Prime broker lending and total return swaps add additional layers of synthetic exposure.

Crypto analyst Danny_Crypton posted on social media that price discovery has moved away from the blockchain. The on-chain supply remains fixed, but derivatives create unlimited synthetic exposure.

This dynamic has transformed Bitcoin into a market controlled by positioning and liquidation flows. Traditional supply and demand metrics no longer apply in the same way.

The shift parallels what occurred in gold, silver, oil, and equity markets. Once derivatives overtook spot trading in these assets, price behavior changed dramatically.

Physical scarcity became less relevant than paper positioning. The same pattern appears to be unfolding in cryptocurrency markets.

Wall Street institutions can now create multiple claims on a single Bitcoin. One coin might simultaneously back an ETF share, futures contract, perpetual swap, options position, broker loan, and structured note.

This fractional-reserve structure contradicts Bitcoin’s original design philosophy. The market has evolved into something different from what early adopters envisioned.

Synthetic Float Ratio Explains Current Dynamics

The analyst introduced a metric called the Synthetic Float Ratio to explain recent price action. This measurement tracks how synthetic supply compares to actual on-chain supply.

When synthetic supply overwhelms real supply, traditional demand cannot push prices higher. Hedging requirements and liquidation cascades become the dominant forces.

Market makers can trade against Bitcoin using these derivative instruments. The strategy involves creating unlimited paper BTC and shorting into rallies.

Forced liquidations allow covering positions at lower prices. This cycle repeats, creating downward pressure regardless of underlying demand.

The current drop below $70,000 reflects these structural dynamics rather than retail selling. Institutional players use derivatives to manufacture inventory and manage risk.

Their hedging activity creates price movements that appear disconnected from on-chain fundamentals. Traditional technical analysis may miss these underlying mechanics.

The analyst claims to have successfully predicted Bitcoin tops and bottoms for over a decade. His latest warning suggests that investors should understand these structural changes.

The cryptocurrency market has matured into a derivatives-dominated ecosystem. Whether this represents progress or deviation from Bitcoin’s original vision remains a contentious topic among market participants.

The post Bitcoin Below $70K: Analyst Claims Derivatives Market Has Replaced On-Chain Price Discovery appeared first on Blockonomi.

The US Department of Justice announced that Ramil Ventura Palafox, the CEO of Praetorian Group International (PGI), was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors stated that Palafox operated a $200 million Bitcoin-based Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 90,000 investors across the world.

Bitcoin Fraud Case

According to court documents, Palafox, the 61-year-old dual citizen of the United States and the Philippines, owned and controlled PGI and served as its chairman, chief executive officer, and chief promoter. Prosecutors said Palafox falsely claimed that PGI was engaged in Bitcoin trading and marketed the firm as a multi-level marketing investment opportunity. He promised investors daily returns ranging from 0.5% to 3%.

In reality, PGI was not trading Bitcoin at a scale capable of generating those returns, and investor payouts were funded using victims’ own deposits or money from new investors. From December 2019 through October 2021, at least 90,000 investors invested more than $201 million in PGI, including approximately $30.3 million in fiat currency and at least 8,198 BTC, worth around $171.5 million at the time.

As a result of the scheme, investor losses rose to over $62 million. Court records reveal that Palafox created an online PGI portal that allowed investors to track what he represented as their investment performance. Between 2020 and 2021, the website consistently and fraudulently displayed gains, which led victims to believe their investments were profitable and secure.

Luxury Cars, Mansions, and Lies

Palafox spent roughly $3 million on 20 luxury vehicles, including models from Porsche, Lamborghini, McLaren, Ferrari, BMW, and Bentley. He also spent about $329,000 on penthouse suites at a luxury hotel chain and purchased four homes in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, estimated to be more than $6 million.

Additional spending included approximately $3 million on luxury clothing, watches, jewelry, and home furnishings from retailers such as Louboutin, Neiman Marcus, Gucci, Versace, Ferragamo, Valentino, Cartier, Rolex, and Hermès. Prosecutors said Palafox also transferred at least $800,000 in fiat currency and 100 BTC, which was then equivalent to $3.3 million, to a family member.

The Justice Department said PGI victims may be eligible for restitution.

Separately, PGI Global’s UK entity was shut down by the United Kingdom High Court back in 2022. In April 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Palafox with orchestrating the massive Ponzi scheme.

The post PGI CEO Sentenced to 20 Years in $200M Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme appeared first on CryptoPotato.

It was three months ago when the wait was finally over for the XRP Army as the first spot exchange-traded fund tracking the performance of their favorite asset in the US launched.

The initial trading days were more than impressive, and a few more funds joined the Ripple fleet. However, the past week showed a rather worrying trend reversal.

XRP ETFs’ Demand Slows

Canary Capital’s XRPC set a debut-day trading volume record in 2025 on its November 13 launch and remains the market leader despite the launch of four additional funds. It now holds more than $410 million in cumulative net inflows, followed by Bitwise’s XRP ($360 million) and Franklin Templeton’s XRPZ ($328 million).

The products went for over a month without a single red day in terms of net flows, and quickly surpassed the $1 billion mark. However, the green streak broke on January 7, and there were a few more painful days since then, including January 20, and the worst – January 29.

Nevertheless, most full trading weeks ended in the green, with total net inflows stabilizing above $1.20 billion. The past week, though, showed little interest despite three days being in the green. The net inflows were $6.31 million on Monday, $3.26 million on Tuesday, and $4.5 million on Friday, shows data from SoSoValue.

Thursday was a red day, with a net withdrawal of $6.42 million, while Wednesday’s trading volume was absent, with $0.00 in flows. Although the week ended slightly in the green ($7.65 million), the total number and individual daily performance clearly show a declining demand.

But XRP Price Rockets

Despite the lack of interest in the ETFs, the underlying asset’s price went through some intense volatility, especially during the weekend. The token recovered from last week’s plunge to $1.11 but was rejected at $1.55 and spent most of the past several days sitting around $1.40.

The bulls went on the offensive in the past 48 hours, pushing the cryptocurrency to a multi-week peak of just over $1.65 earlier today. Nevertheless, XRP was rejected once again there and now sits around $1.55 once more.

Despite the retracement, XRP’s market cap remains well above $90 billion, placing it north of BNB for the battle for the fourth place in terms of that metric.

The post XRP ETFs Weekly Review: Has the Demand Disappeared? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

While Ripple’s cross-border token crashed to almost $1.10 on February 6, bulls have since stepped in to stabilize the valuation, which currently trades around $1.55.

The question now is whether next week can deliver further gains and how high the price could go. Here’s what four of the most widely used AI-powered chatbots said on the matter.

The Bulls

ChatGPT estimated that the most probable outcome for the week ahead is for XRP to rise to roughly $1.60, which it did on Sunday, but has yet to reclaim that level. It claimed that a move north is much more plausible than a renewed crash, based on recent investor behavior.

“At the moment, XRP looks more like it’s in a stabilization phase rather than the beginning of a major breakout. The bounce from around $1.10 to $1.50 shows that buyers stepped in aggressively at lower levels, which is constructive. However, sharp rebounds are often followed by consolidation before any serious continuation higher,” its analysis reads.

The chatbot projected that an explosion to as high as $2 next week is also possible, but it would depend heavily on a major catalyst, such as a solid revival of the broader crypto market or huge news concerning Ripple and its ecosystem.

Grok – the chatbot integrated within X – agreed with ChatGPT’s assumption that XPR is most likely to surge and maintain $1.60 next week. Nonetheless, it projected that such a scenario will only be possible if the price reclaims decisively the important zone of $1.40. Grok also envisioned a jump to as high as $1.80 but expects the rally to occur toward the end of February rather than in the following seven days.

Several indicators, including the declining amount of XRP held on the largest crypto exchange, Binance, and the formation of certain technical setups, reinforce the bullish thesis.

The Bears

Unlike the aforementioned chatbots, Perplexity is pessimistic about XRP’s performance next week and expects the price to decline. It outlined that investor sentiment has been quite depressing lately, predicting that the price may drop to as low as $1.24 in the coming days.

Google’s Gemini also envisioned a bearish tilt in the week ahead. It noted that February has historically been a challenging month for XRP, characterizing the $1.35 – $1.40 range as “the line in the sand.”

“This level isn’t just a number – it’s the technical floor that has been holding the ‘February slide’ together. XRP is hovering right on that edge, and if it plummets below this, it could open the door to a further plunge to as low as $1,” it concluded.

The post How High Can Ripple (XRP) Go Next Week? 4AIs Make Bullish Predictions appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Whenever bitcoin corrects after a prolonged rally, the general question within the cryptocurrency community is whether this is another “healthy” retracement in a bull market, or the trend has changed completely, and the bears are in full control.

The past few months, though, do not appear to be a regular correction. Bitcoin traded above $126,000 in early October before it plunged to under $100,000 by the end of the year. Its impressive start to 2026 was quickly halted, and the asset plummeted to $60,000 last Friday, charting a 52% drop since its all-time high.

What’s perhaps even more worrying is the fact that most other asset classes, including the precious metal market, kept riding high during this time, charting consecutive new peaks.

As such, we decided to ask ChatGPT if it believes BTC is indeed in a bear market or whether this is another ‘typical’ correction.

Is It a Bear Market?

The AI solution acknowledged the substantial crash in early February, indicating that it “represents a major structural shift.”

“Importantly, the $60K zone was a former breakout level during the 2025 rally, which now acts as critical support.”

If the cryptocurrency finds a solid support and stabilizes at these levels, as it has done in the past week, the move south could “resemble previous 50% resets seen during strong cycles,” said the AI. However, a breakdown below these levels could “strengthen the bear thesis significantly.”

In conclusion to this question, ChatGPT said that BTC is indeed in a bear market, at least by the definition of that phrase. The only thing that remains uncertain is the magnitude and duration.

Where Is the Bottom?

OpenAI’s platform believes there’s a 35% chance that the bottom was in at $60,000. However, its most likely scenario envisions at least one more leg down that could drive the cryptocurrency to $50,000-$52,000.

“The $50K region represents a strong psychological level and prior consolidation zone. A move here would mark a roughly 60% drawdown from the all-time high, aligning with more severe but still cyclical corrections.”

ChatGPT also outlined two extreme cases, both of which it believes are highly unlikely – a capitulation crash to $40,000-$45,000 or a full-on investor exodus to under $35,000. Nevertheless, it explained that both of these scenarios would require a massive black swan event, such as FTX’s collapse or a new war.

Will Bitcoin Endure?

No matter which of the aforementioned scenarios materializes, ChatGPT remains positive on bitcoin’s long-term potential. It reminded that the asset has experienced and survived far worse drawdowns of up to 80% or even 90% in its early days.

“The most realistic bottom range currently sits between $50K and $60K, with a deeper flush toward the low-$40Ks possible if macro conditions worsen. However, bitcoin has shown extreme resiliency in the past, and there’s not much evidence to suggest otherwise now.”

The post We Asked AI: Is Bitcoin Really in a Bear Market and Where Is the Bottom? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XRP is one of the most popular cryptocurrencies worldwide. Its market cap is neck-and-neck with BNB to rank number four by this metric.

Its main use case is fast, low-fee cross-border payments, but the XRP Ledger is opening up an entirely new use case for XRP tokens—decentralized finance (DeFi).

The February update from the official team at Ripple Labs signals a significant shift in the ecosystem’s fortunes. But real quick, before diving into the update:

Here’s how XRP’s price reacted after Ripple released the update on these exciting new developments: on Friday, Feb. 13, XRP traded for a daily average price of $1.35 before it surged to over $1.65 on Sunday.

“Institutional DeFi on XRPL”

The Ripple Labs update teased “Institutional DeFi on XRPL,” in a headline that promised the network will scale real-world finance with XRP at the core. The key selling point for Ripple investors and developers in this announcement is that these updates make the XRP Ledger well-suited for institutional-grade players.

Serious financial firms with big clients in New York City and London can rely on this technology to better meet the needs of their business. Or at the very least, that’s what the XRP team states. The note opened with a quick TLDR; summary highlighting XRP’s utility in liquidity and credit markets as well as for payments.

This referred to On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) powered by Ripple. This platform feature allows large institutions or individuals moving large funds to send them via RippleNet using XRP tokens.

But the exciting updates included:

• MPT (fungible Multi-Purpose Tokens for RWA tokenization)
• Permissioned Domains for access management
• Lending Protocol for native on-ledger XRP credit markets
• Confidential Transfers for institutional-grade privacy
• Ripple support for foreign exchange (FX) markets

Meanwhile, sophisticated new tools such as Credentials, Token Escrow, and Batch Transactions will help enterprise-grade clients stay compliant with financial regulators and automate on-chain workflows.

“The foundation for the next generation of blockchain-based financial infrastructure is being built, with XRP as the backbone,” Ripple Labs said.

Fine-Tuning XRP Utility to Purpose

In addition to the feature set for institutions, which forms the backbone of the next-generation XRP ecosystem on the ledger, Ripple also announced that XRPL now comes equipped with new developer tools to keep open development humming along.

Livenet Explorer is a developer tool that enables institutions and blockchain developers to visualize real-time on-chain activity, balances, and token flows. Meanwhile, XRPL Devnet Tools will help blockchain developers test features such as MPTs, escrow contracts, batch transactions, and lending protocols before deploying Dapps to the mainnet.

On the payments and FX side, permissioned domains will help build walled-off environments on the open blockchain with controlled credentials. Moreover, this can support KYC and AML tools for regulatory compliance.

XRPL is also getting ready to unlock balance sheets by optimizing collateral and capital velocity. This will be possible through token escrow for conditional settlement programmed right into XRP smart contracts.

One of Ripple’s big points in the February update is MPTs, or Multi-Purpose Tokens. Ripple says MPTs are the future of tokenization on XRPL. They can support sophisticated financial instruments such as bonds and funds while also handling metadata and parameters without requiring custom contracts.

What It Means for XRP Prices

For institutional and independent blockchain developers, here are some considerable developments. They may draw more participants and large financial firms into the XRP ecosystem.

But what does it mean for cryptocurrency investors?

During the week following the update announcement, XRP’s price outperformed the rest of the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap, indicating the market perceived the news positively.

However, as CryptoPotato reported, the state of the industry is currently predominantly negative in terms of price action. As a matter of fact, the popular Fear and Greed Index tapped Extreme Fear territory with a score of just 5 a few days ago – the lowest in the last eight years. During times like these, good news does not move markets as much as it does in bull markets.

While the update is undoubtedly sound and important, it is unlikely to cause any significant price change, at least in the short term.

The post Ripple’s February Ledger Update: What It Means for XRP Investors and Prices appeared first on CryptoPotato.