Trump's order shifts defense focus from shareholder gains to production efficiency, potentially reshaping industry priorities and accountability.

The post Donald Trump’s executive order triggers 36% drop in military supplier shareholder rewards appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

China's energy strategy may inspire global shifts, potentially heightening geopolitical tensions and impacting financial markets, including gold.

The post China’s energy strategy vindicated by Iran conflict: FT appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The misuse of military intel for betting highlights vulnerabilities in information security, potentially prompting stricter oversight and reforms.

The post Israeli Air Force officer charged with betting on Polymarket using classified military intel appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The Credit Card Competition Act could reshape financial dynamics, challenging entrenched power and potentially lowering costs for merchants.

The post Senators Moreno and Lummis endorse Credit Card Competition Act, taking aim at Visa and Mastercard dominance appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

AI's 18x efficiency boost in 16 months could significantly lower operational costs and energy use, reshaping AI deployment strategies.

The post AI efficiency jumped 18x in 16 months, Stanford research finds appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Edelman Financial, Tudor Investment Reveal Significant Bitcoin Holdings 

Edelman Financial Engines has disclosed a $34 million position in spot Bitcoin ETFs — a stake that now exceeds some of the firm’s other holdings in major tech companies. 

While the position is still tiny in the investment advisor’s portfolio, it is still larger than its $25 million position in Amazon. 

The position — held in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and Grayscale’s flagship product — tracks closely with the public views of its founder, Ric Edelman. 

Edelman has been advocating for Bitcoin ETFs since 2019, years before the SEC approved spot products in January 2024. He also founded the Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals, an organization built to educate financial advisors on crypto and blockchain technology. 

And Edelman Financial isn’t the only one: In a filing submitted this afternoon, Tudor Investment Corporation, the firm run by legendary macro trader Paul Tudor Jones, reported owning 688,529 shares of IBIT as of June 30, valued at $22.9 million. 

That’s up from the 579,083 shares Tudor reported the previous quarter. 

It’s worth remembering that few investors have built a career reading inflation cycles and their historical patterns as successfully as Jones, making the size of the add notable in its own right.

This post Edelman Financial, Tudor Investment Reveal Significant Bitcoin Holdings  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Funds Keep Big Bitcoin Positions 

Bitcoin is the most important asset in two of Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth funds, according to regulatory filings. 

Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Company disclosed Friday that it held a $490 million stake in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust — the second-largest single holding across its entire 13F portfolio. 

And a Thursday filing from the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, another state-run fund, revealed a $273.6 million position in the popular Bitcoin exchange-traded fund. The stake is the biggest position in its portfolio. 

Both wealth funds’ position in Bitcoin is unchanged since last quarter. 

Earlier this year, blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence attributed approximately 6,782 Bitcoins — worth roughly $453.6 million at the time of its analysis — to wallets connected to Bitcoin mining activity linked to the UAE’s Royal Group.

The findings highlight a distinction between how the UAE has built its bitcoin position compared with other governments known to hold large amounts of the asset. Countries such as the United States hold substantial Bitcoin reserves that largely originated from law enforcement seizures. 

The UAE’s holdings, by contrast, stem primarily from domestic mining activity rather than confiscated assets.

Since the SEC approved a slew of Bitcoin funds in January 2024, major firms have been able to buy exposure to the asset via shares of the regulated vehicles that trade on stock exchanges. 

BlackRock’s IBIT is the most successful crypto ETF: The fund has received more cash than any other crypto ETF and currently has $47.3 billion in assets under management. 

Pension funds and U.S. states have all bought exposure to Bitcoin via the ETFs, along with more traditional investments like tech stocks and other U.S. equities.

This post Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Funds Keep Big Bitcoin Positions  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoiners Warned After French Tax Authority Confirms Data Breach Affecting Hundreds of Thousands

Bitcoiners have been warned after France’s tax administration confirmed that hackers breached its information system, exposing sensitive financial and personal data belonging to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers and businesses.

Writing on X on Friday, Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp said the leak was “more bad news for Bitcoiners living in the leading country for wrench attacks.”

Lopp has created a tracker counting wrench attacks — when physical violence is used to steal crypto — across the world. A large amount happens in France, where data has been leaked before. 

The news comes one day after hardware wallet manufacturer Trezor announced a data breach exposing customer data. 

Cybersecurity researchers at FrenchBreaches, who reviewed samples of the leaked data, reported that the affected records break down to roughly 392,867 individuals and 285,570 businesses. 

Among the individuals, an estimated 26,805 have a reported annual taxable income of €100,000 or more, 386 exceed €1 million, and eight exceed €10 million. The hacker is said to be offering the full dataset for sale for several thousand euros.

The breach first surfaced publicly on August 12, when a hacker using the alias “ZeroBytes” posted on a cybercrime forum claiming to have infiltrated internal DGFiP servers and obtained VPN credentials that unlocked an internal lookup tool covering millions of taxpayers. 

According to the hacker’s own account, the extraction was interrupted before it could be completed, leaving what they described as only a partial dataset of 678,438 records.

The exposed sample reportedly includes highly sensitive information: full legal names, dates and places of birth, home and mailing addresses, marital status, number of dependents, internal tax identification numbers, reference taxable income, individual withholding tax rates, phone numbers, email addresses, and records of past correspondence with tax officials.

Security analysts warn that this combination of identity, contact and financial data could fuel highly convincing phishing campaigns impersonating tax authorities, as well as identity theft and fraud schemes tailored to victims’ income levels or family circumstances.

2025 was the worst on record for wrench attacks (crypto targeted kidnappings), with around 55 reported globally last year, according to TRM Labs. Lopp’s tool counted over 70 throughout last year. And this year is already looking bad, according to the tracker: 54 attacks have been documented so far. 

Wrench attacks made headlines last year when crooks kidnapped David Balland, co-founder of crypto hardware wallet brand Ledger, and his wife in France.

Criminals held the pair for around 24 hours before they were rescued by the French authorities.

This post Bitcoiners Warned After French Tax Authority Confirms Data Breach Affecting Hundreds of Thousands first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Citi CEO Wants ‘Good’ Crypto Clarity Act To Get Passed

Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser has said that while some improvements need to be made to the crypto Clarity Act, the bank wants a “good bill to go through.”

The banking executive said that the bank was a “leader in digital assets” so wanted “safe adoption” of the technology. 

Lawmakers were trying to get a vote on the Clarity Act through before splitting for recess last week but ran out of time. A vote will now take place in September. 

“We want to have good regulation that supports innovation and also encourages the safe adoption of the capabilities of digital assets,” Fraser said. 

“I think it would be excellent for the system.”

A sticking point for the bill has been from the banking lobby, who raised concerns over crypto companies paying customers yield for holding stablecoins. U.S. banks have said they could lose customers if crypto exchanges offer more attractive products for their deposit base.

Fraser reiterated the point on Friday, saying that small banks play an important role in the U.S. and a reward system on deposits could have a “detrimental effect.” But she added: “We have not given up on pushing to get some improvements made to the bill, but we would like to see a good bill go through.”

America’s biggest crypto exchange, Coinbase, pulled support for the bill in January after clashing with banking chiefs who said that earning yield on stablecoins should be banned. 

The Clarity Act was passed last year by the House of Representatives but has been deadlocked since 2026. 

Still, the bill has been worked on by both Republicans and Democrats — despite crypto legislation being something pushed by pro-crypto President Donald Trump. 

Major institutions, including Fidelity and Goldman Sachs, as well as crypto lobby groups and politicians, have said the revised bill works in its current form. 

This post Citi CEO Wants ‘Good’ Crypto Clarity Act To Get Passed first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Treasury Strategy Bites Back After MSCI Announces Possible Index Removal

Bitcoin treasury Strategy has said it “doesn’t need” Morgan Stanley Capital International after the index provider said it could remove the Bitcoin company from its Global Investable Market Indexes.

MSCI said in a consultation that it was consulting on a plan to define “Non-Operating Companies” and make them ineligible for its Global Investable Market Indexes (GIMI).

The removal of such companies would exclude companies like Strategy from indexes visible to a large pool of institutional investors. MSCI said it was weighing up the decision as Strategy is primarily known for holding a large amount of Bitcoin rather than running a traditional operating business.

Writing on X Friday, Strategy wrote: “Digital assets are assets. Index providers should measure markets, not decide which assets companies are allowed to own. MSCI’s proposal puts it out of step with regulators, markets, and its own customers.”

It added: “Bitcoin doesn’t need MSCI. Neither does Strategy.”

The consultation also included Japanese Bitcoin treasury Metaplanet, which trades on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake. 

Based on financial filings as of May 2026, Strategy and Metaplanet already meet the criteria for removal under MSCI’s proposed rule. 

If MSCI adopts the proposal as currently written and their financial profiles remain unchanged, both companies would be deleted from the MSCI ACWI IMI Index as part of the November 2026 Index Review, triggering forced selling by index-tracking funds and loss of future passive inflows.

MSCI is still gathering feedback on the proposal through September 30, and has explicitly said the consultation “may or may not result in changes to MSCI indexes” — meaning the rule could be modified, delayed, or dropped entirely based on responses from affected companies and market participants. Even if adopted, any changes to a company’s underlying financials before the review could also shift the result.

Nasdaq-listed Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — started buying Bitcoin in August 2020 as a way to generate better returns for its shareholders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It has since spent around $63.3 billion on Bitcoin and is the largest corporate holder of the asset. Investors can buy its shares to gain exposure to the leading cryptocurrency without having to buy and hold digital coins themselves. 

Strategy spawned a long-list of copycat firms which have bought not only Bitcoin, but other cryptocurrencies to boost their stock prices. 

Strategy’s stock (MSTR) was trading nearly 3% lower Friday at nearly $95 per share. MSTR year-to-date has dropped by nearly 40%. 

This post Bitcoin Treasury Strategy Bites Back After MSCI Announces Possible Index Removal first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Greenlane Holdings is a Nasdaq-listed company holding about 81.3 million BERA and BERA-equivalent units. Its token treasury ended the second quarter valued at about 77% below cost. A stayed Nasdaq rule could eventually expose the company to a $5 million listing test with no ordinary cure period.

At June 30, the treasury's $70.2 million cost basis compared with $16.4 million of fair value, according to Greenlane's quarterly filing. The 76.6% gap was a mark-to-market shortfall, not a realized loss from selling the tokens.

CryptoSlate Berachain market data puts the price at roughly $0.142. At that price, the same 81.3 million units would be worth about $11.6 million. That estimate is illustrative, not a company-reported current value. It assumes the holding was unchanged after quarter-end and that all BERA-equivalent positions value one-for-one.

Related Reading

The 10 biggest failures in crypto in 2025 (and what went wrong)

Was crypto "maturation" a lie? This brutal insider playbook explains why 2025’s top narratives imploded.

Dec 31, 2025 · Gino Matos

Greenlane's liquidity and losses

Greenlane reported $6.1 million of cash at June 30, down from $32.5 million at the end of 2025. In addition, it held $8.1 million of aUSDC and sUSDe protocol instruments, presented separately from cash, against $6.5 million of current liabilities. The filing flags liquidity, redemption, counterparty, protocol and valuation risks around those instruments.

The company's $24.8 million second-quarter net loss included a $19.1 million noncash change in digital-asset fair value. It also included a separate $1.8 million impairment of its Airgraft investment. Meanwhile, Greenlane's operating loss was $3.3 million, while cash used in operations totaled about $7.1 million for the first half. These figures separate the accounting hit from cash consumed by the business.

The treasury markdown does not mechanically cause a listing failure. Nasdaq's Market Value of Listed Securities metric uses the consolidated closing bid price multiplied by listed securities. It does not use the value of Greenlane's BERA, cash or protocol assets. Nevertheless, those balances matter indirectly because they can affect investor valuation and the company's financing options.

Related Reading

Bitcoin treasury investors are turning on companies diluting them to keep buying

For two years, buying more Bitcoin was enough to lift a treasury stock. Strategy's BTC Yield is now sliding, Metaplanet sits below the value of its coins, and Europe's new entrants are asking investors to fund them on terms nobody has priced yet.

Jun 29, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

A stayed rule with no ordinary cure

The SEC approved Nasdaq's new $5 million MVLS requirement on July 22. The Commission stayed that approval on July 29 while it reviews the decision. The official SEC docket showed no later merits order or timetable as of Aug. 15.

The rule therefore creates no current trigger for Greenlane. If it becomes operative, however, 30 consecutive business days below $5 million in MVLS would produce a Staff Delisting Determination. That process would not include the ordinary compliance period used for many listing deficiencies. A hearing request would not stay trading suspension. A panel could reverse an error or allow up to 180 days to meet all applicable initial-listing standards. That is not a standard cure period.

Greenlane said that, as of Aug. 14, it would be below the threshold without the stay. It had received no deficiency notice or Staff Delisting Determination and was evaluating unspecified alternatives to increase MVLS.

Related Reading

A US Bitcoin treasury company sold every BTC because debt and Nasdaq pressure just closed in

New SEC filing ties a full BTC liquidation to debt repayment, collateral language, Nasdaq pressure and an AI pivot.

Jul 2, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Using Greenlane's disclosed 694,544 shares and its $1.93 Aug. 13 close gives a one-day proxy of about $1.34 million. With that share count fixed, $5 million would require roughly $7.20 per share, about 273% above $1.93.

Separately, a dilutive raise is not mathematically required. A sufficient share-price recovery could lift MVLS without issuing stock. For that reason, at the disclosed share count, clearing the threshold would require that steep price increase. Greenlane disclosed no specific route, and a single day's price cannot establish a 30-business-day compliance result.

The post How a public firm’s $70 million altcoin bet crashed 77% and left it facing Nasdaq delisting appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin market cap must rise to ARK Invest's roughly $16 trillion 2030 base case, requiring about 78.6% annual growth from the current level; institutions and digital-gold adoption carry almost the entire scenario.

CryptoSlate's Bitcoin market cap stands at near $1,263,920,244,537. Reaching $16 trillion by Dec. 31, 2030, from that point requires a 12.659-fold increase in a little over four years.

However, July 2026 spot-Bitcoin ETF flows expose weak demand in the most visible US institutional channel. The current Farside daily table sums to just $172.8 million of net inflows for US spot-Bitcoin exchange-traded funds. ARK's scenario reaches far beyond one month and one access channel, but today's lower market value has made the remaining climb steeper.

The model concentrates 93% of its value in two bets

Bitcoin market cap math: three starting points, three growth rates

ARK's Big Ideas 2026 report states that Bitcoin could compound about 63% annually during the five years to 2030, rising from nearly $2 trillion to roughly $16 trillion.

Three different growth rates matter here because each uses a different starting point or clock.

ARK's published 63% rate belongs to its own approximate model baseline. Treating the displayed endpoints as exactly $2 trillion and $16 trillion across five full years produces 51.6% annual growth. A 63% five-year rate ending at $16 trillion implies a starting value near $1.39 trillion. ARK uses rounded language and does not publish the unrounded input on the page, leaving the visible figures internally non-reproducible without more precision.

The 78.6% figure starts later and lower. It runs from CryptoSlate's Aug. 15, 2026 snapshot through the end of 2030. It is a current-baseline calculation, separate from ARK's stated rate.

In ARK's additive framework, six demand assumptions generate about $15.948 trillion of modeled market-cap impact:

Institutional investment and digital gold total $14.8 trillion, or 92.8% of the calculated base case. The model therefore succeeds or fails mainly on Bitcoin gaining a much larger role in global portfolios and in the monetary use case now served by gold. The other four buckets collectively account for 7.2%.

Related Reading

Cathie Wood’s Bitcoin bull thesis concedes stablecoins won the real-world payment fight

Wood's latest comments pointed out that Bitcoin is no longer being driven by the old crypto-native script.

Apr 28, 2026 · Gino Matos

July exposes weakness in the US ETF channel

Meanwhile, Farside's 22 July daily totals produce $172.8 million. XBTO reported $172.4 million and described July as the weakest positive month of 2026 through that point. The public sources give no reason for the $400,000 difference, making approximately $173 million the appropriate narrative figure.

For comparison, a mechanical annualization produces $2.07 billion, based on $172.8 million multiplied by 12. Monthly ETF flows can swing sharply, so that figure works as a scale comparison rather than a forecast.

Likewise, ETF net flow and market capitalization describe different market processes. ETF data measures creations and redemptions. Bitcoin market cap is the latest traded price multiplied by circulating supply. Marginal transactions can reset the price applied across that supply, allowing market value to move by more or less than the dollars entering an ETF.

ARK's valuation methodology likewise builds terminal values from adoption rates, addressable markets and projected Bitcoin supply. Its $5 trillion institutional component represents a modeled value outcome from 2.5% penetration of a global portfolio. It does not specify $5 trillion of ETF subscriptions.

Still, the recent institutional evidence points to weak traction. BlackRock's IBIT quarterly filing shows $4.286 billion of second-quarter contributions and $7.236 billion of redemptions, producing a $2.951 billion net decrease in assets from capital-share transactions. Those transactions can occur in kind, which makes the filing measure distinct from investor cash flow. IBIT's shares outstanding rose just 0.4105% between June 30 and July 31.

Price response remains equally non-mechanical. ARK estimated that US spot ETFs and asset treasuries absorbed 1.2 times newly mined supply plus recirculated dormant Bitcoin in 2025. Bitcoin's price still fell 6.2% that year.

Together, these observations make July a warning about one major route to ARK's institutional target. They do not measure pension allocations, direct custody or the entire global portfolio in ARK's denominator.

Related Reading

Why Bitcoin’s $500M ETF comeback is missing the US buyers that make rallies stick

The ETF rebound has helped stabilize sentiment, but negative on-chain demand and soft U.S. spot-market signals keep the recovery in doubt.

Jul 8, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The biggest assumptions have the weakest visible bridge

Size and current observable traction make institutional investment and digital gold the most consequential risks.

The institutional case needs Bitcoin to reach 2.5% of ARK's roughly $200 trillion global portfolio excluding gold. The US ETF channel currently supplies the most visible daily evidence, and July showed minimal net demand. A broader judgment needs multi-period ETF data alongside direct institutional holdings, treasury positions and other custody channels.

Digital gold carries more weight at roughly $9.8 trillion, yet its denominator remains open to interpretation. The World Gold Council valued all above-ground gold at about $31 trillion at the end of 2025 and classified more than $15 trillion as investable or financial gold. ARK uses a separate $24.4 trillion gold-market input. These figures describe different scopes, placing ARK's denominator between the Council's all-gold and investable-gold measures.

The base case ultimately needs evidence that Bitcoin is capturing monetary demand associated with gold, not merely benefiting from a larger gold valuation. ARK itself enlarged the digital-gold addressable market after gold's market value rose 64.5% in 2025.

By contrast, ARK's emerging-market assumption has already moved in the opposite direction. ARK cut base-case penetration from 2.5% to 0.5%, an 80% reduction, as stablecoins gained ground in developing economies. The International Monetary Fund estimated that gross cross-border USDT and USDC flows increased from $12 billion in the first quarter of 2020 to $316 billion in the first quarter of 2025, with a large share directed to emerging markets. That growth supports the competitive pressure behind ARK's revision, while ARK alone supplies the exact 80% model adjustment.

Sovereign adoption remains a smaller, policy-dependent component. The US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve was established in March 2025 with forfeited Bitcoin as its initial funding. The policy directs officials to develop budget-neutral acquisition strategies, without mandating funded open-market purchases.

A separate bill that would require 200,000 BTC in annual purchases has been introduced but not enacted. That distinction leaves current US policy centered on retention rather than a scheduled bid.

Corporate holdings can move in both directions. In a July 6 Strategy filing, the company reported that it had sold 3,588 BTC for $216 million from June 29 through July 5 to fund preferred-stock distributions and replenish a dollar reserve. One company's sale cannot measure the entire corporate bucket, but it demonstrates that financing needs can turn a treasury holder into a seller.

Related Reading

Bitcoin treasury trade faces a stress test as debt pressure triggers selling

Corporate and sovereign BTC holders are selling into stress, raising fresh doubts about how durable treasury demand really is.

Apr 4, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

A falsifiable scorecard through 2030

ARK publishes an endpoint scenario. A smooth compounding curve from the Aug. 15 snapshot provides analyst-created monitoring markers for that endpoint:

Bitcoin can overshoot or undershoot any single point. Two consecutive year-end misses, paired with flat or falling multi-period evidence for institutional allocation and digital-gold adoption, would make the base case materially less plausible because the required growth rate for the remaining years would rise.

The 2030 deadline supplies the hard test. ARK's base case fails on its own terms if institutional penetration does not approach 2.5%, evidence remains incompatible with a roughly $9.8 trillion digital-gold component, and the six modeled impacts do not support a Bitcoin market cap near $16 trillion.

Interim institutional monitoring should use a rolling 12-month ETF window together with disclosed direct holdings and treasury positions. Digital-gold monitoring should track whether Bitcoin's monetary role and overall capitalization are becoming consistent with ARK's modeled component. Stablecoin use, sovereign acquisition policy, corporate net buying and Bitcoin financial-services growth then show whether the smaller buckets are adding support or introducing further shortfalls.

July's approximately $173 million ETF inflow raises the burden of proof for the institutional path. The $16 trillion scenario now depends on visible acceleration across institutions and digital gold, while Bitcoin market cap must sustain a 78.6% annual climb from the Aug. 15 baseline.

The post Slowing ETF demand and corporate treasury selling are breaking the math behind Wall Street’s $16 trillion Bitcoin target appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Oxbridge Re Holdings supplied about 95% of the $781,767 raised by SurancePlus’s two T20 and T42 Solana-based placements. Those two offerings were part of the five placements behind Oxbridge’s broader $7.1 million headline, according to the company’s Aug. 13 filing.

SurancePlus, Oxbridge’s 80%-owned tokenized reinsurance subsidiary, offered the two products, T20 and T42. Oxbridge contributed approximately $744,623, while third-party investors supplied approximately $37,143. Using the reported total as the denominator, the split was about 95.25% parent-funded and 4.75% third-party-funded.

Oxbridge consolidates controlled subsidiaries, including SurancePlus, so the parent-funded subscription came from inside the group rather than independent investors. The filing does not explain how the consolidated accounts eliminated that specific transaction.

The $7.1 million aggregate in Oxbridge’s earnings release combined the T20 and T42 placements with three securities linked to HCI Group’s reinsurance business. Those HCI-linked series produced $6.323 million in gross subscription proceeds. Added to the T20 and T42 proceeds, the disclosed amounts total about $7.105 million, which rounds to the company’s headline figure.

Related Reading

Solana’s $8.7B RWA surge shows tokenized assets are finally starting to move

Solana's RWA transfer volume more than doubled over 30 days, shifting the adoption signal from tokenized value to usage quality.

Jul 7, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The filing identifies the HCI-series purchasers only as “investors.” It does not name them or divide the proceeds between outside and related parties. The filings therefore do not support counting the $6.323 million as independently verified third-party demand, and they do not establish that HCI supplied the subscription proceeds.

Meanwhile, HCI provided separate collateral. A detailed filing note says HCI contributed approximately $6.19 million directly to three trust accounts. The same note attributes a separate deposit of about $5.8 million in net HCI-token proceeds to “the Company,” and says the accounts held $12.02 million at June 30. Gross subscriptions, net deposits, collateral and trust assets are different measures.

Related Reading

From reinsurance to structured credit: The financial products you didn’t know Bitcoin was powering

ETFs were just the start. Bitcoin now backs insurance reserves, rated bonds, and billion-dollar loans. We look inside the buildout that few are watching.

Jun 14, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

Oxbridge identifies HCI as a related entity through common directorship. HCI has described the tokens as synthetic contractual exposure that mirrors specified participations in Fortex Reinsurance’s program without affecting HCI’s or Fortex Re’s underlying reinsurance arrangements.

The T20 and T42 instruments are not shares in SurancePlus. Under the offering terms, they confer contractual rights but no ownership, voting, dividend, preemptive or conversion rights. Returns depend on allocated underwriting profits, while losses on the underlying reinsurance contracts can reduce them, making them conditional rather than fixed yields.

Related Reading

UK bond fund ownership records move onto Ethereum and Solana accessible 24/7

BAGEY turns tokenization into a legal-record test, but transfer, collateral, and custody mechanics still have to prove the model.

Jun 26, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The disclosed third-party demand was approximately $37,143 for SurancePlus’s T20 and T42. However, the filings do not reveal enough about purchasers in the HCI-linked offerings to calculate independent demand across the full $7.1 million.

The post Inside the Solana reinsurance sale where parent company Oxbridge supplied 95% of public token demand appeared first on CryptoSlate.

GD Culture Group reported a $211.8 million first-half unrealized Bitcoin loss on its holdings while its split-adjusted share count rose to more than 18 times its year-end level, exposing two distinct pressures behind the company’s crypto-treasury strategy.

The Nasdaq-listed digital media and technology company held 7,500 BTC with an original cost of $842 million and a June 30 fair value of $451.2 million, according to its Aug. 14 quarterly filing. The Bitcoin loss accounted for about 97.9% of GD Culture’s $216.2 million net loss for the first six months of 2026.

That charge reflected fair-value accounting as Bitcoin prices changed. It was not a cash outflow or a sale of the core reserve. GD Culture separately reported selling about 1.08 BTC purchased for short-term trading, receiving $71,201 and recording a $28,799 realized loss.

The 7,500-BTC reserve entered GD Culture through its September 2025 acquisition of Pallas Capital Holding, the company’s 2025 annual report shows. The company identified working capital and general corporate purposes as the intended uses for its 2026 offering proceeds.

Related Reading

The $100 billion corporate Bitcoin surge is down to one buyer as other companies stop adding

Market pressure forces Bitcoin treasury firms to reassess strategies, with Strategy emerging as a key player.

Mar 26, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Equity sales supported liquidity amid the Bitcoin loss

GD Culture ended 2025 with 229,278 shares outstanding and finished June with 4,162,500, after retroactively adjusting both figures for the June 29 one-for-250 reverse split. The increase of 3,933,222 shares left the ending count 18.15 times its year-end level.

Cash issuances accounted for 3,919,455 of those additional shares, or 99.65% of the increase. From May through June, the company sold 2,882,249 split-adjusted shares through its at-the-market program for about $42 million net. It also sold 1,037,206 split-adjusted shares in a June placement at an adjusted $5.25 each, raising about $5.45 million gross.

Related Reading

Bitcoin treasury investors are turning on companies diluting them to keep buying

For two years, buying more Bitcoin was enough to lift a treasury stock. Strategy's BTC Yield is now sliding, Metaplanet sits below the value of its coins, and Europe's new entrants are asking investors to fund them on terms nobody has priced yet.

Jun 29, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The company received $25.1 million of financing cash during the first half. Another $21.5 million in ATM proceeds remained in the underwriter’s brokerage account at quarter-end, so GD Culture recorded the amount as a receivable. The company said it received those funds immediately afterward.

At June 30, GD Culture reported $7.2 million in operating bank accounts and $36.6 million of working capital, which included that ATM receivable. The company used $12.3 million of cash in operations during the half. Management concluded it had enough liquidity to meet its obligations for at least 12 months after the interim financial statements were issued.

Related Reading

Bitcoin treasury firms race to buy more BTC, but shareholders may pay the price

Capital B and BTC AB want more Bitcoin exposure, but their funding plans test how much dilution and financial risk investors will accept.

Jun 22, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The filing therefore presents two distinct shareholder exposures. Bitcoin price volatility drove a large noncash accounting loss, while the rapid expansion of the share base made dilution the direct cost to shareholders. The stock sales did not cause the Bitcoin loss, but the filing shows equity issuance was a major source of near-term liquidity as GD Culture kept its 7,500-BTC reserve.

The post This Nasdaq-listed Bitcoin treasury diluted shareholders 18-fold to survive a $212 million crypto loss without selling its stash appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Cboe BZX is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for an exception to its own generic listing rules so it can list funds targeting three times the daily performance of Bitcoin and Ethereum futures.

The Aug. 10 proposal covers six Volatility Shares funds tied to Bitcoin, Ethereum, gold, silver, crude oil and natural gas. The crypto products would use futures traded primarily on CME rather than hold BTC or ETH directly.

The filing remains pending. An SEC notice dated Aug. 14 said the funds' registration statement was not yet effective and the shares had not been authorized for trading.

The proposed funds would reset leverage every trading day, making longer-term returns dependent on the sequence of daily moves, futures performance, costs, and rebalancing rather than simply three times Bitcoin or ETH's return.

Related Reading

Bitcoin price is being held up by $79B in futures market bets that could unwind fast

BTC's futures activity has surged as ETF inflows resume, creating a market that could extend higher or unwind quickly if liquidity fades.

Jul 8, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Cboe needs a specific exemption

The proposed funds do not qualify for Cboe's normal commodity-trust listing route because they seek three times the daily performance of their benchmarks.

BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4) allows qualifying Commodity-Based Trust Shares to list under generic standards, but Rule 14.11(e)(4)(F) specifically excludes products seeking a multiple of a benchmark. Cboe is therefore using a Section 19(b) filing to seek case-specific SEC approval for the six Volatility Shares funds.

The filing says the products would otherwise operate within Cboe's commodity-trust framework.

Volatility Shares LLC would sponsor the funds, which would be organized as a series of the VS Trust. The sponsor is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a commodity pool operator and would handle the day-to-day management of each fund's assets.

US Bancorp Fund Services would serve as transfer agent, fund accountant, and administrator, while US Bank National Association would act as custodian.

The funds themselves would operate as commodity pools registered with the CFTC rather than as investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. They would still require an effective Securities Act registration statement and SEC approval of Cboe's proposed listing rule before trading could begin.

Related Reading

Crypto won the ETF fight but now the SEC is questioning if things have gone too far

The SEC is reconsidering whether increasingly complex ETFs are stretching retail investors’ trust in the familiar fund structure too far.

Jul 11, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The sponsor would actively increase or decrease each fund's futures holdings to account for benchmark changes and investor creations or redemptions, keeping exposure aligned with the daily 3x objective.

For Bitcoin and Ethereum, the benchmarks would use first- and second-month futures contracts traded primarily on CME. The near-month position would be rolled into the following contract over five business days, with about 20% of the expiring position moved each day.

That structure introduces risks beyond the direction of Bitcoin or ETH itself. Futures basis, roll execution, financing, expenses and tracking error can all affect shareholder returns.

The filing also allows the funds to use later-month futures, linked exchange-traded products or listed options if preferred contracts become unavailable because of price limits, margin requirements, position restrictions or risk controls imposed by exchanges and futures commission merchants.

Those alternatives could preserve exposure while changing how closely the funds track their intended benchmarks.

SEC approval would therefore resolve the specific exchange-rule problem created by the 3x leverage target. It would not, by itself, complete the separate registration and trading steps required before the funds could launch.

Existing 2x funds show how 3x leverage could amplify losses and rebalancing

Volatility Shares already offers 2x Bitcoin and Ethereum futures ETFs, giving investors a live comparison for how daily leveraged crypto products can behave over longer holding periods.

Its 2x ETH ETF, ETHU, reported a -48.81% NAV return for the second quarter, -79.61% for one year, and -96.15% on an average annualized basis since its June 4, 2024 inception, with all periods ending June 30.

Its 2x Bitcoin ETF, BITX, reported a -29.76% quarterly NAV return and a -78.93% one-year return over the same quarter end.

Those results do not predict how the proposed 3x funds would perform, nor can the losses be attributed solely to leverage. Crypto prices, futures performance, roll execution, expenses, and daily compounding all contributed to the realized path.

Compounding alone can create a substantial gap between a leveraged fund and the benchmark it tracks.

FINRA illustrates the effect with a benchmark that falls 10% and then rises 10%. The benchmark moves from 100 to 90 and then to 99, leaving it down 1%.

A 2x daily product falls from 100 to 80, then gains 20% from that smaller base to finish at 96, down 4%. On the other hand, a frictionless 3x version would fall to 70, then rise 30% to 91, leaving it down 9%.

The example excludes fees, financing, futures basis, roll costs, and tracking error, isolating the effect of daily resetting.

That is also why ETHU and BITX cannot simply be scaled up to estimate a hypothetical 3x return. Even when Bitcoin or ETH finishes at the same level, different sequences of gains and losses can produce materially different outcomes for a daily leveraged fund.

The same daily reset that creates that path dependence also determines how much the fund must trade to restore its target exposure after each market move.

In a simplified model, a 3x fund beginning with assets of A starts with exposure of 3A. After a one-day benchmark return of r, restoring exposure to three times the fund's new NAV requires an approximate gross adjustment of 6Ar.

Related Reading

Are 24/7 CME Bitcoin futures a volatility cure — or a new leverage trap?

Wall Street wanted a regulated way to trade Bitcoin around the clock. What it got instead was a front-row seat to one of the ugliest deleveraging weeks of the year.

Jun 13, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

For a hypothetical $100 million fund, a 5% benchmark move implies roughly $30 million of additional buying or selling in the direction of that move.

The calculation does not estimate market impact. The filing provides no launch asset level or flow forecast, and execution would depend on fund size, liquidity, investor creations and redemptions, positioning, and the instruments used.

It does, however, show how moving from 2x to 3x raises both sides of the structure: investors take greater path-dependent exposure, while the fund must make larger daily adjustments to maintain that exposure.

The post Cboe pushes for 3x Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs after 2x crypto funds suffer losses of up to 96% appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Swapping Bitcoin for Stablecoins: Does Austria Charge Tax?

Many bitcoin investors move into stablecoins for a while when the market turns volatile. Rather than cashing out into euros, they swap their bitcoin for a token designed to track the US dollar or the euro as closely as possible. In economic terms the operation looks a great deal like a sale into a state-issued currency.

Austrian tax law draws a decisive distinction here. Where the stablecoin received qualifies as a cryptocurrency within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, a direct swap counts in principle as a crypto-to-crypto transaction. For bitcoin classed as new assets, that step does not yet trigger tax on the price gain accumulated so far.

The liability is deferred rather than cancelled. The historical acquisition costs of the bitcoin carry across to the stablecoins received. Once those stablecoins are later sold for euros or US dollars, the appreciation originally built up in bitcoin can become taxable.

Stablecoins Can Qualify as Cryptocurrencies for Tax Purposes

A stablecoin is meant to hold its value against a reference through a defined mechanism. The US dollar serves as that reference in most cases. Other stablecoins track the euro, different asset classes, or a basket of several values.

According to the Austrian finance ministry, stablecoins can fall under the cryptocurrency definition set out in Section 27b of the Income Tax Act. The ministry names Tether as an explicit example. Among the decisive criteria: the token has to be accepted as a means of exchange and be capable of electronic transfer, storage and trading.

A dollar-pegged stablecoin therefore does not become an actual US dollar for tax purposes. Tracking a state currency changes nothing about the basic position that the investor holds a digital token rather than legal tender.

Classifying a stablecoin as e-money under supervisory law does not automatically rule out treatment as a cryptocurrency either, according to the Austrian income tax guidelines. Tax classification and financial market classification need not line up completely.

A Direct Bitcoin to Stablecoin Swap Is Usually Tax Neutral

Under the crypto tax regime currently in force in Austria, swapping one cryptocurrency for another does not in principle constitute a taxable disposal.

Where a private individual swaps bitcoin directly for a stablecoin that meets the statutory definition of a cryptocurrency, the bitcoin gain accrued up to that point is therefore generally left untaxed at the moment of the swap. The Austrian finance ministry confirms explicitly that no realisation takes place in a crypto-to-crypto swap.

This applies in particular to bitcoin acquired after February 28, 2021, which counts as so-called new assets.

A simplified example:

• Bitcoin bought for 20,000 euros
• Value of the bitcoin at the time of the swap: 60,000 euros
• Stablecoins received: equivalent of 60,000 euros

Although the position shows an economic gain of 40,000 euros, a direct swap into a stablecoin recognised for tax purposes generally attracts no tax at that stage. The investor now holds stablecoins worth 60,000 euros. Their acquisition costs for tax purposes, however, are not automatically 60,000 euros.

The Old Bitcoin Acquisition Costs Travel With You

In a tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swap, the acquisition costs of the cryptocurrency given up transfer to the cryptocurrency received.

In the example above, the bitcoin was originally bought for 20,000 euros. Those very acquisition costs pass across to the stablecoins in principle.

The tax position then looks like this:

Market value of the stablecoins: 60,000 euros
Acquisition costs carried over: 20,000 euros
Appreciation not yet realised: 40,000 euros

Moving into stablecoins does not reset the tax history. The appreciation achieved so far stays in place and is taken into account at a later taxable realisation.

Seen from Austria, stablecoins are therefore no instrument for locking in a bitcoin gain free of tax for good. They can push back the moment of taxation, yet they generally leave the latent tax burden intact.

Selling the Stablecoins for Euros Triggers the Tax

Once the stablecoins are later sold for euros, the transaction is no longer a tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto step. Swapping a cryptocurrency for euros or for a recognised foreign currency counts as a taxable realisation.

That covers in particular:

• Selling the stablecoin for euros
• Selling it for US dollars
• Redeeming it with the issuer against legal tender
• Using the stablecoin to pay for goods
• Using the stablecoin to pay for a service
• Gains from taxable crypto new assets held privately are generally subject to the special tax rate of 27.5 percent.

Continuing the example:

• Original bitcoin acquisition costs: 20,000 euros
• Swap of the bitcoin into stablecoins: market value 60,000 euros
• Later sale of the stablecoins: 60,000 euros
• Taxable gain: 40,000 euros
• Tax at 27.5 percent: 11,000 euros

The stablecoins themselves gained little to nothing in value, yet the sale captures the gain built up earlier in bitcoin. The reason lies in the acquisition costs of 20,000 euros carried forward.

A Euro Stablecoin Also Remains a Token in Principle

The principle extends beyond dollar stablecoins. A token pegged to the euro can likewise remain a cryptocurrency for tax purposes. Swapping bitcoin for a euro stablecoin is therefore not automatically the same as selling bitcoin for real euros. Where the token meets the definition in Section 27b(4) of the Income Tax Act, a tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swap can still be in play.

What matters is more than how precisely the stablecoin mirrors one euro. The relevant question is which asset the investor actually receives:

• Real euros in a bank or exchange account: in principle a taxable realisation of the bitcoin
• Euro-pegged stablecoin that counts as a cryptocurrency for tax purposes: in principle a tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swap
• Token that does not count as a cryptocurrency: possibly a taxable swap against a different asset

Investors should therefore look past the trading name or the ticker of the token.

Not Every Stablecoin Automatically Enjoys the Tax Treatment

The finance ministry chooses its words carefully: stablecoins can fall under the cryptocurrency definition. It follows that the assessment depends on how the individual token is structured.

A tax-neutral swap requires both the bitcoin given up and the token received to be cryptocurrencies within the meaning of Section 27b(4) of the Income Tax Act. Where bitcoin is swapped for a token classed for tax purposes as a security, a receivable, an asset token, a derivative or another economic asset, the exemption for crypto-to-crypto swaps does not apply.

The Austrian finance ministry points out, for instance, that certain asset tokens and NFTs fall outside the cryptocurrency definition. Depending on their structure, different tax rules govern them.

A closer review may be needed for:

• tokenised securities
• tokens on money market funds or bonds
• gold-backed or commodity-backed tokens
• synthetic tokens with a derivative structure
• platform balances that cannot be transferred freely
• tokens that mainly represent a redemption claim
• stablecoins with an unusual legal construction
• The label "stablecoin" on its own therefore guarantees no tax neutrality.

What Applies When the Exchange Settles Technically in Euros?

Some crypto exchanges offer a trading pair between bitcoin and a stablecoin while internally settling the operation through euros or another fiat currency.

The account statement may then show two technical entries, for example:

• Sale of bitcoin for euros
• Purchase of the stablecoin with euros

This does not necessarily produce a taxable intermediate realisation. Under the Austrian income tax guidelines, the operation as a whole can still be treated as a tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swap where the investor clearly placed an order for such a swap, has no influence over the technical settlement and at no point can dispose of the fiat amount shown in between. The sequence also has to be documented unambiguously.

The picture can differ where the user genuinely sells bitcoin for euros first and then decides independently whether and when to buy a stablecoin with the euro balance.

In economic terms there are then usually two separate operations:

• a taxable sale of bitcoin for euros
• a subsequent acquisition of a stablecoin

The decisive factors are therefore the end result together with the order the user placed and whether a freely available fiat balance accrued to them in the meantime.

Swap Fees Generally Trigger No Additional Tax

Trading or transaction fees often arise on a direct swap of bitcoin into a stablecoin.

Under Austrian administrative practice, expenses directly connected with a tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swap are irrelevant for tax purposes at the moment of the swap. They count neither as additional acquisition costs, nor does paying them in cryptocurrency generally trigger a taxable realisation of its own.

That sets these fees apart from network fees on a pure wallet transfer. Where bitcoin is merely moved to another address belonging to the same owner and the network fee is paid in bitcoin, the fee coins can constitute a taxable swap against a transaction service.

Fees on the crypto-to-crypto swap itself benefit from a specific exception. Investors should therefore record whether a fee belonged directly to the swap or arose for a separate withdrawal or wallet transfer.

Swapping the Stablecoin Back Into Bitcoin

Where the investor later swaps the stablecoins directly back into bitcoin, that step is in principle another tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swap, provided both tokens satisfy the statutory cryptocurrency definition.

The original acquisition costs then transfer from the stablecoins to the newly received bitcoin.

Example:

• Bitcoin originally bought for 20,000 euros
• Bitcoin swapped into stablecoins at a value of 60,000 euros
• Stablecoins later swapped back into bitcoin at the same value

After the swap back, the acquisition costs of the new bitcoin generally remain 20,000 euros for tax purposes. The appreciation of 40,000 euros stays untaxed yet stored in the tax record. The gain is generally realised only on a later sale of the bitcoin for euros or on another taxable use.

What Happens When the Stablecoin Loses Its Peg?

Stablecoins carry risk. Their market value can fall below the intended reference value temporarily or permanently. A depeg, as it is known, can carry tax consequences too.

Example:

• Acquisition costs carried over from the bitcoin: 20,000 euros
• Stablecoins received in the swap: market value 60,000 euros
• Stablecoin loses its peg
• Sale proceeds: 45,000 euros

The taxable gain in this case generally amounts to:

45,000 euros in proceeds minus 20,000 euros in acquisition costs = 25,000 euros in gain

The investor has lost 15,000 euros in economic terms against the value at which the stablecoins were acquired, and a taxable gain of 25,000 euros nonetheless remains. The reason is that the original bitcoin acquisition costs were carried forward.

Where the sale proceeds fall below the acquisition costs carried over, a loss relevant for tax purposes can arise.

Example:

• Acquisition costs carried over: 20,000 euros
• Stablecoin sold after a sharp loss in value: 12,000 euros
• Loss for tax purposes: 8,000 euros

Subject to the statutory restrictions, that loss can generally be offset against certain positive investment income. Offsetting it freely against salary or self-employed income is not provided for.

Stablecoin Interest Can Be Taxable Immediately

Simply holding a stablecoin triggers no ongoing taxation in principle. The position changes once the tokens are lent out or committed to certain DeFi or yield products.

Consideration for making cryptocurrencies available falls under current income from cryptocurrencies pursuant to Section 27b(2) of the Income Tax Act. This covers lending income in particular, along with certain rewards for supplying tokens to liquidity or lending pools. Such income is generally valued and taxed at the moment it accrues.

What that means:

• Swapping bitcoin into a stablecoin can be tax neutral to begin with.
• Lending out that stablecoin for interest afterwards can generate ongoing taxable income.
• A later sale of the rewards received can produce an additional price gain or loss.

Platforms do not always use terms such as "staking", "earn", "rewards" or "savings" in their tax sense. The actual economic substance governs. Where the arrangement amounts to lending in truth, the yield can be taxable as soon as it accrues.

What Applies to Legacy Bitcoin Holdings?

The tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto rule in Section 27b covers cryptocurrencies acquired after February 28, 2021. Bitcoin from earlier purchases generally counts as legacy assets and remains subject to the previous tax system.

Swapping legacy holdings constitutes, in legal terms, a disposal of the old bitcoin and a fresh acquisition of the stablecoin received. Whether that disposal is actually taxable depends on the earlier tax classification and above all on the speculation period applicable at the time.

For legacy holdings held privately over many years, the former one-year speculation period has usually expired already. In such a case the swap of the old bitcoin can be free of tax. The stablecoin received then generally counts as a new asset. Its acquisition costs are usually set at the market value of the bitcoin given up at the time of the swap. The finance ministry confirms this treatment for comparable swaps involving legacy crypto holdings.

Example:

• Bitcoin acquired in 2020 for 10,000 euros
• Swap in 2026 at a value of 70,000 euros
• former speculation period expired

As far as the old bitcoin is concerned, the swap can remain free of tax. The stablecoins received then count as new assets with acquisition costs of 70,000 euros in principle. Selling them later for 70,000 euros usually produces no further gain.

The situation can look different for business holdings, legacy holdings deployed to earn interest, or other special cases. Legacy holdings should therefore be documented separately from new assets.

Does the Exchange Have to Withhold Capital Gains Tax?

Austrian crypto service providers are generally obliged to withhold capital gains tax on certain crypto income accruing after December 31, 2023. On a tax-neutral swap of bitcoin for a qualifying stablecoin, no withholding tax should generally fall due on the deferred gain.

Once the stablecoin is later sold for euros, an Austrian provider can calculate and withhold the tax using the acquisition costs it has stored or been notified of.

Foreign exchanges frequently apply no Austrian withholding. Taxable gains then generally have to be reported in the income tax return. Since the 2025 calendar year, Austrian withholding agents have had to supply standardised tax reporting for crypto income on request.

Difficulties can arise where the platform does not know the original bitcoin acquisition costs. Where a move between exchanges or wallets fails to carry the full data across, the automatic tax calculation can diverge from the actual outcome.

Which Data Investors Should Document

For a bitcoin to stablecoin swap, the following information in particular should be recorded:

• Date and exact time of the swap
• Quantity and type of the bitcoin given up
• Type and quantity of the stablecoin received
• Market value of both holdings in euros
• Original acquisition costs of the bitcoin
• Acquisition costs carried over to the stablecoin
• Trading and transaction fees
• Name of the specific trading pair
• Evidence of a direct crypto-to-crypto order
• Information on any technical fiat settlement in between
• Later sales, swaps back or transfers
• Income from lending or DeFi use

The chain of acquisition costs matters most of all. Without it, a later stablecoin sale cannot be calculated correctly.

Conclusion: Moving Into Stablecoins Usually Just Defers the Tax

A direct swap of bitcoin for a stablecoin generally triggers no tax in Austria on crypto new assets, provided the stablecoin received itself counts as a cryptocurrency within the meaning of Section 27b of the Income Tax Act.

The bitcoin appreciation accrued up to that point does not disappear, though. The original acquisition costs transfer to the stablecoin. On a later sale for euros, US dollars, goods or services, the deferred gain is generally realised and can be taxed at 27.5 percent.

• Particular attention is required where:
• the token received may not be a stablecoin within the meaning of crypto tax law,
• the exchange actually settles the operation through a freely available fiat balance,
• legacy bitcoin holdings are used,
• the stablecoin loses its peg,
• stablecoins earn interest or are deployed in DeFi protocols,
• historical acquisition costs are missing.

Stablecoins can serve as an instrument for reducing price risk temporarily. What they do not offer in Austria is a way to realise a gain free of tax for good.

The XRP price is trading at $0.9996 at the time of writing. Not above $1. Not comfortably below it. Exactly on the line that has defined the token's entire summer.

The weekly candle tells the story better than any headline: open at $1.0289, high at $1.0402, low at $0.9852, close at $0.9996, down 2.87% on the week. XRP has now poked below the psychological $1 mark several times in August and clawed its way back each time, but every recovery has been weaker than the last. The bounces are getting smaller, the closes are getting lower, and the buyers who defended this level in June and July are visibly running out of ammunition.

That matters far more than it sounds, because XRP is not falling on its own bad news. It is falling in a market where Bitcoin itself is struggling. And if BTC loses its own footing, XRP does not have a soft landing waiting below.

Why is the $1 level so important for XRP?

$1 is the last structural support XRP has left before a long air pocket down to $0.90 and $0.80. It is not just a round number, it is where buyers have repeatedly stepped in since late June, and it is now the only thing separating $XRP from levels it has not traded at in almost two years.

Round numbers matter in crypto because they concentrate orders. Stop losses cluster just beneath them, limit buys stack just above them, and derivatives desks build positions around them. XRP has spent roughly two months grinding sideways against this line, which means an enormous amount of leverage has been built directly on top of it.

When that kind of level breaks with conviction rather than in a wick, the resulting move is rarely orderly. The stops trigger, the liquidations cascade, and the price does not stop at the first sign of demand. It stops where the next real bid sits.

What do the charts actually say about XRP right now?

XRP is trading below its 200-week EMA at $1.3745, its weekly RSI has fallen to 31.02 against a signal line at 33.50, and the entire structure since March has been a clean series of lower highs and lower lows.

Break that down:

• The 200 EMA at $1.3745 is now overhead resistance, not support. XRP lost it in May and every attempt to reclaim it since has been rejected. Until price closes back above it, the weekly trend is bearish by definition.
• Weekly RSI at 31.02 is nearly oversold, but on a weekly timeframe that is not automatically bullish. Oversold in a downtrend usually means the trend is working, not that a reversal is due. RSI can sit in the low 30s for months.
• RSI below its signal line means momentum is still deteriorating, not stabilising.
• The rejection map above is brutal: $1.20, $1.30, the EMA at $1.3745, then $1.50 and $1.80. Every single one of those was support on the way down. They are all resistance now.

The performance table underlines how relentless this has been. XRP is down 3.80% over one week, 7.99% over one month, 32.78% over six months, 45.67% year to date, and 67.54% over twelve months. Even the five year figure is negative at 22.29%. This is not a healthy asset taking a breather. This is an asset in a sustained, multi-quarter distribution.

Want to buy the dip or build a position gradually? Buy XRP on Bitpanda with the signup code CRYPTOTICKER. Regulated in the EU, with savings plans that let you average into positions instead of timing a falling market.

What happens to XRP if Bitcoin drops?

This is the part most XRP holders are underestimating.

XRP has no independent bid right now. If Bitcoin breaks below $60,000, XRP loses $1 almost mechanically, and the next levels that offer any real support are $0.9049 and $0.8052.

Bitcoin is currently stuck around $63,000 after repeatedly failing to reclaim $65,000. Analysts are watching support in the $60,000 to $61,000 zone, with resistance stretching toward $65,000 to $66,000, and the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement near $57,825 marked as the clearest support on the weekly chart. In other words, BTC has maybe 4% of cushion before it enters a zone where its own structure starts breaking.

Altcoins do not fall proportionally with Bitcoin in these moments. They fall harder. A 5% $BTC drawdown routinely translates into 8% to 12% on a weak large cap altcoin, and XRP is currently one of the weakest large caps in the market by flow data. If BTC slides from $63,000 toward $57,800, that is a 8.3% move for Bitcoin. Applied to XRP with a typical high beta multiplier, that alone would put XRP in the $0.85 to $0.90 region without a single piece of XRP-specific bad news.

That is the asymmetry XRP holders need to understand. XRP does not need its own catastrophe. It just needs Bitcoin to have a bad two weeks.

XRP Price Prediction: Where is the next support if XRP loses $1?

The two levels that matter are $0.9049 and $0.8052. Between $1 and $0.90 there is very little historical trading activity, which means the drop can be fast and shallow on volume.

Here is the downside map:

The $0.90 area is the first genuine test. It lines up with prior consolidation from the 2024 range and it is where a lot of longer-term accumulation sat before the late-2024 breakout. If sellers push through it, $0.8052 becomes the line that decides whether this is a deep correction or a full retrace of the entire 2024 to 2025 move.

Below $0.80 the chart is essentially empty until the $0.60 region. That is not a prediction, it is just what the volume profile looks like.

Why is nobody buying XRP at these levels?

Because the institutional money that was supposed to be XRP's catalyst simply is not showing up.

Weekly net inflows into US spot XRP ETFs collapsed 93% to $1.01 million for the week ending August 8, down from $14.86 million the previous week, even though the seven spot XRP ETFs hold roughly $1 billion in combined assets. There have been multiple days this month with literally zero net flow activity, something Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs did not experience once over the same stretch.

Meanwhile, the CLARITY Act missed its window before the Senate recess, which pushes any legislative clarity on XRP's commodity status to September at the earliest. The single biggest regulatory catalyst on XRP's calendar has been kicked down the road, and the market has repriced accordingly.

There is one genuine counterpoint. Whale wallets holding more than 10 million XRP have been absorbing over 10 million tokens per day, and large holder outflows from Binance now account for 91% of total exchange outflows, the highest concentration since 2024. Someone with size is buying. Whether that is conviction accumulation or slow-motion bag catching will only be clear in hindsight, and whales have been early before.

What would actually turn XRP bullish again?

XRP needs a weekly close above $1.22 to neutralise the immediate bearish structure, and a reclaim of $1.30 to $1.3745 to genuinely flip the trend.

The sequence looks like this:

1. Defend $1 on a weekly closing basis, not just intraweek wicks.
2. Reclaim $1.20 to $1.22, which would break the run of lower highs since May.
3. Close above $1.30, the last major horizontal resistance.
4. Reclaim the 200 EMA at $1.3745, which would be the first real trend change signal since spring.

Realistically, step one is the only thing on the table this month. Everything above requires either a Bitcoin recovery above $70,000 or a hard regulatory catalyst, and neither is scheduled before September.

What should XRP holders watch this week?

• The weekly close. A weekly candle that closes below $0.985 confirms the breakdown. A close back above $1.05 buys time.
• Bitcoin at $60,000. This is the trigger level for the whole altcoin complex, XRP included.
• XRP ETF flow reports, published every Monday. Four consecutive weeks below $5 million would confirm the demand collapse is structural rather than seasonal.
• Whale accumulation data. If the large wallets stop buying while price falls, the last remaining bid disappears.

The bottom line

XRP is not in a dip. It is in a downtrend that has now compressed against its final support, with weekly momentum deteriorating, institutional flows evaporating, and its main regulatory catalyst delayed to September. The token has broken below $1 several times already, and each defence has been thinner than the last.

The dangerous part is not XRP's own chart. It is that XRP has become almost entirely a leveraged expression of Bitcoin's direction, and Bitcoin is sitting 4% above a support zone that analysts already consider the last clean line on the chart. If BTC goes, XRP does not drift lower. It gaps to $0.90, and if that fails, $0.80.

For traders, the levels are simple: $1 decides everything, $1.22 changes the picture, $0.9049 and $0.8052 are where you find out how bad it gets.

Prefer trading crypto and equities from one regulated account? Open an account with XTB, a regulated broker with EEA approval for spot crypto trading.

Toncoin changes hands at 1.3260 USD, roughly 62.5 percent below the twelve-month high of 3.5328 USD reached on 14 August 2025. A discount of that size is what keeps the question alive: is Toncoin a good buy at current prices, or has the market marked the asset down for reasons that have not gone away?

One point needs clearing up first. The listing formerly known as Toncoin now trades as Gram, ticker GRAM, and the project's own site at ton.org uses the new name throughout. It is the same listing under a new label rather than a fork or a token swap. We keep the familiar name here because that is what readers search for.

cryptoticker.io collected the price data for this analysis on 14 August 2026. Market data comes from CoinMarketCap, and every indicator quoted here was calculated in house from 365 daily closing prices using standard formulas: exponential moving averages for the trend, Wilder's method for the relative strength index.

Toncoin price analysis: where the TON price stands and which levels matter

At 1.3260 USD the Toncoin price sits below both reference lines that medium-term investors watch. The 50-day exponential moving average stands at 1.4925 USD, which puts the current price 11.2 percent underneath it. The 200-day exponential moving average, the slower of the two, sits at 1.6695 USD, a further step up and 20.6 percent above the current quote. In chart terms, Toncoin is trading in the lower third of its own annual range.

The floor of that range is well defined. The twelve-month low of 1.2022 USD dates from 2 March 2026, and the current price is only 10.3 percent above it, a narrow cushion. The ceiling is far away: the 3.5328 USD high from August 2025 would require the price to more than double.

Three levels therefore frame any decision at current prices. The March low near 1.20 USD is the zone buyers defended once before. The 50-day line at 1.4925 USD is the first hurdle a recovery would need to clear. The 200-day line at 1.6695 USD separates a bounce from a trend change.

Is the Toncoin downtrend broken or only interrupted?

The data says interrupted rather than broken. Over 30 days Toncoin is down 16.7 percent, over 90 days down 30.6 percent, and over twelve months down 62.5 percent. Each window points the same way, and the sequence of lower highs behind them has not been reversed.

What has changed is the pace. The gap between the current price at 1.3260 USD and the March low at 1.2022 USD has held for months, which means sellers have not forced a new low despite a weak tape. A base of that kind is a precondition for a trend change without being one in itself.

For the downtrend to count as broken, the price would need to reclaim the 200-day line at 1.6695 USD and hold above it rather than tag it and fall back. Until then, the defensible description is a downtrend in a pause, and anyone buying at current prices is assuming that pause resolves upward.

What RSI and moving averages mean for a Toncoin entry

The relative strength index over 14 days reads 38.3, below the neutral midpoint of 50 and above the 30 mark conventionally treated as oversold. The practical meaning is unspectacular: selling pressure has eased, but no washout has occurred of the kind that often precedes sharp rebounds.

The two moving averages add the structural picture. With the price at 1.3260 USD below the 50-day line at 1.4925 USD, and that line below the 200-day line at 1.6695 USD, the alignment is the one technicians call bearish: the recent average price sits under the longer one, which is what a sustained decline looks like from the inside.

For an entry decision, the combination offers no timing signal at all. It rules out the argument that Toncoin is technically oversold and due a bounce, and equally the argument that the asset is overheated. Investors who need a technical trigger will not find one at 1.3260 USD, which is a reason to think about position sizing rather than entry precision.

What Toncoin trading volume reveals about demand

Volume deserves the most attention here. Toncoin turned over 35.6 million USD in the last 24 hours. The 30-day average sits at 49.5 million USD, the 90-day average at 145.6 million USD, and the full-year average at 161.6 million USD. Activity is running at roughly a fifth of the annual norm.

Thin volume has two consequences for a buyer. Price moves in either direction require less capital, so rallies and declines can both be sharper than the market capitalisation of 3.66 billion USD would suggest. And the drop in turnover indicates departed attention rather than accumulating demand.

Market capitalisation places Toncoin at rank 22 among crypto assets, a large-cap position by any measure. The gap between that rank and current activity is the tension in this asset: a top-25 valuation supported by turnover at a quarter of its own yearly average. The broader market offers little support either, with the Fear and Greed Index at 36, in fear territory.

Structural factors that speak for Toncoin: supply, usage and regulation

Supply mechanics come first. Roughly 2.758 billion coins circulate out of a total supply of about 5.231 billion, with no hard maximum in the sense that Bitcoin has one. Inflation is bounded by protocol rules rather than a fixed cap, so the circulating share can keep rising. A buyer at 1.3260 USD is buying a claim on a supply base that is not fixed, and that belongs in any valuation.

Usage is the more distinctive argument. The network's design and its documentation at docs.ton.org centre on cheap, high-throughput transfers aimed at consumer payments inside a messenger environment rather than on complex financial contracts. That distribution channel is the asset's genuine differentiator among large-cap chains, and it is why the listing survived a 62.5 percent drawdown without losing its top-25 rank.

Regulation is the third factor, and the picture is neutral to mildly favourable. Under the European framework supervised by ESMA, crypto assets face harmonised disclosure and custody requirements across the bloc, which has made large-cap tokens easier for regulated venues to list and keep listed. That lifts no single price, but it lowers the risk that a top-25 coin becomes inaccessible on European platforms.

Against those points, the rename to Gram carries a practical cost that is easy to underestimate: ticker changes fragment search traffic, complicate portfolio tracking and occasionally delay listings on smaller venues. We regard this as transitional friction rather than a structural flaw, and flag it as interpretation rather than measurement.

What speaks for buying Toncoin at current prices

Three arguments carry weight at 1.3260 USD.

The entry sits near a tested floor. At 10.3 percent above the twelve-month low of 1.2022 USD, a buyer here has a reference level close enough to define risk precisely. That is a materially different proposition from buying in the middle of a range, where the nearest meaningful support may be 30 percent away.

The valuation has already absorbed a severe repricing. A decline of 62.5 percent over twelve months has removed most of the optimism priced in at 3.5328 USD. Whatever expectations remain at 1.3260 USD are modest, and assets that have completed their repricing need less good news to move.

The distribution advantage is intact. The messenger-linked reach that made the network interesting remains in place, and a rank-22 market capitalisation of 3.66 billion USD indicates that large holders have not abandoned the listing. Where analysts expect the price to go from here is set out in our Toncoin price prediction.

What speaks against buying Toncoin at current prices

Three counterarguments deserve equal weight.

The trend is still against the buyer. With the price at 1.3260 USD below the 50-day line at 1.4925 USD and the 200-day line at 1.6695 USD, every moving-average signal points down. Buying here means positioning against the prevailing trend and accepting that the asset may spend further months below both lines.

Liquidity has thinned to a worrying degree. Turnover of 35.6 million USD against an annual average of 161.6 million USD means larger orders move the price more, spreads widen when volatility arrives, and exits in a falling market cost more than the screen suggests. This is the most concrete risk in the current setup.

The supply side keeps expanding. With about 2.758 billion of a roughly 5.231 billion total supply in circulation and no fixed cap, new coins keep reaching the market. Where demand has fallen to a fifth of its yearly norm, that puts a structural weight on the price which technical support levels cannot offset.

How to buy Toncoin at current prices: costs, custody and providers

The cost of buying matters more than usual when an asset is this illiquid. Spreads on thinly traded pairs can exceed the visible trading fee by a wide margin, so the headline commission is only part of the bill. Our crypto exchange comparison sets out the fee models side by side.

For European investors, regulatory status is the second filter. Supervised platforms offer clearer complaint routes and stricter custody rules, the relevant distinction once positions grow beyond pocket money. The candidates are collected in our overview of the best regulated crypto exchanges, and among individual venues we have examined Bitpanda in detail and Kraken's fee structure and features separately.

Custody is the third decision and independent of the first two. Coins left on an exchange remain in someone else's control, which is convenient for trading and unhelpful for holding. Investors planning to hold across a full cycle generally move to self-custody, and the trade-offs between the leading devices are laid out in our hardware wallet comparison. Toncoin support varies by device, so check before buying rather than after.

So is Toncoin a good buy at current prices?

The data supports different answers over different horizons, and separating them is the only honest way to close.

Short term, the setup offers no edge. An RSI of 38.3 is neutral, both moving averages sit above the price, and volume at 35.6 million USD gives any move a fragile foundation. The risk of another test of the 1.2022 USD low is real, and if that level gives way on rising volume, the assumption that a base has formed is refuted.

Long term, the case rests on one question: does the messenger-linked distribution advantage translate into sustained usage, or does it remain a promise? If usage grows and turnover recovers toward the 161.6 million USD annual average, the current price will look like the discount phase of a cycle. If turnover keeps falling while supply expands, a rank-22 market capitalisation of 3.66 billion USD becomes hard to defend, and the drawdown from 3.5328 USD reads as a repricing rather than an overreaction.

The condition that would refute the constructive scenario is specific enough to monitor: a sustained close below 1.2022 USD, or a further decline in volume from an already depressed 35.6 million USD. The condition that would confirm it is equally specific: a reclaim of the 200-day line at 1.6695 USD with turnover moving back toward its annual norm. Neither has happened, which is why the answer at 1.3260 USD is a matter of position sizing rather than conviction.

Buying Toncoin: what to take away

1. The price sits low in its own range, and the range is what defines the risk. At 1.3260 USD, Toncoin trades 10.3 percent above the twelve-month low of 1.2022 USD and 62.5 percent below the 3.5328 USD high, with both moving averages overhead. Where analysts see the price heading from this zone is covered in our Toncoin price prediction.
2. Thin volume is the risk that costs money in practice. Turnover of 35.6 million USD against a 161.6 million USD annual average widens spreads and makes exits expensive, which makes the choice of venue a financial decision rather than an administrative one. The fee models are compared in our crypto exchange comparison.
3. Custody is a separate decision from the purchase. Anyone planning to hold beyond a trade should settle the storage question before buying rather than afterwards, and the options are set out in our hardware wallet comparison.

Disclosure: Some of the providers mentioned in this article work with us through partner programmes. This has no influence on the price analysis or on our assessment of the chart situation; the price data comes from a public market data source and can be verified there.

(As of 14 August 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices, fees and terms change; check them with the provider before every purchase. Crypto assets are subject to high price volatility, and a total loss is possible.)

Stellar trades at around 0.1612 US dollars on 12 August 2026. That is 64.4 percent below the twelve-month high of 0.4526 US dollars set on 14 August 2025, and 12.4 percent above the twelve-month low of 0.1434 US dollars from 23 May 2026. The sixteenth-largest crypto asset by market capitalisation therefore sits in the lower third of its yearly range. Is Stellar a good buy at current prices, or is this a weakness that has further to run?

cryptoticker.io compiled the price data for this analysis on 12 August 2026. The market data comes from CoinMarketCap, and we evaluated the daily closing prices of the past 365 trading days up to and including 11 August 2026. The indicators are calculated with standard formulas: the 200-day average and the 50-day average as exponentially weighted means, the RSI over 14 days according to Wilder. Every value changes with each trading day.

Stellar price analysis: where XLM trades and which levels matter

The Stellar price of 0.1612 US dollars sits below both moving averages. The 200-day average stands at 0.1986 US dollars and thus 23.2 percent above the current price. The 50-day average stands at 0.1787 US dollars, which XLM would have to gain 10.9 percent to reach. The nearest level to the downside is the twelve-month low of 0.1434 US dollars, reached on 23 May 2026.

The past 30 trading days span a range of 19.1 percent, from 0.1612 US dollars on 7 August to 0.1919 US dollars on 22 July. Within that range the price has drifted towards the lower edge, and the seven most recent closes all fall between 0.1613 and 0.1686 US dollars. A market that narrows in this way is usually waiting for a reason to move, and the direction is not readable from the chart alone.

Between the current price and the May low the market barely traded over the past year, which means there is little accumulated support in that stretch. Longer-dated scenarios are collected in our Stellar price prediction.

Is the Stellar downtrend broken or only interrupted

The quarterly figures give a mixed answer. Over 90 days the price is 1.5 percent higher, which is close to unchanged. Over 30 days it is 12.8 percent lower, and over twelve months it is down 62.6 percent from 0.4311 US dollars. The picture is one of a market that stopped falling in the spring without beginning to rise.

The sequence matters. Stellar found its low at 0.1434 US dollars on 23 May 2026 and recovered to 0.2607 US dollars by 30 May. That rally has since given back 38.2 percent, and the price now stands closer to the May low than to the interim high. A downtrend counts as broken once a market sets a higher low and then clears its previous high; Stellar has managed the first half of that condition and not the second.

The most plausible reading in our view is an interruption rather than a reversal. The price has held above the May low for eleven weeks, which argues against an immediate continuation of the fall, and it has failed twice to hold the 50-day average, which argues against a turn that has already happened. Both statements are assumptions drawn from the chart.

What RSI and moving averages mean for a Stellar entry

The RSI over 14 days stands at 33.9 points. Readings below 30 are conventionally treated as oversold, so Stellar is close to that zone without having entered it. An RSI at this level tells you that the market is weak, and it does not tell you when the weakness ends.

The two moving averages are stacked against the price. With the 50-day average at 0.1787 US dollars sitting below the 200-day average at 0.1986 US dollars, and the price below both, the trend structure is intact to the downside on all three horizons. That configuration has held since the spring.

For an entry this has two practical consequences. Buying at 0.1612 US dollars means buying against the trend, which historically requires either a long holding period or a tight exit. Waiting for a close above the 50-day average means paying at least 10.9 percent more for a market that has confirmed a change. The two routes price risk and certainty differently.

What Stellar trading volume reveals about demand

Turnover over the past 24 hours amounts to 80.6 million US dollars against a market capitalisation of 5.56 billion US dollars, a turnover rate of 1.4 percent. The 30-day average sits at 116.5 million US dollars per day. The 90-day average is far higher at 338.6 million US dollars, and the average across the full year is 234.8 million.

The comparison is the informative part. Current turnover runs at roughly a third of the 90-day average and at about a quarter of the twelve-month average. Trading interest in Stellar has thinned considerably since the spring, and the thinning coincides with the drift towards the yearly low.

Thin volume cuts both ways for a buyer. A market that few people trade needs less capital to move, so a return of interest can lift the price quickly. The same thinness means larger orders move the price against the person placing them. Where trading costs are lowest differs by venue, and our exchange comparison sets the fee models side by side.

Structural factors that speak for Stellar: supply mechanics, usage and regulation

Stellar's supply is capped and largely issued. Of a maximum of 50.0 billion XLM, 34.49 billion are in circulation, which is 69.0 percent. The remaining 15.5 billion sit with the Stellar Development Foundation and are released according to published mandates. There is no ongoing inflation in the sense of newly mined units, and the foundation burned roughly half of the original supply in 2019. The details of the model are documented on the Stellar Lumens overview.

The network's purpose is payment settlement and asset issuance rather than general-purpose computation, with a stated focus on cross-border transfers and tokenised deposits. The documentation for issuers and anchors is published at developers.stellar.org. Whether that focus translates into sustained demand for the asset is a separate question from whether the network is used, and the two have diverged before.

On regulation, European rules now apply in full to service providers rather than to the asset. The European Securities and Markets Authority supervises the framework and publishes the register of authorised firms. For a buyer in the European Union the practical effect is that the venue matters as much as the coin, and the comparison of regulated exchanges tracks which providers hold which permissions.

What speaks for buying Stellar at current prices

Three arguments carry weight at 0.1612 US dollars.

1. The price sits 64.4 percent below the twelve-month high of 0.4526 US dollars and 23.2 percent below the 200-day average of 0.1986 US dollars. Anyone buying now pays a fraction of what buyers paid a year ago for the same asset and the same supply schedule.
2. The May low at 0.1434 US dollars has held for eleven weeks across several tests. A level that repeatedly attracts buyers is a more useful reference than one derived from a formula, and it gives an entry a measurable point of failure 12.4 percent below the current price.
3. Supply is capped and 69.0 percent issued, so the dilution risk that weighs on assets with open emission schedules is comparatively limited here. What remains is release from a known holder under published mandates rather than open-ended issuance.

What speaks against buying Stellar at current prices

Three arguments point the other way.

1. The trend is down on every horizon that matters. The price is below the 50-day average of 0.1787 US dollars, which is itself below the 200-day average of 0.1986 US dollars, and the twelve-month change is minus 62.6 percent. Buying here is buying against that structure.
2. Turnover of 80.6 million US dollars a day is roughly a third of the 90-day average of 338.6 million. Falling participation is a poor foundation for a recovery, because a price that few people are trading is a price few people have agreed on.
3. The broader market is in a defensive mood. The CoinMarketCap Fear and Greed Index reads 38 points, in the fear range. Assets in the lower half of the ranking table tend to lag when sentiment is defensive, and Stellar sits at rank 16.

How to buy Stellar at current prices: costs, custody and providers

Three cost blocks decide what an entry actually costs. The trading fee is charged per order and typically ranges from about 0.1 percent on maker-taker models to well above one percent on simplified buy interfaces. The spread between bid and ask is not shown separately. The withdrawal fee applies when you move XLM off the exchange, while the on-chain cost on the Stellar network is a fraction of a cent.

The provider question separates two use cases. For a position you intend to trade, an exchange account with low per-order costs is usually adequate; our Kraken review covers one such venue. For a position you intend to hold, the relevant criteria are the provider's regulatory permissions and its withdrawal terms, which our Bitpanda review examines.

Custody is the second decision. Coins left on an exchange are a claim against that exchange rather than an asset you control, which is acceptable for a short holding period and less so for a long one. Moving XLM to your own wallet removes that counterparty risk and adds the obligation to secure a recovery phrase. Suitable devices are ranked in the hardware wallet comparison.

So is Stellar a good buy at current prices, short-term and long-term

Over a short horizon the evidence is unfavourable. The RSI at 33.9 points, the price below both averages, and turnover at a third of its 90-day average describe a market without a catalyst. The nearest resistance is the 50-day average at 0.1787 US dollars, 10.9 percent away, and the nearest support is the twelve-month low at 0.1434 US dollars, 12.4 percent away. Risk and reward are roughly symmetric on those two levels, which is a poor ratio for a directional trade.

Over a horizon of several years the calculation rests on different inputs. A capped supply that is 69.0 percent issued, a network with a defined purpose, and a price 64.4 percent below its twelve-month high are the conditions under which long-term positions have historically been built in this asset class. None of that establishes that a recovery will occur, and the 62.6 percent twelve-month decline is a reminder that discounts can deepen.

The assumption of a floor counts as disproved if the price closes below the twelve-month low of 0.1434 US dollars on a daily basis. It counts as confirmed if XLM reclaims the 50-day average of 0.1787 US dollars and closes above it on rising volume. The test after that would be the 200-day average at 0.1986 US dollars. These three levels let you check your own assessment against the market rather than against an opinion.

Buying Stellar: what to take away

1. The Stellar price of 0.1612 US dollars sits 23.2 percent below the 200-day average of 0.1986 US dollars, 10.9 percent below the 50-day average of 0.1787 US dollars, and 12.4 percent above the twelve-month low of 0.1434 US dollars. The zone between those two levels is where the situation is decided, and the running assessment is in our Stellar price prediction.
2. An RSI of 33.9 points and turnover at a third of the 90-day average describe weakness without capitulation. Anyone entering should know what each purchase costs, and the exchange comparison shows where the differences lie.
3. For a holding meant to sit for years, custody is the second decision alongside the entry price, and the choice of a regulated venue is the third. Both are covered in the hardware wallet comparison.

Disclosure: Some of the providers mentioned in this article work with us through partner programmes. This has no influence on the price analysis or on our assessment of the chart; the price data comes from a public market data source and can be verified there.

(As of 12 August 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices, fees and terms change; check them with the provider before every purchase. Crypto assets are subject to high price volatility and a total loss is possible.)

Bitcoin closed the week at roughly $62,990, down 2.7%, after an in-line July inflation print failed to trigger the expected relief rally. Spot Bitcoin ETFs reversed from their strongest inflow week since April into consecutive days of outflows, and XRP briefly traded below $1 for the first time in nearly two years following a cross-chain bridge exploit.

The structural developments carried more weight than the price action. Goldman Sachs agreed to acquire NEOS Investments for up to $2.25 billion, gaining three crypto income ETFs. Riot Platforms sold 4,300 BTC to fund AI data center expansion. Grayscale withdrew three altcoin ETF registrations days before one of the underlying assets cleared its regulatory threshold. Both major US regulatory catalysts, meanwhile, slipped to September.

Below is a summary of the week's key developments across prices, flows, corporate activity and regulation.

Bitcoin price today after this week's crypto market drop

$Bitcoin is trading around $62,990 on Sunday morning, down 2.7% over the week, with the total crypto market cap holding near $2.19 trillion. Bitcoin fell 2.39% between 7 and 14 August, with five of seven trading sessions ending in negative territory, while Ethereum dropped 1.71%. The slide extended into the weekend, with BTC dipping as low as $62,812 on Saturday before stabilizing.

Where the majors finished the week:

• 🔴 Bitcoin ($BTC) around $62,990, down 2.7% on the week
• 🔴 Ethereum ($ETH) around $1,880, down about 1.7%
• 🔴$ XRP around $1.00, briefly under the dollar mark
• 🔴 Solana ($SOL) around $75.30, down about 1%
• 🟢 Monero ($XMR) up 5.3%, one of the few large caps in green

Since mid July the reading has traced an almost flat line in the mid to high thirties while Bitcoin swung between $63,000 and $66,500 above it, which tells you sentiment has been numb rather than panicked. Bitcoin's nearest support and resistance sat at $61,650 and $67,253. Volatility was almost non-existent. BTC's daily move did not exceed 1.5% on any single day, and the ADX reading of 12.37 confirms there is simply no trend here right now.

That matters more than it sounds. Crypto trading volumes have fallen to their lowest levels in three years, leaving very little firepower to push Bitcoin decisively in either direction.

Why did the July CPI report fail to lift the crypto market?

The July inflation print landed exactly in line with forecasts, but it was still too high to bring rate cuts back onto the table, so crypto got no relief rally. Consumer prices rose 0.1% month over month and 3.4% year over year, with core inflation up 0.2% monthly and 2.5% annually. Headline CPI cooled from 3.5% and core eased from 2.6%.

In a normal cycle, cooling inflation supports risk assets. This time, nothing followed. CPI remaining at 3.4% is still comfortably above the Fed's 2% target, which dampened expectations for rate cuts. Producer prices came in cooler than expected on Thursday, US equities liked it, and crypto still lagged. Bitcoin dropped below $63,000, losing 1.14% since midnight UTC as a second day of ETF outflows and a lack of bullish catalysts weighed on the market.

The read-through is simple: crypto is not currently trading on inflation data. It is trading on flows.

What happened to Bitcoin ETF flows this week?

Spot Bitcoin ETFs flipped from their best week since April into their first back-to-back outflow days since late July, erasing much of the optimism from early August. The previous week had delivered $853 million in weekly net inflows, the largest since April, led by BlackRock's IBIT. Then the direction reversed.

This week opened with a $144 million outflow, with ether ETFs echoing the cautious start at $14 million out. By Thursday, spot Bitcoin ETFs had seen $192 million exit across two consecutive sessions, the first back-to-back outflows since late July. Across the full week, outflows reached $332 million, led by Fidelity's FBTC.

There is a counterweight worth noting. Morgan Stanley increased its holdings in the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF from 13.4 million shares to 16.5 million shares in Q2, according to a quarterly SEC filing. Institutions have not left. They have simply stopped adding at the pace that would move price.

And the corporate treasury side kept selling. MicroStrategy and Hut 8 sold over $134 million in BTC during the week. Strategy disclosed 1,690 BTC sold between 3 and 9 August for roughly $108.6 million, bringing 2026 disposals to 6,948 BTC across four separate sales, though the company still holds 840,447 BTC.

Why did XRP fall below $1 after the Coreum bridge hack?

XRP dropped under one dollar for the first time in nearly two years after an attacker drained almost the entire XRP reserve backing the Coreum cross-chain bridge. An attacker drained 99.7% of the reserve on 9 August, taking 199,916 XRP across 94 transactions in about 97 minutes and leaving roughly 493 XRP behind.

The mechanics are worth understanding, because they say nothing about XRP itself. The attacker never sent real XRP to the bridge. They moved the bridge's own token between two wallets they controlled while attaching a fake deposit label, the bridge software treated that as a genuine incoming deposit, and the attacker then withdrew real XRP through the normal process. The software never verified that the payment destination was the bridge itself before crediting the balance.

The XRP Ledger was not compromised, no private keys were stolen, and holdings in standard wallets, on exchanges or in US spot XRP ETFs were unaffected. TX, the brand behind Coreum and Sologenic, confirmed the incident, admitted bridged XRP on its chain is not currently fully backed and said a complaint has been filed with the FBI.

XRP dipped to around $0.99 on 11 August before recovering to $1.01. In dollar terms the theft was small, roughly $200,000. But it fits a familiar pattern: bridge exploits account for more than $2.8 billion, or roughly 69% of all DeFi losses since 2022, almost always through flaws in off-chain trust logic rather than breaks in blockchain cryptography.

What does the Goldman Sachs NEOS deal mean for crypto ETFs?

Goldman Sachs agreed to buy NEOS Investments for up to $2.25 billion, instantly handing the bank three Bitcoin and Ethereum income ETFs instead of building them from scratch. The deal was announced on 12 August. NEOS manages $30 billion across 19 options-based income ETFs as of 30 June 2026.

Three crypto-linked funds come with the deal and manage more than $1.1 billion combined: the NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF (BTCI), the Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) and the Ethereum High Income ETF (NEHI). None of the three invests directly in Bitcoin or ether. They gain exposure through exchange-traded products linked to the assets and use options strategies to generate monthly income.

The combined platform would make Goldman Sachs Asset Management the eighth largest active ETF manager, with $80 billion in active ETFs across a $130 billion global ETF platform. The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2027, pending regulatory clearances.

The subtext is a shift in what institutional crypto demand actually looks like. It is no longer only about spot price exposure. It is increasingly about yield.

Why are Bitcoin miners selling BTC to fund AI data centers?

Mining economics have collapsed to the point where the average miner is producing Bitcoin at a loss, so the largest operators are converting BTC reserves into AI data center capacity. Riot Platforms disclosed it will sell 4,300 BTC and direct the proceeds toward expanding its data center network for AI workloads, after Q2 mining revenue fell 19.3% on rising electricity costs and record-low hashprice. That took Riot's holdings from 15,680 to 11,380 BTC, roughly 27% of its treasury in a single quarter.

The numbers explain the decision. Bitcoin has been trading around $63,500 while industry models put the average market-wide cost of mining a coin at $76,000 to $78,000, with hashprice at a record low of $30 to $35 per PH/s per day.

The scale of the pivot is genuinely large. On 10 August, Riot signed a 20-year agreement worth about $9.1 billion to lease 191 megawatts of data center capacity at its Rockdale, Texas facility to an AI company, and its shares jumped more than 25% in after-hours trading. Bernstein estimates data center contracts between Bitcoin miners and AI or cloud companies now exceed $135 billion. IREN signed a $9.7 billion agreement with Microsoft, and Hut 8 finalized a $7 billion contract with Google-backed partners.

MARA Holdings, Core Scientific and Bitdeer have all previously liquidated part or all of their crypto reserves to fund AI infrastructure. Miners are quietly rebranding themselves as power monetization businesses, and Bitcoin is becoming one of several things they can do with electricity rather than the only thing.

What is the status of US crypto regulation and the CLARITY Act?

Both of the near-term US regulatory catalysts stalled this week, pushing meaningful legislative progress into mid September at the earliest. The Senate's delay in passing the CLARITY Act and the cancellation of the SEC meeting that would have outlined alternative regulator-led crypto rules both weighed on prices.

Cloture on the motion to proceed for H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, is now scheduled to take effect on 15 September 2026, with the Senate returning on 14 September. The SEC cancelled its crypto rulemaking meeting with no replacement date announced. Separately, Cboe BZX filed for approval to list 3x leveraged Bitcoin and Ether ETFs.

There was one more altcoin ETF story worth flagging. Grayscale filed three Form RW withdrawals on 7 August, pulling its Cardano, Polkadot and Hedera Trust ETF registrations within 190 seconds of each other, exactly two days before ADA cleared the SEC's six-month CME futures seasoning threshold. A Form RW is a voluntary registration withdrawal, not an SEC rejection and not a statement about the underlying asset. Five other issuers including Bitwise, Canary Capital, VanEck and 21Shares still have active ADA ETF filings, with the earliest possible SEC decision window around 23 October. ADA still fell 9.53% on the news.

Read it as a comment on altcoin ETF economics rather than on Cardano.

What should crypto investors watch in the week ahead?

The three things that matter most are whether ETF outflows continue, whether Bitcoin holds the $61,650 support level, and how the Fed minutes land. Nothing on the calendar looks likely to break the $62,000 to $66,000 range on its own, which means flows remain the deciding variable.

Specific things to track:

• ETF flow direction. Two negative days does not make a trend, but a third and fourth would.
• The $61,650 support level. A clean break there would be the first genuine range break since early summer.
• Miner selling pressure. With hashprice at record lows, more treasury liquidations are likely.
• Corporate treasury behaviour. Strategy has now sold in four separate tranches this year.
• September regulatory calendar. CLARITY Act cloture on 15 September is the next real legislative catalyst.

One more caution: reports circulated late in the week about a Coldcard hardware wallet exploit involving older firmware. Those claims remain unconfirmed, with no official response from Coldcard and no independent incident report as of 14 August. The claims should be treated as unverified pending confirmation, though users running outdated hardware wallet firmware should review their setup regardless.

What is the takeaway from this week in crypto news?

The takeaway is that price did nothing while the industry around it changed shape, which is usually more important than a green candle. This was a week of consolidation with a lot of structural noise underneath. Bitcoin did almost nothing while the industry around it kept rearranging: Wall Street buying yield products, miners becoming power companies, bridges failing the same way they have failed since 2022, and Washington pushing every decision to September.

Three weeks after a Flash release that couldn't produce a working file, Google's budget tier zero-shots a playable game. It still can't reason, and a free 27B model still writes better.

A California bill is awaiting an Assembly vote to "place guardrails" around AI chatbots and prevent them from acting as therapists.

Apple is pairing its in-house model with Alibaba’s Qwen as it prepares to bring Apple Intelligence to Chinese iPhones.

The filing would turn raw footage into labeled clips of who did what, without anyone opting in.

The proposed World Liberty Trust Company would take over issuance of the USD1 stablecoin from BitGo.

Investment advisor Ross Gerber has taken another swipe at Bitcoin.

Binance founder CZ completely abandons his public wallet after a routine spam cleanup accidentally triggered a $30 million meme coin pump.

While stocks hit record highs, Bloomberg’s McGlone breaks down why Bitcoin risks a drop to $10,000.

Non custodial wallet, SafePal issues urgent disclosure after customer information is accessed.

A sustained move lower could increase pressure on Zcash (ZEC), potentially bringing the $450 level into sharper focus.

TLDR:

• Solana price trades near $74.97 as the network adds $378.2 million in tokenized T-bills, exceeding Ethereum growth by $106 million.
• Superstate and Securitize added $184.2 million and $182.8 million, respectively, leading new tokenized Treasury issuance during the month.
• Solana hosts $71.6 million of tokenized equities deployed in DeFi, representing roughly 64% to 65% of the $111 million total.
• RSI at 37.46, falling volume, and a negative MACD histogram leave $74.97 as immediate support, followed by the $73 region.

Solana price is testing $74.97 support even as the network records strong growth in tokenized U.S. Treasury products. Solana added $378.2 million in tokenized T-bills during the past 30 days, exceeding Ethereum’s $272.2 million increase. The gap reached about $106 million. 

Yet SOL fell 0.68% over 24 hours as risk appetite weakened across crypto markets. Trading volume declined 6.89% to $652.6 million, while momentum indicators stayed bearish. The contrast separates expanding on-chain activity from short-term market pressure. Solana also leads DeFi deployment of tokenized equities, hosting $71.6 million of the sector’s $111 million balance. Its share reaches about 64% overall.

Solana Price Tests Support as Tokenized T-Bills Expand

Broader risk reduction has outweighed the network’s tokenization figures. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded withdrawals, including $78.9 million from BlackRock’s IBIT between August 10 and August 14. Such flows can weaken demand for higher-risk crypto assets. SOL often moves faster than Bitcoin when traders reduce market exposure.

The Solana price response reflects that sensitivity. SOL trades near the recent $74.97 swing low after failing to hold higher intraday levels. Immediate resistance sits at $75.64, leaving the asset within a narrow short-term range. Buyers have not produced enough volume to reverse the decline.

Technical indicators support the cautious setup. The relative strength index stands at 46, placing SOL near oversold territory without confirming a reversal. The MACD histogram stays negative, indicating that bearish momentum has not faded. No reversal signal appears. Meanwhile, lower volume shows limited conviction among buyers attempting to defend support.

A sustained close below $74.97 could expose the Solana price to another decline toward $73.00. Holding that level may instead produce consolidation between $74.97 and $75.64. The next move will also depend on Bitcoin’s ability to stabilize above $62,900.

Institutional flows create an external pressure point rather than a Solana-specific catalyst. Slower ETF withdrawals could help broader risk appetite recover. Persistent outflows may keep high-beta tokens under greater pressure, even when their networks report stronger activity.

The divergence leaves Solana price caught between improving tokenization data and weak trading momentum. Market participants are watching volume, the $74.97 floor, and Bitcoin ETF flows for the next directional signal.

Tokenized Equities Strengthen Solana DeFi Market Activity

Solana’s $378.2 million increase led all tracked blockchains for new tokenized T-bills. Ethereum added $272.2 million, while BNB Chain recorded another $49.2 million. Off-chain holdings grew by $81.7 million. zkSync Era added $6.1 million, while increases on other networks stayed below $1 million.

This expansion gives Solana price a network-growth counterweight to current technical weakness. It also shows that Treasury issuance is spreading across several settlement environments. Established platforms and issuers still capture most of the new value.

Superstate led provider growth with $184.2 million during the month. Securitize followed closely with $182.8 million, while Franklin Templeton added $86.2 million. Their combined increase reached $453.2 million. OpenEden contributed $39.7 million, and J.P. Morgan added $24.2 million. Several smaller issuers recorded growth, although their monthly increases were much lower overall.

Tokenized equities provide another measure beyond Solana price action. DeFi applications currently hold around $111 million in tokenized stocks from a total market near $2.3 billion to $2.4 billion. These assets can enter lending markets, liquidity pools, and decentralized trading venues instead of staying idle.

Solana hosts $71.6 million of that deployed equity value. Ethereum follows with $15 million, while BNB Chain accounts for $13.9 million. Solana’s share therefore stands near 64% to 65% of the tracked DeFi balance.

Spot decentralized exchange volume on Solana reached $5.8 billion. Future Solana price reactions may depend on whether issuance produces sustained trading, lending, and collateral demand. Rising DeFi balances would provide evidence that tokenized T-bills and equities are gaining use beyond initial issuance.

The post Solana Price Tests Support as Tokenized T-Bills Beat Ethereum appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Cardano targets Q4 2026 for Dijkstra Phase 1, introducing Linear Leios and new ledger features.
• Dijkstra Phase 1 will increase throughput through supplementary Endorser Blocks and certification.
• Ouroboros Peras is planned for Q2 2027 to accelerate settlement through stake-pool voting.
• Both phases require testnet deployments and governance approval before mainnet activation.

Cardano plans a two-phase Dijkstra upgrade, with the first stage targeting Q4 2026 code completion and the second planned for Q2 2027. 

The rollout will introduce Ouroboros Linear Leios and later activate Ouroboros Peras. Phase 1 will also bring nested transactions, guard scripts, account-address improvements, and other ledger changes. 

Phase 2 will focus on faster settlement through a stake-pool voting layer. Both stages require testing and on-chain governance approval before mainnet activation.

Cardano Sets Q4 2026 Target for Dijkstra Phase 1

Cardano’s first Dijkstra phase will establish a new ledger era under Protocol Version 12. The upgrade will activate Ouroboros Linear Leios while preparing the network for Peras. 

Code completion is targeted for Q4 2026, although the date does not represent final mainnet activation.

Linear Leios will increase throughput through supplementary Endorser Blocks alongside existing Praos Ranking Blocks. 

These Endorser Blocks reference additional transactions that the network can process after certification. As a result, Cardano can increase transaction capacity without relying on larger blocks or faster slots.

A stake-based committee will certify Endorser Blocks through aggregated signatures. The certification requires a 75% quorum of active stake before endorsed transactions enter the ledger.

If no certified Endorser Block exists, Ranking Blocks continue processing transactions through the standard Praos approach.

Phase 1 will also introduce the structural changes required for Peras. These include codec extensions and protocol parameters that cannot be added during an intra-era hard fork. Therefore, the Dijkstra era provides the foundation needed for Peras activation during the second phase.

Dijkstra Adds New Transaction and Ledger Features

The first phase will introduce several changes beyond Linear Leios. Nested transactions will allow transactions to contain child transactions with independent witnesses and execution contexts. This provides additional flexibility for on-chain applications and more expressive transaction structures.

Dijkstra will also introduce guard scripts capable of observing transaction validity without executing as part of spending or minting. The change supports transaction guards and serves as a dependency for the PlutusV4 script context.

Account-address improvements will establish ledger-level definitions for account-style addresses. Meanwhile, the upgrade will remove the isValid field from transactions and introduce non-segregated block body serialization. These changes support the updated ledger and transaction structures.

Cardano will also simplify staking reward withdrawals by removing the DRep delegation requirement. In addition, pledge leverage-based staking rewards will introduce a leverage parameter. However, its default setting preserves current reward behavior until governance chooses another value.

Peras Activation Planned for Cardano in Q2 2027

The second Dijkstra phase is targeted for Q2 2027 and will activate Ouroboros Peras. Unlike Phase 1, this change will use an intra-era hard fork within Dijkstra. No new ledger era will therefore be required for the activation.

Peras will add a voting overlay to the existing Ouroboros Praos chain selection mechanism. Stake-pool committees will vote on recent chain tips, allowing sufficiently supported tips to reach settlement sooner. The protocol will not change how blocks are produced.

Both Dijkstra phases will follow Preview and Pre-production testnet deployments. Phase 1 includes operator testing, Endorser Block propagation checks, integration validation, and throughput benchmarking. Phase 2 will include testing focused on voting and settlement latency.

Mainnet activation will require governance ratification involving DReps, stake pool operators, and the Constitutional Committee.

The published Q4 2026 and Q2 2027 targets remain estimates for code completion and readiness. Actual hard fork dates will depend on testing, governance, and network readiness.

The post Cardano Sets Two-Phase Dijkstra Upgrade With Leios in 2026 and Peras in 2027 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Ethereum address errors were linked to 65,340 high-risk cases and almost $574.8 million in losses across Ethereum and BNB Chain.
• Contract account misuse involved 49,344 cases, with 22,738.41 ETH and 8,681.41 BNB sent to addresses lacking expected code.
• Exposed private keys contributed to 15,996 account misuse cases involving 104,224.53 ETH and another 9,045.29 BNB across both blockchains.
• Researchers identified 17,270 EIP-7702 cases where malicious delegation helped attackers control exposed accounts and redirect deposits.

An academic study links Ethereum address errors and similar BNB Chain mistakes to nearly $574.8 million in losses. Researchers identified 65,340 high-risk cases involving contract addresses, exposed accounts, and cross-chain reuse. Many transactions completed successfully, although users sent assets to the wrong destination or an unsafe account. 

This makes the problem harder to spot than a failed transfer. The research team includes scholars from Sun Yat-sen, Zhejiang, Peking, and other universities. Their work traces crypto address misuse across Ethereum and BNB Smart Chain. It also shows how EIP-7702 can help attackers seize exposed accounts and redirect incoming funds automatically.

Ethereum Address Errors Expose Cross-Chain Transfer Risks

The researchers divide the problem into Contract Account Misuse and Externally Owned Account Misuse. Contract Account Misuse occurs when someone assumes a contract exists at a familiar address. That assumption can fail when the user switches networks. The same hexadecimal address may hold working code on a testnet but nothing on mainnet.

The study documented 49,344 separate contract misuse cases involving 22,738.41 ETH and 8,681.41 BNB. These Ethereum address errors appeared routine. A transfer can receive confirmation even when the intended contract function never runs. The network simply treats the call as a basic payment to an address without code.

A shared Uniswap V2 router address illustrates the danger. Developers used it on Ethereum’s Sepolia testnet, and related Stack Exchange posts attracted more than 102,000 views. Yet the address lacked contract code on Ethereum mainnet. Users still submitted function calls and attached ETH. The chain accepted those transactions as simple transfers, leaving the assets trapped.

Attackers watched addresses affected by crypto address misuse. The team identified 469 contract cases involving deliberate cross-chain address reuse. Attackers deployed malicious contracts at destinations where users had previously sent funds by mistake. Those incidents caused losses of 3,446.37 ETH and 431.79 BNB. The method turns an earlier mistake into an active theft opportunity.

These findings show why Ethereum address errors require chain-specific checks. A recognizable address alone does not confirm the expected contract exists. Users must verify both the selected network and the deployed bytecode before signing a transaction.

Exposed Keys and EIP-7702 Expand the Threat to Users

Ethereum address errors also include Externally Owned Account Misuse. The study identified 15,996 cases tied to private keys exposed online. Developers sometimes publish keys in repositories, tutorials, or question-and-answer posts. Attackers can monitor those accounts and remove deposits as soon as funds arrive.

These exposed accounts received 104,224.53 ETH, while related BNB Chain losses reached 9,045.29 BNB. Researchers examined more than 10 million candidate addresses and 16 million exposed private keys. They then reviewed roughly 2.5 million transactions across Ethereum and BNB Smart Chain. Manual validation placed the detection system’s overall precision at 99.11%.

EIP-7702 expands the danger surrounding Ethereum address errors. The upgrade allows an externally owned account to delegate execution to smart contract code. Researchers found another 17,270 cases where attackers used this mechanism against exposed accounts. Malicious delegation enabled automatic control and redirected later deposits without repeated manual action.

The losses sit beside broader security damage recorded during 2026. Blockaid reported $1.1 billion stolen through 212 incidents during the first half. Three separate attacks each caused more than $35 million in losses on one late-July day. Unlike visible hacks, crypto address misuse can look like an ordinary confirmed transaction.

The researchers urge users to obtain addresses from official project documentation. Test accounts and production wallets should also remain separate. Wallets could flag addresses without contract code on the current chain. They could also warn when known exposed keys control a destination. Such checks would target Ethereum address errors before users approve irreversible transfers.

The post New Study Links Ethereum Address Errors to $575M in Lost Crypto appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Avalanche price fell 2.39% to $6.34 as broad altcoin weakness outweighed a flat overall crypto market and left AVAX among the poorest major performers.
• Whale accumulation offers a counter-signal after one large holder withdrew 887,000 AVAX, worth about $5.6 million, from the Binance exchange.
• Avalanche RWA transaction volume reached $365.29 million over 30 days, marking a 360.15% increase from the preceding monthly period.
• AVAX must defend Fibonacci support near $6.25 to keep a rebound toward $6.46 viable, while a confirmed pennant breakout could bring $7.20 into focus.

Avalanche price fell 2.39% to $6.34 over 24 hours as weakness spread across major altcoins. The broader crypto market traded near flat, leaving AVAX among the poorest performers. No clear Avalanche-specific catalyst emerged during the decline. Instead, traders reduced exposure across a market where 18 of the 20 largest cryptocurrencies traded lower. 

The pullback follows a three-day recovery from pennant support near $6.14. Despite renewed selling, AVAX whale accumulation and Avalanche RWA activity offer a contrasting signal. Traders focus on $6.25 support during Sunday trading. That level could decide if AVAX rebounds or extends its downtrend toward its yearly low.

Avalanche Price Tests Support as Altcoins Lose Ground

Coingecko data shows AVAX down as much as 5.4%, making it the weakest major cryptocurrency at that point. Its narrower 24-hour decline later settled at 2.39%, while the overall market changed little.

That gap suggests investors rotated away from higher-risk altcoins rather than reacting to an Avalanche network event. Bitcoin dominance and the Altcoin Season Index may clarify if that rotation expands. The index currently sits at a neutral reading of 50.

This pressure kept Avalanche price weaker than the market, reinforcing the view that positioning drove the move. Volume near support will reveal if sellers still control Avalanche price within the range.

Avalanche price also trades below important moving averages, while its relative strength index stands near 42. Those readings keep short-term momentum bearish, even after AVAX recovered for three consecutive sessions from $6.14.

The token stays inside a broader pennant, leaving neither side with a confirmed structural break. Michaël van de Poppe expects a large volatile move while AVAX stays confined within the range. His preferred setup involves a sweep below recent lows followed by an immediate reversal.

The first technical test sits between $6.25 and $6.32. The lower boundary matches the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement and may attract dip buyers. Holding that area could allow the Avalanchenn price to retest $6.46, near the 38.2% resistance level.

A decisive loss of $6.25 would weaken the rebound case and expose the yearly low. Traders also need to watch $6.14, where the recent three-day advance began. A quick recovery after a brief break would fit Van de Poppe’s sweep-and-reversal scenario.

Whale Orders and RWA Growth Counter the Selling Pressure

Large holders are building positions as the market tests support. Hunter Capital tracking cited one whale withdrawing 887,000 AVAX from Binance. The position carried an estimated value of roughly $5.6 million.

Moving tokens from an exchange can reduce immediately available supply, although it does not guarantee a long-term holding decision. The withdrawal still creates a counterweight to short-term selling and supports the AVAX whale accumulation case.

CryptoQuant order-size metrics also point to rising whale participation across spot and futures markets. Larger orders can amplify volatility, especially when price approaches a well-defined boundary. Follow-through buying would matter more than one isolated transfer.

Network use supplies another constructive signal. Avalanche RWA activity reached $365.29 million in transaction volume over 30 days, based on foundation figures. That represented a 360.15% increase from the previous month.

Higher tokenized-asset activity may generate more transaction fees and expand practical network demand. DeFiLlama figures also place Avalanche chain revenue above the recent July lows during August. Sustained revenue growth would offer stronger confirmation than transaction volume alone.

Avalanche price must break the pennant’s upper trend line before bulls can claim control. Such a move could direct attention toward $7.20, where CoinGlass identifies roughly $1.13 billion in concentrated liquidity.

Liquidity clusters often attract price as traders target crowded liquidation levels. Still, the path requires AVAX to hold $6.25, reclaim $6.46, and escape consolidation. Failure at support would leave whale buying and RWA growth competing against a bearish market structure.

The post Avalanche Price Falls as Whale Buying Tests Key AVAX Support appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Sector value for meme coins reached $24.77 billion on August 17, 2026, a gain of 0.34 percent, on $0.88 billion of 24-hour turnover.

• Dogecoin leads the listed names at $0.0697 and a $10.84 billion market cap, ahead of Shiba Inu at $0.00000447.

• Bullski cleared stage 1 at $0.00001 and prices its second rung at $0.000015, with stage 3 set at $0.00002.

• Supply stops at 120 billion tokens, payment takes ETH, BNB or USDT, and the published listing reference is $0.0025.

Picking a meme coin in August 2026 means reading a $24.77 billion sector, not chasing a single chart. Meme coins as a group added 0.34 percent on the day while Bitcoin slipped 3.0 percent across the week. Four familiar tickers make up most of that pile.

One newer name is still selling at a published rung instead of a market price. Here is how Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, Pepe and Floki compare, and where the Bullski sale sits.

What a $24.77 Billion Meme Sector Says About Demand

Sector size tells you more than any single ticker does. Meme coins carried $24.77 billion between them on August 17, 2026, rising 0.34 percent while $0.88 billion changed hands over 24 hours, according to CoinGecko. Set that beside a $2.250 trillion total market and it works out near one percent of all crypto value.

Majors had the harder week. Bitcoin gave back 3.0 percent, Ethereum 2.1 percent and Cardano 9.8 percent. Memecoin news filled with rotation talk because the small end of the board barely moved while those numbers printed.

Definition: Meme coins take their identity from humour, a mascot or an online crowd instead of from a piece of software. Holder numbers and attention drive them, so supply caps and lockups matter more than most buyers expect. Bullski publishes both before listing, which is why traders keep pointing at the meme coin still in presale.

Top Meme Coins on the August 2026 Board, and the One on a Ladder

1. Bullski ($BULLSKI), the Meme Coin Presale on Stage Two

Bullski issues on Ethereum as an ERC-20 token, with total supply fixed at 120 billion. Buyers cleared stage 1 at $0.00001 and took its full 1,192,283,023 allocation. Stage 2 now asks $0.000015, and 45,829,562 of its 1,400,000,000 tokens were already gone on August 17, 2026.

Presale accounts for 40 percent of that supply, spread over a 16-stage ladder, with $0.0025 published as the listing reference. Rungs advance on sell-out rather than on a clock, so stage 3 at $0.00002 arrives once the open allocation clears. Payment runs on ETH, BNB or USDT.

2. Dogecoin (DOGE), the Name That Started the Category

Dogecoin trades at $0.0697 for a $10.84 billion market cap, easing 0.3 percent on the day and 0.5 percent over the week. About 155.5 billion coins circulate, and that figure keeps rising because no cap exists.

Height works against it. DOGE set $0.7316 on May 7, 2021 and sits 90.5 percent under that level, so a return means roughly ten times the current value in fresh money.

3. Shiba Inu (SHIB), the Biggest of the Ethereum Meme Coins

Shiba Inu changes hands at $0.00000447 for a $2.64 billion market cap, down 2.1 percent today and 2.8 percent on the week. Roughly 589 trillion tokens circulate, which is the number people skip when they picture a one cent price.

Burns have trimmed that pile for years and it stays enormous. SHIB last printed $0.00008616 on October 27, 2021, and no meme coin price prediction shrinks 589 trillion tokens by itself.

4. Pepe (PEPE), the 2024 Runner Now Cooling

Pepe holds $0.0000026, worth $1.09 billion in total, after losing 1.2 percent today and 9.0 percent over seven days. That makes it the softest of these four listed names this week.

Supply runs near 420 trillion tokens, and its record of $0.00002803 from December 9, 2024 sits about ten times above today’s quote. New meme coins keep arriving to compete for the same attention.

5. Floki (FLOKI), the Smallest Cap in This Group

Floki trades at $0.00002031 for a $196 million market cap, a touch higher at 0.1 percent on the day and 4.0 percent lower on the week. Size cuts both ways, because small caps move faster in either direction.

Its $0.00034495 record sits roughly seventeen times above the current quote. Anyone drawing up meme coins to buy should weigh that gap against the smaller sum needed to move a $196 million token.

Prices in four rows change with every trade. Bullski’s does not, because a schedule sets it instead of an order book. Read them beside the coins holding up while majors slip for a wider view of this week’s rotation.

What You Can Check on the Bullski Page Before Paying

Rules sit in public here before any exchange quote exists. Total supply stops at 120 billion tokens and cannot be raised later. Etherscan already shows the contract as verified, an audit is under way, and team tokens unlock gradually on a vesting schedule rather than all at once.

Pool liquidity gets locked the moment the token lists, so it cannot be pulled on day one. Staking pays holders while the sale runs and referrals pay anyone who brings buyers in, with part of supply burned over time. Read how Bullski’s burn and staking work if that mix decides your entry.

Large caps and meme names rarely belong on one shortlist, since one moves on flows and the other on attention. See our earlier ranking of the majors for the other half of that comparison.

By the numbers: Meme trading came to $0.88 billion over 24 hours on August 17, 2026, inside a total market that turned over $29.91 billion.

Why Stage Two Is the Rung That Matters Right Now

Demand already answered the first question buyers ask. Stage 1 took its whole 1,192,283,023 token allocation at $0.00001 before closing for good. Pricing moved to $0.000015, and $0.00002 waits above it on stage 3.

Counters keep moving while you read. Sale-wide totals reached 1,238,112,585 tokens on August 17, 2026, with 1,354,170,438 left in the stage 2 allocation of 1,400,000,000.

Watch out: Rungs advance on sell-out and never on a timer, so read the live stage on the official site immediately before you pay.

How to Buy $BULLSKI on Stage Two: load ETH, BNB or USDT into a wallet you control, go to the official Bullski site, check which rung the counter shows, and pay from the address you want holding the tokens.

Do your own research before buying any presale token. This article is not financial advice.

Meme Coin Questions Readers Keep Sending

What Is a Meme Coin?

Think of it as a token that runs on culture rather than on features. Dogecoin started the idea in 2013, and Shiba Inu, Pepe and Floki followed it. Supply rules and community size decide most of what happens afterwards.

How to Buy Meme Coins Safely?

Start with a wallet you control and money you can afford to lose. Check the supply cap, the lockups and whether the contract is public before sending anything. Presale pricing comes from a published rung rather than an order book, so the cost is known in advance.

Where to Buy Meme Coins That Have Not Listed Yet?

Unlisted tokens sell on the project’s own page. Bullski accepts ETH, BNB or USDT on its site and credits tokens to the sending wallet. Once a sale closes and a listing happens, open meme coin trading takes over from the ladder.

Which Meme Coin Will Reach $1?

Arithmetic answers faster than opinion. Dogecoin at $1 would need about $155 billion of market value with 155.5 billion coins outstanding, and Shiba Inu would need more than the whole market holds. Smaller supply and an earlier entry are the levers a buyer controls, which is why some choose to secure $BULLSKI on stage two instead.

For More Information

Website: Visit the official Bullski website at bullski.io

Telegram: Join the Bullski Telegram channel at t.me/BullskiCoinOfficial

X (Twitter): Follow Bullski on X at x.com/bullskicoin

The post Meme Coin Picks for a $24.77 Billion Sector, Led by a Presale on Stage Two appeared first on Blockonomi.

South Korea’s Seoul Southern District Court has sentenced Delio CEO Jeong Sang-ho to 15 years in prison after finding him guilty of fraud involving nearly 70 billion Korean won ($49.2 million) in customer crypto assets. The 11th Criminal Division, presided over by Judge Jang Chan, handed down the sentence on August 13.

The court also ordered Sang-ho to be detained due to concerns that he could flee.

15 Years Behind Bars

The prosecution had initially sought a 20-year prison term, but the court rejected some of the prosecution’s evidence after accepting arguments from Sang-ho’s side that the search and seizure of the server of outsourcing company Gabia was conducted unlawfully.

According to the court, prosecutors failed to guarantee Delio’s right to participate in the search and did not provide a list of seized items, which rendered the company’s database information and related secondary evidence inadmissible.

Upon sentencing, the court stated,

“The defendant committed a crime of embezzling a large amount of money from numerous victims, and considering the circumstances and details of the crime, the means and methods used, and the scale of the damage, the nature of the offense is very serious. He has not received forgiveness from the victims who suffered serious economic losses as a result of this case.”

At the same time, the court acknowledged that external factors had contributed to the case and noted that Sang-ho did not have a prior criminal record involving a punishment greater than a fine. The ruling represented a significant reduction from the prosecution’s original case, which alleged fraud involving approximately 250 billion won (worth around $176 million) and around 2,800 customers.

After excluding evidence related to the larger allegation, the court instead found Sang-ho guilty under the prosecution’s alternative indictment involving approximately 70 billion won and over 1,078 victims.

Crisis Linked to Haru

Delio used to offer high returns on cryptocurrency deposits and promoted itself as a digital asset bank. Its subsequent collapse was closely linked to the downfall of crypto yield platform Haru Invest. Delio had reportedly placed a portion of customer assets with Haru to generate returns, which left the South Korean lender exposed when the latter abruptly suspended withdrawals in June 2023 after citing problems involving its service provider, B&S Holdings.

This forced Delio to halt withdrawals shortly afterward, which ended up triggering a liquidity crisis that ultimately contributed to its bankruptcy.

The post Delio’s Jeong Sang-ho Handed 15-Year Sentence Over 70B Won Crypto Scandal appeared first on CryptoPotato.

A new academic study has identified 65,340 high-risk address misuse cases on Ethereum and BNB Chain, linked to about $574.8 million in lost crypto.

The research shows how ordinary mistakes involving testnet addresses, reused contract addresses, and exposed private keys can become permanent losses, while newer tools such as EIP-7702 give attackers another way to exploit them.

Address Mistakes Account for Millions in Losses

The study, led by researchers from Sun Yat-sen University, Zhejiang University, Peking University, and other institutions, describes two forms of address misuse: Contract Account (CA) Misuse and Externally Owned Account (EOA) Misuse.

CA Misuse happens when users treat a non-contract address as though a smart contract exists there. The researchers found 49,344 such cases, involving 22,738.41 ETH and 8,681.41 BNB in losses.

One example involved a Uniswap V2 router address widely used on Ethereum’s Sepolia testnet. The address had more than 102,000 views across Stack Exchange posts and was used frequently for testing, but on Ethereum mainnet, it had no contract code at the time, yet users still sent function calls and ETH to it. The transactions succeeded as simple transfers, leaving the funds trapped.

EOA Misuse accounted for another 15,996 cases, which involved addresses whose private keys had been exposed, often through public code repositories or developer Q&A sites. The study found losses of 104,224.53 ETH and 9,045.29 BNB.

The researchers examined more than 10 million candidate addresses and 16 million exposed private keys, then analyzed about 2.5 million transactions on Ethereum and BSC. Manual checks gave the detection system an overall precision of 99.11%.

The study also found that attackers actively exploit these mistakes. In 469 CA misuse cases, attackers used cross-chain address reuse to place malicious contracts at addresses where users had already trapped funds, resulting in 3,446.37 ETH and 431.79 BNB in losses.

Another 17,270 cases involved EIP-7702, which lets an externally owned account delegate execution to a smart contract. The researchers found attackers using the mechanism to control exposed accounts and automatically redirect incoming funds.

Why Familiar Addresses Can Become a Trap

The findings add a different type of risk to the security problems already affecting crypto this year. A Blockaid report published on August 1 found $1.1 billion stolen across 212 incidents during the first half of 2026, with three separate attacks that caused more than $35 million in losses occurring in one day in late July.

The address misuse study points to a less obvious problem: a transaction can succeed while still producing a loss. Users may assume that a successful transaction means they interacted with the intended contract, even when the address has no code on that particular network.

According to the researchers, people ought to check the network before using an address and rely on official project documentation while keeping test accounts away from production funds.

They also called for wallets to warn users when an address has no contract code on the current chain or has a known exposed private key.

The post Study Finds $575M Lost Through Ethereum and BNB Chain Address Errors appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Equity perpetual futures on major digital asset exchanges reached about $250 billion in monthly volume in July. That marks a seventeenfold jump from roughly $15 billion in April, showing how quickly the market has expanded in just three months.

According to analytics firm CryptoQuant, that expansion has turned crypto exchanges into round-the-clock venues for contracts linked to traditional equities. The products give users continuous access to familiar stocks without being limited by conventional market trading hours.

Binance Leads as AI and Chip Stocks Dominate Volume

Binance remained the dominant venue in July, handling roughly $193 billion in equity perpetual futures volume, equivalent to about 76% of the total market. Bitfer, Bybit, and Gate followed at a considerable distance.

CryptoQuant identified Gate as the fastest-growing venue during the month. Its equity perpetual futures volume increased by about 308% from June, compared with 176% for Bybit and 59% for Binance. The report also noted that Gate had recorded consecutive monthly growth since May.

Despite the broader rise in activity, trading remains concentrated across a small group of technology and semiconductor-related assets. SanDisk, SK Hynix, Micron, and the leveraged semiconductor ETF SOXL made up the core of what analysts describe as the AI-memory complex.

On Gate, in particular, the concentration was especially pronounced. SanDisk and SK Hynix together accounted for 53% of the exchange’s total equity perpetual futures volume last month.

Beyond Gate, the broader market also remained focused on companies linked to artificial intelligence and memory chips. This narrow concentration has made these assets the main focus of activity across the emerging equity perpetual market.

Crypto Platforms Push Beyond Traditional Assets

The products also reflect a broader shift in how digital asset exchanges are expanding beyond traditional cryptocurrency markets. Rather than focusing only on assets such as BTC and Ether, exchanges are offering perpetual contracts linked to traditional financial instruments.

At the same time, the approach allows crypto-native capital to access equity-linked products through infrastructure that operates continuously. The contracts therefore provide exposure to selected traditional assets while retaining the always-on structure associated with crypto markets.

However, CryptoQuant’s report shows a market that has expanded rapidly while remaining focused on a narrow group of assets. Whether activity eventually spreads across a broader range of equity perpetual contracts will depend on how the market develops beyond its current concentration.

The post Crypto Equity Perpetual Volume Hits $250B in July, Up 17x in Three Months: CryptoQuant appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin remains trapped in a low-momentum environment, with price action increasingly characterized by choppy consolidation rather than a decisive directional move. The lack of liquidity and volume continues to limit follow-through, while the current structure leaves room for another liquidity-driven move before a stronger trend develops.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, BTC is still moving sideways after the sharp correction from the $66K area. The broader structure remains compressed, with the price currently around $63K and trading well below the major descending moving averages. The 100-day MA is still acting as an important overhead reference, while the declining white trendline reinforces the broader resistance structure.

The main scenario remains a lack of momentum. With market liquidity and volume appearing limited, the asset has been unable to establish a sustained breakout in either direction, resulting in a prolonged and choppy sideways phase. The first significant resistance is located around $66.2K-$67.2K, where the horizontal supply zone and descending trendline converge.

On the downside, the $58.5K-$59.8K region remains the most important major demand area visible on the chart. A deeper move into this zone would not necessarily invalidate the broader recovery structure, but a decisive breakdown below it would significantly weaken the bullish case.

For now, the absence of volume and momentum favors continued consolidation rather than an immediate breakout.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour structure provides a more defined setup. BTC has been compressing between a descending upper trendline and an ascending lower trendline, creating a tightening range. The asset is currently trading close to the lower boundary of this structure, around $63K, making the ascending trendline the key near-term support.

A break below this trendline would introduce a bearish scenario. If the breakdown is confirmed with follow-through, BTC could first revisit the $60.3K-$60.9K support zone, followed by the broader $58.1K-$59.6K area. This would also bring the lower liquidity clusters highlighted on the liquidation heatmap into focus.

On the upside, the descending trendline around $64.5K-$65K is the first obstacle. Above that, the $66.2K-$67.2K zone represents a much stronger resistance area. A breakout through this region would be required to materially improve the short-term structure.

Therefore, the immediate setup is largely defined by the two converging trendlines. A break below the ascending support would favor a deeper correction, while a breakout above the descending resistance would invalidate the near-term bearish structure.

Sentiment Analysis

The Binance liquidation heatmap highlights a significant concentration of liquidity around the current consolidation range, with particularly notable clusters extending through the $53K-$56K region. There is also substantial liquidity above the market around $66K-$67K and at higher levels.

This distribution is important because the market has spent an extended period moving sideways without generating a decisive directional impulse. In such an environment, liquidity clusters can become potential targets before the next sustained move develops.

The lower liquidity concentration is particularly notable. The heatmap suggests that a liquidity hunt below the $58K region remains possible if the current 4-hour support structure fails. Such a move could sweep leveraged positions and provide the liquidity needed for a subsequent recovery. However, this remains a potential scenario rather than a confirmed bottom signal.

Overall, the charts continue to point toward a market lacking momentum and volume. A downside liquidity sweep, potentially extending below $58K, could precede a stronger bullish cycle, but BTC would first need to reclaim the key resistance zones and demonstrate meaningful volume expansion to confirm that transition.

The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: Will BTC Finally Break Out of Consolidation Next Week? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XRP remains under pressure, with the broader structure still favoring the bears as the asset trades near the $1.00 area. The market has lost momentum after the previous decline, and the latest price action suggests that a sustained recovery has yet to develop.

Ripple Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, XRP remains inside a clearly defined descending structure. The price is trading well below the major moving averages. This keeps the broader trend bearish despite the consolidation seen over the past several weeks.

The $1.02-$1.04 area is now an important resistance zone. XRP previously traded around this region before breaking lower, and the latest candles remain below it. A recovery above this zone would be an initial sign that buyers are attempting to regain control, although the descending trendline would remain a larger obstacle.

On the downside, the immediate structure is becoming increasingly important around the $1.00 psychological level. A sustained move below this area could expose the blue demand zone around $0.91-$0.97. This region represents the next major support visible on the chart and could become relevant if the current consolidation resolves to the downside.

For now, the lack of a meaningful bullish reversal suggests that the market is still in a corrective phase. A break above the descending trendline and the $1.02-$1.04 resistance zone would be needed to materially improve the daily structure. Otherwise, another test of the lower support area remains possible.

XRP/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart provides a more immediate bearish picture. XRP has been forming lower highs beneath a descending trendline, while the recent rebound attempts have repeatedly failed to produce a meaningful structural breakout.

The asset is currently hovering around $1.00 and has already moved below the $1.02-$1.03 support area shown on the chart. This former support could now act as resistance if XRP attempts to recover. The descending trendline overhead further reinforces the bearish structure, making the $1.02-$1.07 region an important area for any potential reversal.

The current consolidation just below $1.00 suggests that sellers have not completely lost control, but momentum is also becoming compressed. If the $1.00 area fails decisively, the next major downside reference is the $0.91-$0.97 support zone visible on the daily chart.

Conversely, reclaiming $1.02-$1.03 and subsequently breaking the descending trendline would weaken the bearish setup. A stronger recovery above the $1.06-$1.08 area would provide a more convincing signal that the current downtrend is losing momentum. Until then, the path of least resistance remains tilted to the downside.

The post Ripple Price Prediction: Can XRP Defend $1 or Will $0.90 Come Into Play Next? appeared first on CryptoPotato.