AI-driven customer success strategies are transforming sales teams into lean, high-efficiency revenue generators.

The post Carles Reina: Customer success must evolve into a revenue-generating function, AI will reshape sales teams, and human interaction is critical for outbound effectiveness | 20VC appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

AI's transformative impact on coding is reshaping industries and driving significant market shifts.

The post Jordi Visser: Bitcoin above $76,000 and Ethereum above $2,400 could signal market stability, AI demand prevents recession, and inflation may rise to levels not seen since the early 90s | The Pomp Podcast appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tech giants' shift to infrastructure investment could reshape investor returns and market dynamics.

The post Jonathan Heathcote: Big tech is shifting to physical infrastructure investments, foreign capital is reshaping US asset valuations, and labor’s share of output is declining | Odd Lots appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Increased scrutiny of private credit highlights potential systemic risks, emphasizing the need for regulatory balance to prevent financial instability.

The post US Fed, Treasury assess spillover risks from $1.8 trillion private credit appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Escalating US-Iran tensions heighten nuclear security concerns as control over Iran's capabilities diminishes.

The post Robert Pape: 75% chance of US-Iran conflict escalation, the complexities of targeting nuclear materials, and the resilience of Iran’s regime | The Diary of a CEO appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Core Issue: The Role and History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers

Don’t miss your chance to own The Core Issue — featuring articles written by many Core Developers explaining the projects they work on themselves!

In the beginning there was only Satoshi Nakamoto and a powerful idea. Nakamoto started working on Bitcoin as far back as 2007^[1], and as far as we know worked on it entirely himself, until a few weeks after his release of the Bitcoin white paper on October 31st 2008^[2], when Nakamoto took on the first Contributor to the project, Hal Finney^[3].

Finney, it turns out, was critical to Bitcoin’s early success. According to recently surfaced emails^[4] Nakamoto’s node was unable to receive “incoming connections” for a couple of days after the minting of the genesis block, resulting in Finney being the only node other users could connect to. Nakamoto told Finney in a private email “Your node receiving incoming connections was the main thing keeping the network going the first day or two.”

Finney was also one of the first known reviewers and contributors to Bitcoin, Nakamoto shared the software with him and a few other cypherpunk legends before it was shown to the world. Finney even contributed code to the project before its first release, as revealed by Ray Dillinger who Nakamoto also shared pre-released versions of the code with.

In an interview conducted by Nathaniel Popper published on Dillinger’s blog, he said^[5]; “It was when we started talking about floating-point types in accounting code that I learned Finney was involved in the effort. Finney was reviewing the transaction scripting language, and both the code he had, and the code I had, interacted with the accounting code.”

The timeline roughly matches the activity page of the oldest Sourceforge web archive we have of the Bitcoin project page, where Nakamoto added Finney to the project on December 18, 2008. This decision by Nakamoto marks the first instance of Maintainer level permissions possibly being held by anyone other than Nakamoto. It is possible and likely that Finney gained developer status within the Sourceforge Bitcoin project, allowing him to download, modify and upload versions to Bitcoin to the site.

So, besides being a Contributor, reviewer, and a node runner, was Hal Finney also a Bitcoin Maintainer?

The strictest definition of a Maintainer is someone who has ‘commit access’ or write access to the primary development branch of a software project. Contributors to a project like Bitcoin may ‘commit’ code to development branches of the project, and submit ‘pull requests’ to have the code integrated to the master branch, but those updates can only be ‘merged’ into the master branch by its Maintainers^[6] through “commit access”..

By that definition, Finney may very well count as the first Maintainer after Nakamoto, but being a Bitcoin core Maintainer is arguably a lot more than just having commit access. Maintainers must also have a good reputation among the developer community and be frequent, producing Contributors.

Bitcoin Maintainers have in some cases been active developers of the project, who were well known enough by other Maintainers and seemed to be a good fit for the role. In other cases, they have been active reviewers and auditors of the code, merging code contributions that appear to have consensus, and refusing to merge code that does not.

The Maintainer role in turn carries a high status within the Bitcoin industry, and it is vulnerable to reputation ending mistakes. In some cases, famous Maintainers have had their access revoked, when considered by other Maintainers to be compromised, as seen in the case of Gavin Andresen^[7] when he endorsed scam artist Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto. In other cases, Maintainers have quit the role, in response to targeted harassment as seen with Gregory Maxwell^[8].

Generally, the Maintainer role in Bitcoin is expected by Contributors to be an engineering role and not a political one. Discussions on Github pull requests for example are expected to be about the technical and implementation details of a particular commit, rather than the person making the commit, their particular politics, allegiances. Discussions that touch consensus and are controversial or hotly debated are generally relegated to the Bitcoin mailing list and other forums, as do topics of a political nature.

It is important to note that whatever power there is embedded in the Maintainer role has arguably diminished over Bitcoin’s history, as the project has grown from the early days of Nakamoto. There are even examples of code getting merged to the master branch, only to be removed again^[9] after further review, making decisions by Maintainers far from final.

Maintainers throughout Bitcoin’s history have at times been accused of being gate keepers, refusing to merge updates to Bitcoin that factions of the community support, often in part because other factions of the community oppose them. In this sense, the Maintainer role does carry a certain kind of ‘taste making’ power, the permission to discern whether a commit has consensus or not, something not easy to quantify.  

This exclusive permission to merge or not to merge may be an unavoidable necessity of open source development, as no project would be considered safe or stable if anyone could merge any code into it at any time. In an adversarial environment, a meritocracy that filters code suggestions based only on the content of the ideas and their merit is arguably the best model we can strive for, anything else is a centralizing political system.

As such, the Maintainer role has persisted across Bitcoin development history, often held by multiple people, expanding and contracting in responsibilities. The role often draws the attention and curiosity of the broader Bitcoin community, as Maintainers as well as Contributors earn, enjoy and suffer the burdens of an emergent kind of leadership, especially in technical matters.

Unfortunately, data about the very early stage of Bitcoin development is scarce, leaving us only with glimpses into what role Finney played before the Genesis block. Maintainer permission history is actually quite opaque across open source development. Hubs like Sourceforge and Github fail to expose commit access history or detailed membership permissions to the public. Records like Nakamoto adding Finney to Sourceforge are actually a rare sight in Bitcoin Maintainer history.

Nevertheless, version control systems like SVN and Git which were implemented weeks after the first release of Bitcoin, do track commits across time and branches for the public to review, giving us public insights into what has happened. As a result, our knowledge of Bitcoin Maintainer history tends to come from first and last commits made to the master repo, announcements on Bitcointalk, or other forums, and confirmation of access revocation by active Maintainers at the time —in rare cases. A significant portion of the research on this article comes from Bitcoin Core Maintainer Ava Chow’s documentation of the relevant history^[10].

The tracking of commit access or Maintainers was improved in 2014 with the addition of the trusted-keys system,^[11] which adds a white list of PGP public keys into the master branch of Bitcoin Core. Keys can only enter and exit the list via commits merged by active Maintainers, and all commits to the master branch should be signed, by the corresponding private keys, a process that anyone in the public can verify and audit, comparing the software signature to the corresponding PGP keys.

The trusted-keys system was added as a security safeguard by Matt Corallo^[12], who told Bitcoin Magazine the feature was the result of a general process of improvements and optimizations, and not a response to any particular catalyst or event.

A Brief History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers: The Satoshi Nakamoto Era

On January 3rd 2009, Nakamoto minted the genesis block^[13], effectively launching the digital currency into public beta. He added a message to the block that anchored and time stamped Bitcoin’s launch to the physical world with a headline from the British daily national newspaper, “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”. The headline is forever embedded in Bitcoin’s blockchain, a subtle yet immutable reminder of Bitcoin’s purpose and birthright.

On the night of January 8th 2009^[14] version 0.1.0 of Bitcoin was released to the public, announced on various forums including the cypherpunk mailing list, on it Nakamoto wrote; “Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash system that uses a peer-to-peer network to prevent double-spending. It’s completely decentralized with no server or central authority.”

The installable windows version of Bitcoin in this first release had been compiled by Nakamoto and the source code made available as part of a .rar file published on SourceForge.net. This act made Nakamoto the founder and Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin by default, a role built into the very nature of open source development. Nakamoto would take code commits from other developers during his time building Bitcoin, download them to his local machine, review and merge the code bases, and produce new version releases, a key task and work flow that differentiates Maintainers for Contributors throughout Bitcoin history. This process would continue until Nakamoto’s departure in December of 2010 and would impact versions 0.1.0 to 0.3.19 of Bitcoin.  

Multiple updates followed the first release of Bitcoin and by the end of January 2009, a third developer had officially become a Contributor to the project. Martti Malmi going by the username of “sirius-m” made the “First commit”^[15] to Sourceforge, bringing online the SVN source version control system — a kind of git, popular at the time. Malmi committed to the ‘Trunk’ comparable to a master branch on Github, making Malmi the second official Maintainer in Bitcoin’s open source development history. Malmi would make a variety of contributions throughout 2009 including the first Linux version of Bitcoin, with the 0.2.0 release^[16].

It wasn’t until the August of 2010 that Lazloh Hanyecz — famous for having paid 10,000 bitcoins for a pizza in 2010^[17] — would join as Maintainer^[18], a month after contributing the first iOS version of Bitcoin to the 0.3.0 release.

Part of Nakamoto’s role as Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin was the stewardship of the network. Nakamoto went as far as to personally ask Lazloh — who was one of the first to mine bitcoin with GPUs —  to slow down his production for the sake of the network. “The longer we can delay the GPU arms race, the more mature the OpenCL libraries get, and the more people will have OpenCL compatible video cards,” Nakamoto said to Lazloh in 2009^[19], looking to prolong the CPU mining era of Bitcoin, which was a major incentive to run Bitcoin nodes at a time when the future price of the coins was entirely uncertain.

On July 17th 2010 on version 0.3.2^[20][21] Nakamoto added the check pointing system, a security safeguard that hard coded a certain block height as valid and its corresponding winning hash. Its purpose was to protect the chain from miner attacks that could theoretically reorganize the chain well beyond what the “widely accepted block chain” was, Nakamoto said on the announcement, adding that “there’s no point in leaving open the unwanted non-zero possibility of revision months later.”

The checkpointing system would result in a new responsibility for future bitcoin Maintainers, who would have to hard code a new block height and its corresponding hash on future releases, well into Gavin Andresen’s era of Bitcoin development^[22]. The checkpointing system was eventually phased out, as the proof of work made deep reorgs unfeasible.

The height of Nakamoto’s power as Lead Maintainer and project founder would be demonstrated during the value overflow bug event of October 2010^[23], where three transactions created 184 billion bitcoin that did not and should not exist. The number of coins the transaction attempted to move was so large that the transaction validation code at the time “overflowed when summed”, breaking consensus.  

This is historically Bitcoin’s most famous bug, sometimes called the ‘inflation bug’ and was likely the most dangerous to the project’s survival. Various community members started noticing the transactions hours after they were mined into the network, springing Nakamoto into action, who, with the help of a few Contributors^[24] including Andresen^[25], created a patched version of Bitcoin^[26] changing the relevant validation code.

Nakamoto asked miners to move to the patched version and resync the chain^[27], resulting in a roll back of the network to a state before the invalid transactions were confirmed. This was a hard fork that rolled back 19 hours of Bitcoin blocks, and probably represents the peak of Bitcoin’s centralization under Nakamoto’s leadership, as well as the peak of power that has ever been concentrated in the Lead Maintainer role.

Following the events of the Value Overflow Bug, Nakamoto implemented the Alert System on version 0.3.11^[28]. The feature — which was somewhat controversial — would make nodes at risk of a critical bug, show a warning and would disable essential features. This Alert System used messages that would have to be signed by a key only held by Nakamoto. He justified the feature saying that “getting surprised by some temporary down time when your node would otherwise be at risk is better than getting surprised by a thief draining all your inventory.” Months later Nakamoto disabled the Alert System in his final version release.

Per the SVN records, only Nakamoto ever merged the code of other Contributors and pushed new official release versions of the Bitcoin, at least until Gavin Andresen became Lead Maintainer in December 19th 2010^[29]. Andresen had been contributing code to Nakamoto directly as early as February^[30] that year, as seen in the release of 0.3.1, and would make his first commit to the SVN Trunk on October 11th^[31], a couple of months before Satoshi Nakamoto published his final version on Bitcoin, 0.3.19^[32], disappearing into history.

At the time of writing, over 1200 individual people have contributed code to the Bitcoin Core project.

The Gavin Andresen Era

With Nakamoto no longer contributing to the project, Gavin Andresen was left as one of the only active contributors to the project with commit access. Malmi had slowed down contribution as Andresen’s accelerated, so when Nakamoto left, Andresen was left as the default Lead Maintainer. While Nakamoto never made a public statement, granting the role to Andresen, he did send an email to Mike Hearn — a frequent Contributor at the time — famously saying “I’ve moved on to other things.  It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone.”^[33]

“With Nakamoto’s Blessing”^[34] Andresen would take the mantle of Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin and would go on to expand the Maintainer team while also initiate the official migration from Sourceforge to Github^[35], a process which would take some time. It wasn’t until July 14th of 2011 that we would see the first commit merged to Bitcoin from a branch on Andresen’s official github account^[36].

Unlike the Nakamoto era of development, this merge was done by the Github platform, putting some trust on Github.com to not do something shady with the code, a process previously done by Nakamoto manually and on his local machine. It’s important to note that the differences between versions of the code are auditable anyway, Github merge or not, since the project is open source. Code merges in this era could and should have been reviewed by developers on both sides of the process, before Github merge and after, though an abundance of caution eventually led to the creation of the trusted-keys system. Nevertheless, this began a new trend in how code was merged into Bitcoin that would last for at least three years.

On September 13th, 2011, the Sourceforge Bitcoin project was officially shut down, favoring Github as the new collaboration platform, leaving the old Bitcoin page there as an archive. Since both Malmi and Lazloh were Contributors on Sourceforge primarily without Github accounts at the time, their commit access effectively ended with the official migration, as well as their slow down in contributions around Nakamoto’s departure.

On April 27 of 2011, version 0.3.21 was released, the first under Andresen’s leadership. It was also the first to include a Readme file a PGP signed^[37] message that detailed the update, contained hashes for the released installables and gave shout outs to Contributors. Among the 16 Contributors named are well known bitcoin core developers like Luke Dashjr, Matt Corallo, Pieter Wuille and Jeff Garzik.

The next couple of years saw a flurry of new Maintainers, perhaps in an attempt to decentralize what ever perceived power and responsibility Gavin held via the Maintainer role, and to fill in the gaps left by Nakamoto, Malmi and Lazloh. Chris Moore^[38] with the username “dooglas” gained commit access for a couple of months from January 21st^[39] until March 31st 2011^[40] and still contributes to the project from time to time^[41].

A few months later on the first of June of 2011, Pieter Wuille gained commit access^[42]. Wuille discovered Bitcoin in November of 2010 and soon started contributing to the project. After gaining commit access, Wuille would become a renowned Bitcoin core developer, generally credited with many small performance optimizations that sum up over time to large improvements in user experience among many other contributions^[43]. Today Wuille holds the third most commits to Bitcoin core, under the “sipa” username according to Github.  

Jeff Garzik would join as Maintainer a few days later on June 6th, 2011^[44]. Garzik started contributing to Bitcoin as early as version 0.3.21 that year and would also become renowned Bitcoin developer, bringing his extensive experience from the Linux open source ecosystem^[45] to the Bitcoin project. Garzik is generally credited with helping improve the stability of the Bitcoin client.

Years later in the summer of 2016 Garzik had his commit access revoked after “several months of inactivity” according to Chow. During these years the Bitcoin block size war had begun to heat up and Garzik was on the side of the big blocks update^[46], leading to lots of debate, and friction with some factions of the Bitcoin community, a likely cause of his drop in development activity. Garzik would go on to lead one of the failed forks of that war a year later, version Segwit2x.

A month later on July 5th of 2011, Mara van der Laan (who identified as Wladamir at the time) was granted commit access, becoming the eighth official Maintainer of Bitcoin Core. Van der Laan started engaging in the Bitcointalk forum as early as November 2010 and started contributing to Bitcoin by May 2011^[47] initially focusing on the GUI of the Bitcoin QT client and bringing deep academic experience in computer graphics^[48].

On September 19, 2011 Nils Schneider going by the username “tcatm” gained commit access after frequent contributions focused on optimising the Bitcoin client for working in the background. During his time as a Maintainer, he made big contributions helping to internationalize the client, adding multiple language related updates^[49], and oversaw the removal of the Crypto++ library, protecting the client from unnecessary dependencies^[50]. Nils worked as a Maintainer for almost a year with his last commit made in May 31st, 2012^[51].

In February 11 of 2012^[52] Gregory Maxwell with the username “gmaxwell” merged his first commit to Bitcoin after various code contributions and a full year of active technical commentary on the Bitcointalk forum^[53], starting off a three year career as a Bitcoin Maintainer. During this time, Maxwell focused largely on the P2P networking layer of the client as well as consensus and validation related work. To date he is held in very high regard by many in the broad Bitcoin community and occasionally contributes to technical discussions and debates. Maxwell gave up commit access in December of 2015^[54] as the Bitcoin block size war was heating up, due to internet harassment and other related concerns, as he took the small block position. 

After a year or so of expanding the Bitcoin core Maintainer team, on September 27th, 2012 Gavin announced the next step in his vision for Bitcoin’s future, the Bitcoin Foundation^[55]. Made in the image of the Linux foundation, which Gavin saw as a great example of a successful large open source project, the foundation attracted a great deal of attention and support as well as criticism. In his announcement post Gavin said; “I want the Bitcoin Foundation to be an open, member-driven organization, and hope that you or your organization will not only become a member but will help the Foundation accomplish its mission”. Over the next few years, the foundation would help pay the salaries of a variety of Bitcoin core Contributors and Maintainers.

The Mara van der Laan Era

In April 2014, Mara van der Laan was chosen by Gavin Andresen as his successor to the Lead Maintainer role, as Andresen had decided to move towards a more academic role he labeled “Chief Scientist”. In a blog post, published by Andresen on the Bitcoin Foundation website^[56] he wrote; “Wladimir van der Laan has been paid to work on Bitcoin Core full-time for several months now – again, thanks to all of you Foundation members for stepping up and helping to fund core development – and has been doing a fantastic job. He has agreed to take over for me as the ‘Bitcoin Core Maintainer.’”

Under the usernames “Laanwj” and “wumpus”, Ven der Laan would oversee 9 years of Bitcoin Core developments, today holding the crown as having made the most commits to the Bitcoin repo^[57] according to Github graphs, with 7,419 commits — most of them merges — to date. Van der Laan gave up the role in February 2023 for “personal reasons” according to Chow.

One of the first and most notable changes to the Maintainer role under Van der Laan was the implementation of the trusted-keys system, which was committed by Matt Corallo^[58] on December 20th of 2014. The system helped solve the opaque nature of the Maintainer role, by adding a file with PGP public key fingerprints to the master bitcoin repository, as well as a series of related tools^[59]. One of the tools makes sure that Maintainer commits are correctly PGP signed, another script can be used to verify commit signatures against the trusted-keys list of PGP keys.

By having these keys inside the master repo, only Maintainers are able to add and remove keys to the list with valid signatures, leaving a record on Git’s version control system, while giving us pull requests for the addition and removal of Maintainers, which Contributors and commit members can comment on.  

According to Corallo, the main role of the trusted-keys system was “to avoid trusting Github” to merge developer code, a practice normalized during Andresen’s era of development. Instead, Maintainers merge the code locally and update the repository.

On November 13, 2015, Jonas Schnelli was granted commit access, with the username “jonasschnelli”. He was granted the role of GUI Maintainer by Van der Laan, who announced it in the bitcoin mailing list^[60]. Schnelli who started contributing in 2013 to Bitcoin would go on to reach the top 10 of Bitcoin Contributors by commits on github, many also likely being merges during his role as Maintainer, which lasted 6 years. Schnelli gave up commit access in October 21st, 2021 for personal reasons, writing a thread on Twitter reflecting on his experience and expressing strong confidence in the bitcoin developer community that proceeded him^[61].

On April 13, 2016, Marco Falke was given commit access under the username “maflcko” ^[62]. Van der Laan announced the decision on the Bitcoin mailing list^[63], saying “Hereby I’m announcing Marco Falke as the new Testing & QA Maintainer for Bitcoin Core.” Falke contributed to core all the way until 2023, when he decided to give up commit access and the Maintainer role, for personal reasons^[64].

Less than a month later, on May 6th 2016, Gavin Andresen had his commit access removed. The decision made by Van der Laan came after Andresen endorsed now known Satoshi Nakamoto impersonator Craig Wright^[65]. Many in the Bitcoin community were already skeptical of Wright’s claims and Andresen’s position at the time was quickly revealed to be based on deception by Wright. Months earlier, Mike Hearn, a Bitcoin Contributor who was seen as close to Andresen, advocated on a podcast that Andresen should revoke commit access from all Maintainers and become a “Benevolent Dictator” of Bitcoin^[66], as is done in many other open source projects. Andresen did not follow Hearn’s advice, but the event demonstrated the levels of tension the Bitcoin community was under, as the block size war raged on, which Wright was also a part of.  

Years later Andresen would express his regrets about the events saying “I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did. I regret getting sucked into the “who is (or isn’t) Nakamoto” game, and I refuse to play that game any more.”

It would be a couple of years until the next Bitcoin Contributor would gain commit access. On December 4th of 2018, Samuel Dobson known by the username “MeshCollider” was made wallet Maintainer by Van der Laan^[67]. Dobson had been making contributions to Bitcoin since at least the summer of 2017^[68] and would go on to make over 300 commits throughout his Bitcoin developer career, focusing on the wallet side of the Bitcoin code base. Dobson gave up commit access and the Maintainer role in February of 2023 to focus on his PHD^[69].

A year later on June 7th 2019, Michael Ford would gain commit access, the first in the latest generation Maintainers who works on the role to date. Wielding the username “Fanquake”, Ford might have been the first Contributor to gain commit access by Contributor consensus, having been nominated during a core developer meetup in Amsterdam^[70] [71]. Nomination by Contributor consensus would become a trend after this period, demonstrating Bitcoin development’s trend towards decentralization, with meetings taking place in various locations and environments, and even via IRC.

Ford started contributing to Bitcoin in February of 2012^[72] and would thereafter become one of the most prolific Maintainers in Bitcoin history, locking in second place for the most commits according to Github with 4920 to date, many of them merges and maintenance related updates to the work of other Contributors.

The Contributor Consensus Era

On January 21st, 2021 Van der Laan published a blog^[73] that would break with the tradition started by Nakamoto and Andresen, of having a Lead Maintainer for Bitcoin core development. In it, Van der Laan explained that she would start delegating many of her roles as Lead Maintainer, that Bitcoin was too large of a project now to use the model setup by Nakamoto and Andresen, and effectively that it was time to decentralize Bitcoin core development.

Van der Laan made explicit a series of duties that needed to be done by others and laid a road map for making the software release process of Bitcoin more censorship resistant, such as moving the Bitcoincore.org website to the ownership of an organization rather than be under her control, while encouraging mirrors. The setup of release distribution via torrents and possibly IPFS, skepticism towards Github.com and a call out to start looking for alternative code contribution platforms, and a threshold signing scheme for Maintainers to be able to sign releases via some kind of cryptographic consensus, rather than having one person be the final PGP signer of a release, among other ideas.

The blog post effectively marked the end of Van der Laan’s role as Lead Maintainer, and symbolized a maturation milestone in Bitcoin, which came months after the release of version 0.20.0 and only days after the version 0.21.0 release^[74].

Hannadii Stepanov known by the username “hebasto” gained commit access in March 19th 2021 to be GUI Maintainer^[75] for the Bitcoin client. Stepanov began contributing code to Bitcoin core in August 2018^[76], with over a thousand code contributions before becoming a Maintainer, placing him at 5th place in Github’s commits ranking for the project with 2070 locked in to date. Stepanov remains a Bitcoin Maintainer as of the time of writing.

Ava Chow gained commit access in December 12, 2020^[77] as the wallet Maintainer, after contributing since January 2016^[78]. Wielding the username “achow101” Chow is a well known Contributor whose efforts in the Bitcoin development community go beyond github contributions, including a significant portion of the historical research in this history of core Maintainers. Chow is also know to do Bitcoin core review livestreams on Twitch^[79] which gathers an active audience, helping further technical Bitcoin education. Chow ranks on Github as number 4 with most commits at 2198, and still has commit access as of the time of writing.

Gloria Zhao gained commit access in August 7th 2022 after being nominated by Contributor consensus^[80], for the role of mempool and policy Maintainer^[81]. Zhao started contributing in March of 2020^[82] and had at least 200 commits in Bitcoin core before gaining commit access. Today she ranks at number 9 according to Github with 777 commits in the repo. Zhao is a Maintainer to this day.

Russ Yanofsky gained commit access in June 10th of 2023^[83] after being nominated by Contributor consensus^[84], to the role of interface Maintainer. Russ specializes in modularization and multiprocess work which earned him the role, after contributing to the project since October 2016^[85], with 970 commits for 7th place in Github ranking. Yanofsky is known by the username “ryanofsky” and remains a Maintainer to this day.

Don’t miss your chance to own The Core Issue — featuring articles written by many Core Developers explaining the projects they work on themselves!

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

[1] https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014863.html 

[2] https://Nakamoto.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/1/ 

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/ 

[4] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/26/previously-unpublished-emails-of-Nakamoto-nakamoto-present-a-new-puzzle 

[5] https://www.ofnumbers.com/2018/10/01/interview-with-ray-dillinger/ 

[6] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99674/how-do-devs-decide-who-should-have-commit-access-what-is-the-process/99676#comment112930_99676

[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20230406134017/http://gavinandresen.ninja/Nakamoto 

[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x7mrr/comment/cy29vkx/ 

[9] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31908 

[10] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1774750.0 

[11] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/README.md 

[12] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys 

[13] https://mempool.space/block/0 

[14] https://Nakamoto.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/16/ 

[15] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/1/tree/ 

[16] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16.msg73#msg73 

[17] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Laszlo_Hanyecz 

[18] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.msg2004#msg2004 

[19] https://www.bitcoin.com/Nakamoto-archive/emails/laszlo-hanec/1/ 

[20] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=437.msg3807#msg3807 

[21] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4110f33cded01bde5f01a6312248fa6fdd14cc76#diff-118fcbaaba162ba17933c7893247df3aR1344 

[22] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/bd7d9140f915d68e0abfdcd7ebdbb681c87d18c7 

[23] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident 

[24] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0 

[25] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9524#msg9524 

[26] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/139/log/ 

[27] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9531#msg9531 

[28] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=898.0 

[29] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2367.0;all 

[30] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=383.msg3198#msg3198 

[31] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/165 

[32] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29565#msg29565 

[33] https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/mike-hearn/16/ 

[34] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?before=a4e96cae7d3db3f7bfffd14a7fb6754ffbbc084e+46430 

[35] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2367.msg31651#msg31651 

[36] https://web.archive.org/web/20101218045728/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/develop/ 

[37] https://web.archive.org/web/20110708091605/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.21/ 

[38] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/86c0af514b59971f7a5c3876898165667cbbeb6b 

[39] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/86c0af514b59971f7a5c3876898165667cbbeb6b 

[40] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hvevo/comment/d2t16mh/ 

[41] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=dooglus 

[42] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fbfbf94deb4224ce65bdbbc9151ddd44a4128753 

[43] https://businessabc.net/wiki/pieter-wuille 

[44] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/62b427ec5532065744f9836e6a7b1676428c3434 

[45] https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/jeff-garzik 

[46] https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.qgx99rxpr 

[47] https://github.com/laanwj?tab=overview&from=2011-05-01&to=2011-12-31 

[48] https://dl.acm.org/profile/81474651580 

[49] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/560078a7685b33bdc8d1a94631633cb2af841976 

[50] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6ccff2cbdebca38e4913b679784a4865edfbb12a 

[51] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/50fac686541686191647ddabd87d6dae75c24c52 

[52] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9f3de58d83f54536076be44fe945f56670ef9b60 

[53] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425;sa=showPosts;start=6000 

[54] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x7mrr/gmaxwell_unullc_no_longer_a_bitcoin_committer_on/cy29vkx/ 

[55] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

[56] https://web.archive.org/web/20140915022516/https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/04/bitcoin-core-Maintainer-wladimir-van-der-laan/ 

[57] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/Contributors 

[58] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys 

[59] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/README.md 

[60] https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/20151113073052.GB19878@amethyst.visucore.com/ 

[61] https://x.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/1451268520159875080 

[62] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7921 

[63] https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-core-dev%40lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg00003.html 

[64] https://x.com/MarcoFalke/status/1627987123788824576 

[65] https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html 

[66] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w&t=2878s 

[67] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1ca050254145ebbbbf5910bfee2e82a45e465ca1 

[68] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/41f3e84aaca82540582fd5a93fd632e752c3e6bf 

[69] https://x.com/MarcoFalke/status/1627987123788824576 

[70] https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-06-Maintainers/ 

[71] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16162 

[72] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/27adfb2e0c1caeef3970605f519edf9058f119ef 

[73] https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html 

[74] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases?page=3 

[75] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21615 

[76] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/11b9dbb439a15ed275cba673fdc743c612ea374f 

[77] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23798 

[78] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5ed2f16480142f0887cc1a6257ff53e2abc3e5b6 

[79] https://www.twitch.tv/achow101/ 

[80] https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30.log 

[81] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524 

[82] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2455aa5d7f54befeade05795ed8f5dd89d01042a 

[83] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604 

[84] https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-05-04.log 

[85] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/18dacf9bd25154e184b097ee4e8f786d9be25637 

This post The Core Issue: The Role and History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Policy Institute Warns Quantum Advances Are Compressing Timeline for Network Upgrades

A new brief from the Bitcoin Policy Institute argues that recent breakthroughs in quantum computing are accelerating the timeline for when Bitcoin’s cryptography could face credible threats, while stressing that developers are already preparing solutions.

In its report, State of Play: Quantum Computing and Bitcoin’s Path Forward, the Bitcoin Policy Institute points to two research papers released on March 31 by Google and California Institute of Technology that reshape long-standing assumptions about the computing power required to break Bitcoin’s encryption.

For years, estimates suggested that an attacker would need around 10 million qubits to exploit Shor’s algorithm and compromise Bitcoin’s security model. According to the Bitcoin Policy Institute’s analysis of Google’s findings, that threshold could be reduced to fewer than 500,000 qubits. A separate paper involving Caltech and University of California, Berkeley indicates that specialized quantum systems could lower that requirement further, to a range between 10,000 and 26,000 qubits.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute notes that the two papers take different approaches—one emphasizing software efficiency and the other hardware design—but arrive at the same conclusion: the resource requirements for a quantum attack are declining.

Despite that shift, the organization emphasizes that Bitcoin is not under immediate threat. Current quantum machines remain far below the levels outlined in the research. Google’s most advanced processor, Willow, operates with just over 100 qubits, leaving a wide gap between theory and practical capability.

Still, the Bitcoin Policy Institute frames the findings as a signal that preparation must continue at pace. The report highlights ongoing efforts within the Bitcoin developer community to address long-term risks tied to quantum computing.

Central to that work is BIP-360, a proposal that the Bitcoin Policy Institute describes as one of the most active areas of development in the protocol’s history. The proposal introduces a new address format that prevents public keys from being exposed during transactions, removing a key vulnerability that quantum attackers could exploit.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute points to a testnet launched in March that has already attracted more than 50 miners and over 100 cryptographers. The level of participation, the group argues, reflects strong alignment across technical contributors.

The report also underscores that Bitcoin’s existing architecture provides flexibility. The Taproot upgrade, activated in 2021, includes features that can support quantum-resistant verification methods through alternative spending conditions.

Beyond the Bitcoin ecosystem, the Bitcoin Policy Institute situates the issue within a broader policy context. The National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized post-quantum cryptographic standards in 2024, offering tools that can be adapted for Bitcoin. Federal agencies have been given a 2035 deadline to transition to quantum-resistant systems, while Google has set an internal target of 2029.

Bitcoin’s decentralized structure is a challenge 

The Bitcoin Policy Institute stresses that Bitcoin’s decentralized structure introduces a distinct challenge. Unlike governments or corporations, the network cannot mandate upgrades. Any change must emerge through consensus among participants.

Even so, the report points to past upgrades as evidence that coordination is possible. With quantum security, the Bitcoin Policy Institute argues, incentives are aligned across the network, as all stakeholders depend on maintaining system integrity.

The report concludes that the quantum threat is not imminent, but the timeline is tightening. In the Bitcoin Policy Institute’s view, the technical solutions are already taking shape, and the focus now shifts to how the network reaches agreement on deployment.

Yesterday, a new research proposal from StarkWare’s Avihu Levy introduced “Quantum Safe Bitcoin” (QSB), a scheme designed to protect Bitcoin transactions from future quantum attacks without requiring changes to the network’s core protocol. 

The approach shifts security away from vulnerable ECDSA signatures toward hash-based assumptions, aiming to guard against threats like Shor’s algorithm while remaining compatible with Bitcoin’s existing system.

This post Bitcoin Policy Institute Warns Quantum Advances Are Compressing Timeline for Network Upgrades first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

BlackRock Posts Massive Bitcoin ETF Inflows as Morgan Stanley Debuts MSBT With Strong Early Demand

Inflows into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs surged Thursday, led by BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, which pulled in $269.3 million, its strongest single-day performance in five weeks. The move followed a period of volatility tied to geopolitical tensions and reversed two straight days of net outflows across the sector.

In total, the 12 U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $358.1 million in net inflows, signaling renewed investor demand as bitcoin trades below its recent highs, thanks to Farside data. 

Fidelity Investments’ FBTC posted the second-largest inflow at $53.3 million. Morgan Stanley’s newly launched Bitcoin Trust (MSBT) brought in $14.9 million on its second day of trading, marking what the bank described as its strongest ETF debut. The firm’s digital asset leadership indicated the product represents an early step in a broader pipeline of offerings.

Other issuers also participated in the rebound. Bitwise Asset Management and ARK Invest’s 21Shares fund added $11.7 million and $4.8 million, while Franklin Templeton and VanEck each saw about $2 million in inflows.

Year to date, BlackRock’s IBIT has attracted $1.5 billion in net inflows, even as bitcoin has declined from a 2026 peak near $97,000 to around $72,100. Company executives have said the fund’s investor base skews toward long-term holders.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs ended 2025 with $56.59 billion in cumulative net inflows and now stand at $56.51 billion, leaving the category about $80 million below breakeven for 2026.

Morgan Stanley launches a bitcoin ETF

Earlier this week, Morgan Stanley entered the spot bitcoin ETF market with the launch of its Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), posting strong early demand and intensifying competition across the sector.

The fund recorded about $34 million in first-day trading volume and $30.6 million in net inflows, which Morgan Stanley’s Amy Oldenburg said marked the “best first day of trading for any of our ETFs.” MSBT carries a 14 basis point fee, undercutting several rival products and adding pressure to an already competitive fee environment.

Despite the debut, U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs saw $94 million in net outflows. Fidelity’s FBTC and Ark & 21Shares’ ARKB led redemptions, while Grayscale’s GBTC also posted losses. BlackRock’s IBIT bucked the trend with $40.4 million in inflows.

The flows highlight ongoing rotation among institutional investors amid bitcoin price volatility, with traders taking profits after the asset climbed back above $70,000.

Morgan Stanley’s entry is seen as a structural shift, leveraging its $6 trillion wealth management network and thousands of financial advisors to distribute crypto exposure more broadly. Analysts say fee compression and distribution advantages will likely shape the next phase of competition.

Inflows into MSBT will be watched to see if traditional banks can challenge ETF leaders.

This post BlackRock Posts Massive Bitcoin ETF Inflows as Morgan Stanley Debuts MSBT With Strong Early Demand first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

TD Cowen Initiates Coverage on Bitcoin Treasury Companies, Frames PBTC Sector as Investable Equity Category

TD Cowen this week initiated equity research coverage on three public Bitcoin treasury companies (PBTCs) and one Ethereum digital asset treasury, publishing proprietary valuation models and KPIs specific to the sector. 

The move marks one of the more concrete steps a major bank has taken to build formal research infrastructure around Bitcoin-focused equities.

The firm’s analysts, led by Lance Vitanza, view Bitcoin as a long-term store of value — framing it in the tradition of digital gold — and project a price of roughly $140,000 by the end of 2026. 

TD Cowen’s thesis holds that PBTCs, companies that accumulate Bitcoin on their balance sheets and grow holdings on a per-share basis, now constitute a distinct and “investable equity category,” distinct from both spot Bitcoin ETFs and traditional tech stocks.

Nakamoto receives a buy rating

Among the companies covered, Nakamoto Holdings (NASDAQ: NAKA) received a buy rating and a $1.00 price target, compared to its April 8 closing price of $0.21. TD Cowen’s model projects $394 million in Bitcoin gains for fiscal year 2027, applying a 2x multiple to that estimate. 

Nakamoto differentiates from other PBTCs through minority stakes in international Bitcoin treasury firms — Metaplanet in Japan and Treasury BV in the Netherlands — and operating subsidiaries in media, Bitcoin advocacy, and digital asset management.

“We are initiating coverage of Nakamoto Holdings with a BUY rating and a $1.00 price target. Our PT is based on estimated BTC $ Gain of $394 million for FY27E, a 2x multiple, and a Bitcoin price of ~$140k at Dec-26,” the firm wrote.

SharpLink Gaming (SBET) and Strive (ASST) also received Buy ratings, with price targets of $16 and $26, respectively. 

On Apr. 9, TD Cowen also cut its price target on Strategy to $350 from $440, citing a lower bitcoin price outlook and a reduced valuation multiple on projected gains, while maintaining a buy rating. The firm lowered its forecast for Strategy’s 2026 bitcoin gains to $7.87 billion from $10.17 billion in 2025.

The decision to initiate coverage carries weight beyond the individual ratings. When a bank formalizes research coverage of a new sector, it creates the analytical foundation that supports other business lines — wealth management, investment banking, and enterprise services — in engaging with the category. 

TD Cowen’s stress on this policy cycle

TD Cowen has been vocal in recent months about digital assets’ role in the current market cycle, and the April 9 initiations represent the first instance of the firm publishing company-specific models and ratings within the PBTC space.

Back in January, the U.S. entered what TD Cowen described as a rare pro-crypto policy window, driven by aligned regulators, political momentum, and a deregulatory push under President Trump’s second term. 

The firm expects 2026 reforms to come through agency action — such as SEC exemptions, tokenization initiatives, and expanded banking access — rather than sweeping legislation. It warned, however, that these gains must be finalized quickly or risk being weakened or reversed after the 2028 election.

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

This post TD Cowen Initiates Coverage on Bitcoin Treasury Companies, Frames PBTC Sector as Investable Equity Category first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Japan Moves to Classify Bitcoin and Crypto as Financial Instruments Under New Bill

Japan has taken a decisive step toward reshaping its digital asset framework after its cabinet approved a draft amendment that would classify cryptocurrencies as financial products under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA).

The proposal marks a shift from Japan’s current approach, which treats crypto primarily as a payment method under the Payment Services Act. By bringing digital assets under the same legal structure as stocks and other securities, policymakers aim to align the sector with established financial market standards.

If passed during the current parliamentary session, the law could take effect as early as fiscal year 2027.

Under the proposed rules, insider trading involving crypto assets would be explicitly prohibited. Market participants would face penalties for trading on non-public information, a measure long applied in traditional finance but absent in most crypto markets. Regulators view the change as necessary to address concerns over market fairness and information asymmetry, according to reporting from Nikkei.

The bill also introduces disclosure requirements for issuers. Companies offering crypto-related products would need to publish annual reports, increasing transparency for investors and regulators. Officials say the move reflects the growing role of digital assets as investment vehicles rather than simple payment tools.

Penalties for noncompliance would rise. Operating without registration could result in prison terms of up to 10 years, compared with the current maximum of three years. 

Financial penalties would increase to 10 million yen, or about $62,800. Authorities would also expand oversight powers, giving regulators broader authority to monitor trading activity and enforce rules.

Satsuki Katayama, Japan’s minister for financial services, said the reform aims to expand access to growth capital while strengthening investor protection. She noted that changes in financial markets and the rise of digital assets require a more comprehensive regulatory structure.

Japan’s crypto initiatives 

Japan has long been an early mover in crypto regulation, introducing exchange registration requirements and custody rules after a series of high-profile hacks in the past decade. 

The latest proposal builds on that foundation while signaling a shift toward integrating crypto into mainstream finance.

The timing reflects both domestic and global pressures. Japan now has millions of crypto accounts, and regulators receive hundreds of fraud-related complaints each month. 

At the same time, institutional interest in digital assets has increased, pushing policymakers to create clearer rules for market participants.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Japan Moves to Classify Bitcoin and Crypto as Financial Instruments Under New Bill first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Ray Dalio's Apr. 9 TIME essay carries a geopolitical surface and a monetary argument underneath.

Dalio explicitly writes that his indicators point to a simultaneous breakdown of the monetary order, some domestic political orders, and the geopolitical world order.

The Iran conflict is the immediate trigger, but the structural claim below that is that investors expect conditions to stabilize quickly, underpricing the depth of the transition already underway.

Dalio's July 2025 TIME essay “Defending the Value of Money” argued that the dispute between President Donald Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell was fundamentally about the value of money.

When debt burdens grow too large, the classic response is to push real rates down and devalue currency.

In that same essay, he noted the dollar had fallen roughly 27% against gold and 45% against Bitcoin since the prior summer.

His January 2026 LinkedIn post argued that the monetary, domestic political, and international geopolitical orders were all moving through a single Big Cycle, with the current phase representing the pre-breakdown transition.

Dalio's April warning is another chapter in that argument.

What the breakdown means for hard money

Once the frame moves from war shock to monetary-order transition, investors should start questioning which assets retain value as debt instruments appear less reliable and fiat systems look more politically exposed.

In a June 2025 LinkedIn essay, “How Countries Go Broke,” Dalio laid out the allocation logic for holding underweight debt assets, an overweight in gold, and a small amount of Bitcoin.

In an October 2025 TIME essay titled “Gold Is the Safest Money,” Dalio made the hierarchy explicit, describing gold as the monetary asset least at risk of devaluation or confiscation.

Bitcoin's claim inside this framework rests on scarcity and sovereignty, operating outside any issuing authority, central bank, or state balance sheet.

In a world where Dalio believes fiat systems face mounting pressure from debasement, those properties become more relevant to investors seeking monetary exposure outside the traditional system.

The dollar falling 45% against Bitcoin in roughly a year, as Dalio himself cited, gives the theoretical case concrete grounding.

Bitcoin's non-sovereign properties are a forward-looking argument describing what Bitcoin could become as a monetary asset over a full cycle. That forward case runs directly into the reality of how Bitcoin has behaved in acute stress, and the difference between aspiration and behavior builds the gold hierarchy.

Gold wins the first round

On Apr. 7, as tensions with Iran deepened, gold rose while Bitcoin fell by close to 2% alongside broader risk assets.

That single session alone cannot support a structural conclusion, but it fits a pattern documented during the current conflict period, consisting of gold rallying on safe-haven demand and Bitcoin moving with equities and technology shares.

In February, Bitcoin's rebound above $70,000 came alongside a recovery in tech stocks.

Dalio's own words capture the distinction more precisely than any market commentary, as he calls gold the safest money, while he calls Bitcoin “a bit of Bitcoin.”

Gold offers reserve manager depth, central bank credibility, and 5,000 years of monetary precedent. Bitcoin has an emergent institutional base, regulatory uncertainty, and a price history that still leans closer to venture-stage risk.

Reserve manager data makes Dalio's gold-first case even harder to contest.

Reuters reported that nearly 70% of surveyed central banks now see geopolitics as the top global risk, up from 35% in 2024. Close to 75% of those central banks hold gold, and almost 40% are considering increasing exposure.

China's central bank added to its gold holdings for a seventeenth consecutive month as of March. Those flows describe an institutional monetary preference Bitcoin has still to match at comparable scale.

The macro regime behind the argument

The practical context for Dalio's thesis emerged from the same week as his essay.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said the conflict would push prices higher and growth lower even with a swift resolution. World Bank President Ajay Banga said that some degree of slower growth and higher inflation would flow regardless of how quickly the war ended.

UBS pushed back its expected Fed rate cuts to September and December, citing higher energy prices that would keep inflation firmer and modestly weigh on output.

That trio describes a macro regime with specific portfolio implications, as slower growth and firmer inflation compress the return on duration, and delayed Fed easing extends the period of pressure on leveraged balance sheets.

In that environment, assets free of duration risk and credit risk hold a more favorable structural position than in a world of easing financial conditions and normalizing growth.

The World Gold Council reported that total gold demand in 2025 exceeded 5,000 tons for the first time, with ETF holdings up 801 tons and investment demand up by 84%. Gold surged 64% in 2025, and analysts see room for $6,000.

Those figures establish that Dalio's framework tracks a re-monetization of gold that is already underway in institutional markets.

Bitcoin has benefited from some of the same forces, but with higher volatility, shallower institutional depth, and less central bank participation.

What could follow

In the bull case for Bitcoin, markets move from pricing a war shock to pricing a monetary order repricing.

Investors who have absorbed the IMF's growth warnings, the World Bank's inflation expectations, and UBS's delayed-easing outlook are starting to ask which assets belong in a portfolio built for chronic debasement.

Bitcoin's fixed supply, its position outside sovereign balance sheets, and Dalio's explicit inclusion in the relevant portfolio bucket all provide a credible entry point.

The dollar's documented decline against both gold and Bitcoin supports the case that this repricing has already begun in price terms, even as institutional flows build toward it.

In the bear case, energy shocks and tighter financial conditions hold as the dominant market forces. Bitcoin keeps trading with technology equities and broader risk sentiment, while gold captures the safe-haven allocation that a fragmented monetary world drives toward it.

Investors seeking hard-money protection reach for the asset with five thousand years of precedent and direct central-bank demand, leaving Bitcoin as a higher-beta satellite that participates in the eventual repricing but lags in the initial flight to safety.

The documentation of Bitcoin's tech-correlated behavior and gold's safe-haven performance across the current conflict period supports this as the more immediate trajectory.

Dalio's own wording resolves the ambiguity as cleanly as anything can, treating gold as the safest money and Bitcoin as “a bit of Bitcoin.”

That hierarchy is a precise placement of Bitcoin within a framework built for the breakdown of an old order, one that belongs in the portfolio for the world Dalio sees coming.

The post Ray Dalio issues economic “war thesis” showing dollar-debasement against Bitcoin appeared first on CryptoSlate.

First Lady Melania Trump’s unexpected White House address forcefully denying any ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and her unprecedented call for congressional hearings for his victims has sparked a political firestorm.

In a surprise April 9 announcement, the first lady addressed reporters at the White House to categorically dismantle rumors regarding her past. She declared:

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.”

However, the politically charged statement has failed to lift market sentiment around the MELANIA token.

Melania Trump denies links with Jeffrey Epstein

The first lady also took aim at what she described as “mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation” by individuals she called devoid of ethical standards.

Melania Trump's remarks were sweeping in their scope. She forcefully rebutted persistent online rumors that Epstein was the one who introduced her to Donald Trump.

“I am not Epstein’s victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump,” she said, noting that her initial encounter with her husband occurred by chance at a New York City party in 1998, a meeting documented in her book, MELANIA. A book by Michael Wolff had claimed she was first introduced to her husband through a modeling agent tied to Epstein.

The first lady also clarified that her first encounter with Epstein was in 2000 at a shared event, noting that “overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.”

Attempting to sever any perceived ties to Epstein’s inner circle, Melania Trump minimized her past communications with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted accomplice. She stated:

“My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence.”

The first lady also addressed a widely circulated, digitally altered image that social media users falsely claimed was shared by French President Emmanuel Macron, purporting to show her alongside Epstein.

She warned:

“Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been circulating on social media for years now. These images and stories are completely false.”

In her speech, she noted that her legal team has already successfully forced retractions and apologies from entities such as The Daily Beast, James Carville, and Harper's Collins UK.

At the end of her speech, the first lady made a direct appeal to lawmakers to investigate the broader network surrounding the disgraced financier. She stated:

“I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors. Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress, with the power of sworn testimony… Then, and only then, will we have the truth.”

Notably, President Donald Trump has also repeatedly denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein. However, the president has faced sustained pressure to detail his knowledge of Epstein's sprawling web of influence.

MELANIA price struggles continue

However, the political spectacle has landed with a thud in the crypto market.

The first lady’s namesake cryptocurrency, the MELANIA token, continues to languish near historic lows, entirely unfazed by the renewed media spotlight.

The failure of such a high-profile, controversy-laden public appearance to generate even a temporary uptrend reflects the evaporating speculative interest in politically themed meme coins.

Related Reading

MELANIA memecoin insiders reportedly make over $150 million including pre-sale trades

Financial Times reports regulatory gaps and political branding in digital assets challenge crypto market integrity.

May 6, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

According to CryptoSlate data, the token is currently trading at roughly $0.10, down more than 3% over the past 24 hours despite wall-to-wall cable news coverage of her remarks. More notably, MELANIA has plunged approximately 99% from its January 2025 peak of $13.70.

The disconnect between the political uproar and the crypto market's indifference is stark.

In the crypto ecosystem, the “attention economy” typically dictates that this kind of public appearance is good for meme coins, which thrive on virality and name recognition rather than underlying utility.

Yet, the gravity of the Epstein scandal appears to have overridden the typical market mechanics.

The post Melania Trump’s surprise Epstein denial fails to halt 99% crash of her memecoin appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin might trade around the clock, but its liquidity doesn't anymore. The asset that was supposed to become more resilient after absorbing billions in institutional capital through ETFs has instead developed a split personality, one that looks deep and orderly during New York trading hours and considerably more fragile once Wall Street's desks go dark.

Fresh data from Kaiko published this week quantifies what many traders have felt for a while: the same ETF-driven maturation that deepened Bitcoin's weekday market has hollowed out its weekend trading, creating a two-tier trading environment where smaller participants absorb a disproportionate share of risk.

Since spot Bitcoin ETFs launched in January 2024, institutional participation has concentrated during US weekday sessions, pushing the share of trading volume occurring in those hours to roughly 47%, according to Kaiko's analysis.

Weekday volumes now consistently run at double weekend levels, a gap that has widened throughout 2025 and into 2026 as institutional allocations have grown. The promise of a uniform 24/7 market, the feature that was supposed to distinguish crypto from everything else in finance, is weakening in practice because Bitcoin is still open every Saturday and Sunday, while the capital that provides its depth isn't.

BTC still trades 24/7, but serious liquidity is becoming more selective

The shift is seen in what traders call orderbook depth, the total dollar value of buy and sell orders sitting within a given distance of the current price. It's an important measure of liquidity, as it functions as a rough measure of how much selling or buying a market can absorb before the price starts moving against you.

Kaiko tracks depth at 1% from the midpoint, meaning all the resting orders within one percent above and below the current Bitcoin price, and that figure varies enormously depending on where you trade. Binance consistently provides around $30 million in depth at that level, while Coinbase ranges between $16 million and $20 million.

Secondary exchanges, including Gemini, Bybit, and OKX, typically show $10 million to $15 million in volume, producing a two-to-three-times differential that translates directly into worse prices for anyone placing a meaningful order on the wrong platform.

That differential doesn't remain stable under stress, and in fact, it tends to blow out almost exactly when it would be most costly. During the tariff-driven sell-off last October, BTC spot prices diverged materially across venues within minutes, with Binance quoting $102,318, OKX showing $102,142, and Bybit lagging at $101,675, a $643 spread that persisted for several minutes rather than the seconds one would expect if the usual automated arbitrage mechanisms were closing gaps efficiently.

The pattern repeated during March 2026's geopolitical escalation in the Middle East, when the cost of trading BTC-USDT on Bybit surged 230% from its normal level, with similar spikes on OKX and Binance. Both episodes began on weekends, when institutional participants had already stepped away, and order books were at their thinnest.

Related Reading

Bitcoin’s rebound looks like a trap as real Hormuz threat may not be over

Banks and energy forecasters see a slower repair in oil flows, keeping inflation and Fed risk alive for Bitcoin.

Apr 8, 2026 · Gino Matos

When Wall Street closes, the gap between “the price” and your price can widen fast

This has some very real and tangible consequences. On Feb. 1, Bitcoin price plunged below $78,000 on a Saturday afternoon, triggering roughly $2.2 billion in liquidations across more than 335,000 traders within 24 hours.

The drawdown was amplified by structurally thin weekend liquidity rather than by any crypto-specific fundamental breakdown, meaning the market wasn't responding to bad news about Bitcoin so much as to the mechanical reality that fewer participants were present to absorb selling pressure.

A subsequent VanEck analysis of the broader February sell-off found that Bitcoin's single-day price move on Feb. 5 ranked among the fastest crashes in the asset's recorded history by statistical measures of speed and magnitude, the kind of extreme event that probability models would predict almost never occurs, yet has now surfaced twice in five months.

A trader buying or selling on a Saturday evening, or on any secondary venue during elevated volatility, may not receive anything close to the consensus Bitcoin price they believe they're transacting at.

The gap between the quoted price and the executed price tends to widen when the consequences of a bad fill are most severe, and that asymmetry falls hardest on the participants who lack the institutional infrastructure to wait for better conditions.

Related Reading

Bitcoin whales are dumping massive amounts of supply on exchanges as liquidations mirror the 2022 FTX market collapse

Traders scramble for “smoking gun” as rumors fly, but ETF outflows and whale deposits offer clearer clues to Bitcoin's steep decline.

Feb 6, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

While retail traders clearly still participate in crypto, Kaiko's research suggests they've been pushed into the thinner, less protected parts of it. In terms of time, retail is more exposed during off-hours and weekends, the periods when ETF flows are inactive and institutional market-making retreats.

In terms of geography, retail remains dominant in markets that don't resemble the US ETF-driven Bitcoin trade at all, with South Korea continuing to run heavily on retail participation and altcoin volume while Turkey's crypto activity reflects macro-stress hedging and stablecoin demand rather than the institutional activity we've seen surge in the US.

There's also an asset dimension to the split.

Institutional capital, channeled through ETFs and prime brokerage arrangements, has standardized Bitcoin trading more than anything else in crypto, concentrating sophisticated market-making and deep liquidity around BTC, leaving the rest of the landscape (altcoins, local-currency pairs, smaller platforms) with thinner coverage and less professional support. Speculative and fragmented activity persists in abundance across the broader market, just not in the same exchanges and hours that institutions have colonized.

Same Bitcoin, different market quality

What emerges from this data is something that's increasingly difficult to deny: there may now be two Bitcoin markets running in parallel. A deeper, more efficient, institution-shaped weekday market accessible through ETFs and prime venues, and a thinner, more volatile off-hours market where smaller traders are more likely to be present and more likely to bear the cost of poor execution.

In theory, Bitcoin is the same asset for everyone, but in practice, the quality of the market you encounter depends heavily on when you trade and where you trade.

None of this is an argument that ETFs broke Bitcoin. Institutional participation has brought real benefits, including deeper aggregate liquidity, tighter average spreads during normal conditions, and a degree of legitimacy that none of the previous cycles had.

Cumulative net inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs still sit around $53 to $54 billion since launch, even after heavy outflows in early 2026, and they've absorbed enormous capital and survived genuine volatility without collapsing.

But the same forces that improved Bitcoin's best hours appear to have exposed how uneven the market becomes when that participation recedes, delivering maturity for some sessions while leaving fragility in others.

The post How institutions made Bitcoin a weekday market so retail takes on all the weekend risk appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Fed Chair Jerome Powell convened an urgent meeting with Wall Street leaders this week, bypassing the routine briefing cadence and pulling bank CEOs into a direct conversation about AI-driven cyber risk.

Reports noted that the meeting aimed to ensure banks understood the risks posed by Mythos and similar models and were already taking defensive steps.

When the Treasury secretary and the Fed chair jointly pull bank chiefs into an urgent room, they are communicating that the risk is systemic.

The irony running through this episode is sharp.

On Mar. 2, the Treasury, State, and HHS moved to stop using Anthropic products, acting on a presidential directive, with Bessent publicly stating that Treasury was terminating all use.

On Mar. 9, the General Services Administration terminated Anthropic's government-wide contract. On Apr. 8, a federal appeals court declined to block the Pentagon's blocklisting of Anthropic while litigation continues.

So, in the same week, officials were managing an active procurement and national security dispute with Anthropic, while also warning the country's largest banks to prepare for the risk posed by Anthropic-class capabilities.

What Mythos actually changed

The evidentiary basis for the official alarm rests on Anthropic's own materials, which are more specific than typical model launch claims.

Anthropic says Mythos has found thousands of high-severity vulnerabilities, including flaws in every major operating system and every major web browser, and that more than 99% of them are still unpatched.

The company's system card describes the model as capable of identifying and exploiting zero-days across those platforms. This is the kind of capability that, in the wrong hands or released without coordination, compresses the timeline between vulnerability discovery and weaponized attack.

Anthropic's response to its own findings was to restrict access under a structure it calls Project Glasswing, limiting release to launch partners including Amazon Web Services, Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Google, JPMorgan, the Linux Foundation, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Palo Alto Networks, plus more than 40 additional organizations that build or maintain critical software infrastructure.

Anthropic committed up to $100 million in usage credits and $4 million in donations to open-source security organizations as part of the effort.

The company also says it briefed US officials and key stakeholders before release, which means the Treasury meeting reflected an informed official judgment grounded in advance disclosure.

Banks are at the center of this concern because they depend on the broader software stack.

Treasury's January 2025 Financial Services Sector Risk Management Plan identifies cloud concentration, software supply chains, and emerging technologies, including AI, as top sector risks, warning that reliance on common vendors and software creates conditions for cascading failures.

Banks share cloud providers, software vendors, payment rails, and clearing systems across the sector. A cyber capability that can efficiently find and exploit unpatched zero-days across every major operating system can hit an interconnected financial system with compounding force.

In this landscape, shared infrastructure means a single class of vulnerability can reach every node simultaneously.

The policy track making this an inevitability

On Feb. 18, Treasury announced a public-private initiative explicitly designed to develop practical tools for financial institutions to manage AI-specific cybersecurity risks.

On Mar. 23, Treasury and the Financial Stability Oversight Council launched an AI Innovation Series, stating that insights from it would inform Treasury and FSOC work on reinforcing resilience and financial stability as AI embeds itself across core financial functions.

The Federal Reserve's July 2025 cybersecurity report listed assessing AI risks, bolstering cloud resilience, and exercising cyber-incident response plans among its joint FBIIC/FSSCC priorities.

Washington had also been building the conceptual framework for longer than that.

In June 2024, Treasury and FSOC hosted a conference on AI and financial stability. At it, then-Secretary Yellen identified opacity, inadequate risk management, and concentration among model vendors, data providers, and cloud providers as channels through which AI could create systemic vulnerabilities.

The FSB's November 2024 AI report then codified four main systemic-vulnerability channels: third-party dependencies and service-provider concentration, market correlations, cyber risks, and model, data, and governance failures.

The IMF had separately found that cyberattacks on financial firms account for nearly 20% of all incidents it studied, and that the size of extreme losses had grown to $2.5 billion.

Mythos forced officials to operationalize a risk framework they had spent nearly two years constructing.

The contradiction between Washington's procurement retreat and its financial stability warning was, by design, run through two separate decision tracks.

Cutting government contracts with a vendor on supply-chain or national-security grounds is a procurement and policy decision that flows through a single set of channels. Assessing whether a frontier model's cyber capabilities create new systemic risk for the financial sector runs through a different set entirely.

The meeting makes clear that those channels reached the same conclusion about capability from opposite directions, and that procurement officials moved to limit the government's exposure to Anthropic as a vendor.

Financial stability officials moved to warn banks that what Anthropic had built posed a category of risk that warranted urgent attention.

Both reactions presuppose the same underlying judgment: that Mythos-class capability carries genuine operational consequence.

The resolution is that Washington's concern about what Anthropic built survived Washington's break with Anthropic as a vendor.

What could follow

In the bull case, Project Glasswing performs as designed.

Anthropic and its partners identify and patch material vulnerabilities before copycat capabilities reach open access, banks absorb the experience as a structured resilience exercise, and the episode becomes the first demonstration that frontier AI can deliver a net positive to cyber defense by finding flaws faster than adversaries can exploit them.

Anthropic's restricted rollout, its partner set, and its resource commitments support this possibility, as does the fact that officials received an advance briefing, entering the conversation ahead of public disclosure.

In the bear case, additional frontier models arrive with comparable or greater offensive capabilities, or disclosures around Mythos reveal a more compressed attack timeline than the current controlled framing publicly acknowledges.

Treasury, the Fed, and financial regulators then move from private warnings to stricter supervisory expectations: stricter software provenance requirements, mandatory vendor concentration reviews, tighter incident reporting timelines, and more rigorous operational resilience standards for banks sharing common cloud or software dependencies.

The FSB and Treasury materials already supply the conceptual and regulatory basis for that escalation. The IMF's extreme-loss estimates and the FSB's warnings about disruption to critical financial infrastructure explain why officials moved to active preparation without waiting for a demonstrable incident.

How quickly the offense-defense balance shifts as more labs approach similar capability levels is the open variable in both scenarios.

Glasswing assumes that coordinated, controlled access can hold the advantage long enough for patches to close the gaps Mythos found. That assumption holds only as long as the gap between frontier access and open access stays wide enough to give the effort real purchase.

Powell and Bessent's decision to convene bank CEOs on an urgent basis is the clearest official acknowledgment that US officials believe that distance is narrowing faster than the financial system's existing cyber posture can absorb.

The post Why Fed and Treasury leaders Powell, Bessent just rushed into a critical cyber-risk meeting appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin traders are rebuilding bets on a move toward $80,000 as easing geopolitical tensions, firmer institutional demand, and a rebound above $70,000 revive appetite for upside exposure after weeks of defensive positioning.

On Coinbase-owned Deribit, the largest venue for crypto options, the $80,000 call has become the single biggest strike by open interest this week, with around $1.5 billion tied up in contracts that pay off if Bitcoin rises above that level.

Related Reading

Coinbase agrees to acquire Deribit in landmark $2.9 billion deal

Coinbase looks to expand offshore derivatives market presence amid favorable U.S. regulatory climate.

May 8, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

This is also evident on the on-chain options platform, Derive, where open interest at the $85,000 strike has climbed to about $60 million, while $100,000 calls stand near $45 million.

The shift marks a notable change in tone after a stretch in which traders spent much of their energy buying protection against another leg lower.

However, Bitcoin has since recovered from early-week lows near $67,000, trading above $70,000, helped by a temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran that eased pressure on oil and steadied broader risk sentiment.

Nonetheless, the market has not fully let its guard down, as downside protection remains bid across longer maturities, and parts of the futures market continue to lean defensive.

Options traders rotate back to upside

The strongest evidence of improved market sentiment has come from traders reworking their positions after the ceasefire announcement.

On April 8, Deribit Insights revealed that one of the dominant structures into Easter involved buying April 24 puts at the $61,000 and $62,000 strikes, a sign that investors were still preparing for a deeper washout.

However, after the geopolitical headlines improved, those positions were rolled up on a premium-neutral basis into the $65,000 and $66,000 strikes, cutting downside notional by more than half.

At the same time, traders bought an April 10 call condor spanning $74,000 to $80,000 to position for near-term upside.

That repositioning was also reflected in the options surface. In maturities of less than seven days, skew moved from favoring puts toward a flatter profile as demand for calls returned. Implied volatility, which had firmed into the Trump deadline, held up even as prices rallied, allowing long-gamma holders to exit positions with gains tied to both price direction and volatility.

Related Reading

Why traders poured $3 billion into Binance as Bitcoin soared on ceasefire headlines

The buy spike was immediate, yet options signals look more like crash fear fading than a confident new breakout.

Apr 8, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Glassnode said volatility compression has deepened across the curve, with front-end implied volatility dropping into the low 40s as immediate stress pricing unwinds.

The firm said the ceasefire reinforced expectations for a quieter short-term backdrop, even though overall positioning remains light and cheaper options could draw fresh activity into upcoming macro events.

Ceasefire relief eases one pressure point

The macro backdrop helps explain why the crypto market was willing to shift into more bullish bets.

Market observers noted that Bitcoin’s recent recovery came alongside a move lower in oil after the temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran reduced fears of a deeper supply shock in the Middle East. Lower oil prices eased one of the more immediate inflation risks facing global markets and helped steady sentiment across risk assets.

For Bitcoin, the move mattered because the market had spent weeks trading more like a macro-sensitive asset. Traders were watching oil, bond yields, and Fed expectations alongside crypto-specific indicators.

Related Reading

Bitcoin holds as Trump’s Iran deadline lifts oil and raises risk of a sharper move

Bitcoin is holding support for now, but rising oil is making the next move more fragile.

Apr 7, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

So, a pause in geopolitical escalation gave them a reason to reduce some of the defensive positioning that had built up during the conflict.

However, the macro picture is still mixed. The latest US consumer price index showed inflation at 3.3%, the highest since May 2024, while the monthly index rose 0.9%, the largest increase since mid-2022.

Those figures kept pressure on expectations for aggressive Fed easing. Markets are now pricing about a 30% chance of at least a quarter-point rate cut in December.

These developments leave enough room for relief rallies when geopolitical pressure eases, and oil stops driving the inflation debate higher.

Bitcoin’s options market appears to be trading that window. The concentration of interest at $80,000, $85,000, and even $100,000 reflects a market willing to price a test of higher levels if macro pressure continues to fade. On-chain price models help explain why those strikes are drawing attention.

Glassnode’s key reference levels place the active investors' mean at $85,000, the short-term holder cost basis at $81,300, and the true market mean at around $78,000.

With spot recently around $71,800, those levels form a dense band of overhead resistance and potential price discovery if buyers keep pushing. Realized price, by contrast, sits much lower at $54,200, showing how far the market remains above aggregate cost basis even after the latest drawdown.

Essentially, that cluster between $78,000 to $85,000 helps explain why $80,000 has become a focal point. It sits in the middle of a zone where several market-wide cost bases begin to converge.

Bitcoin's on-chain data still point to a repair phase

However, the bullish turn in options does not settle the broader argument over where Bitcoin sits in the cycle.

Joao Wedson, founder of blockchain analytics firm Alphractal, said one of his key signals still points to the risk of another leg lower before a more durable advance takes hold.

He highlighted the crossover of investor price below the long-term holder realized price, a structure he said has historically appeared during extended accumulation phases rather than at the start of renewed momentum.

In practice, that means newer and more active capital has accepted lower prices than long-term holders paid. When that happens, market control tends to shift away from speculative participants and toward holders with longer time horizons.

This means that volatility can slow, but upside also becomes harder to sustain because rallies run into supply from investors trying to exit closer to breakeven.

CryptoQuant described the current period in similar terms. The firm's data show that the stress conditions in Bitcoin appear to be easing, but demand has not yet reasserted itself strongly enough to mark a clean reversal.

The blockchain firm stated that BTC's buy-and-sell pressure delta has moved off extreme sell levels, a sign that capitulation may be fading, yet it has not yet reclaimed buy-pressure territory. That leaves the market in the gap between forced selling and fresh directional demand.

Moreover, BTC's derivatives positioning also remains far from one-sided. Glassnode said the seven-day taker flow has become more balanced, but it still leans negative due to short calls and long puts.

This means that BTC rallies continue to attract hedging activity at higher levels, while bursts of strength are still being used to sell upside.

Notably, the top asset's gamma positioning shows a similar split. Long gamma between $69,000 and $70,000 offers near-term support around the spot price.

Above that, a larger pocket of short gamma sits overhead. If support fails, the market could move quickly back toward the mid-$60,000s as hedging flows accelerate in the other direction.

Can Bitcoin reach $80,000?

If Bitcoin is to make a sustained run toward $80,000, options positioning alone is unlikely to be enough. The rally will need support from spot flows, particularly through ETFs and wealth-management channels that can absorb supply over a longer window.

That support has begun to improve. Data from SoSoValue show that US spot Bitcoin ETFs are on pace for their largest weekly inflow in five weeks, taking in $545.9 million over the past week.

Morgan Stanley’s new Bitcoin ETF has added to that momentum after drawing more than $46 billion in inflows over its first two trading days, with Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas projecting the fund could gather more than $5 billion in assets within its first year.

Morgan Stanley’s reach gives that launch broader significance. The bank’s 16,000 financial advisers oversee about $6.2 trillion in assets, creating a distribution channel that few rivals can match.

So, these flows indicate that institutional investors are again willing to add BTC exposure rather than waiting for every geopolitical risk to disappear first.

Still, that does not mean the path is clear for BTC. CryptoQuant's data show that futures positioning on Binance, the largest crypto exchange by trading volume, is growing, with bearish bets increasing.

According to the firm, open interest on Binance rose by about $350 million over seven days, the largest increase since March 20, while cumulative net taker volume did not rise with the same strength.

That divergence can signal that a meaningful share of the new leverage is tied to short exposure or at least to a more cautious posture than the spot move alone would imply.

In other words, the market is no longer positioned for immediate collapse, but it is not unified behind a breakout either.

Notably, crypto traders on prediction markets reflect the same divide. On Polymarket, users assign a 26% chance that Bitcoin rises above $80,000 this month and a 9% chance that it reaches $85,000. However, more than 30% of the bettors still expect the token to return to about $65,000.

For now, the clearest message is that traders have begun to price a higher ceiling. The $80,000 strike has become the focal point of that view, supported by recent price rebound, lower macro stress, and improving institutional flows.

The hesitation that remains in skew, futures positioning, and on-chain data suggests the market still wants proof. Until that proof arrives, Bitcoin’s push higher is likely to remain a recovery trade first and a breakout second.

The post Bitcoin bulls are eyeing $100,000, yet the futures market hints at another dip first appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Is Magic Eden Really Closing?

Recently, headlines have suggested that Magic Eden is shutting down, sparking concern among NFT collectors. However, the reality is more nuanced. While Magic Eden is not disappearing entirely, it has made a drastic decision to "sunset" major parts of its business, including its Bitcoin and Ethereum-compatible marketplaces.

This move is part of a broader trend in 2026 where even the largest blockchain projects are forced to cut costs and narrow their focus to survive a competitive landscape.

The Short Answer: What’s Staying and What’s Going

Magic Eden has officially closed its trading platforms for Bitcoin (Ordinals/Runes) and EVM chains (Ethereum, Polygon, and Avalanche).

Crucially, the platform is keeping its Solana marketplace open. Solana has always been the heart of Magic Eden’s volume, and the company is returning to its roots. However, for users of their multi-chain wallet, the situation is urgent: the wallet is now in "export-only" mode and will be completely inaccessible by May 1, 2026.

Why did Magic Eden Shut Down its Services?

In the crypto industry, a "pivot" is often a polite way of saying a project is scaling back unsuccessful ventures. For Magic Eden, managing a multi-chain empire proved too expensive. By discontinuing support for Bitcoin and Ethereum, they can stop spreading their engineering team too thin.

Instead, they are moving into "crypto entertainment." This includes a new iGaming and gambling platform called Dicey. The goal is to integrate their upcoming $ME token into a smaller, more profitable ecosystem rather than trying to be a general-purpose exchange platform for every blockchain in existence.

How This Fits Into the Global Crypto Market

Magic Eden isn't alone. In the first half of 2026, over 20 significant blockchain projects have announced either full or partial shutdowns. As the market matures, the "expand at all costs" strategy of 2021-2024 is being replaced by a focus on sustainable revenue.

We are seeing a massive consolidation. Just as some users move back to traditional bitcoin hardware wallets for safety, platforms are moving back to the single chains where they have the most users. For Magic Eden, that is Solana.

Important Deadlines for Users

If you have assets on Magic Eden, you must act before the following dates to avoid losing access to your funds:

• March 2026: Trading for Bitcoin and EVM NFTs officially ended.
• April 1, 2026: The Magic Eden Wallet entered "Export-Only" mode. You can no longer send or receive; you can only view your recovery phrase.
• May 1, 2026: Final Shutdown. The wallet app will be removed from app stores, and any keys not backed up will be lost forever.

Steps You Should Take Right Now

To ensure your assets are safe, follow these steps immediately:

1. Export your Seed Phrase: Open your Magic Eden wallet and write down your 12 or 24-word recovery phrase.
2. Import to a New Wallet: Use that phrase to "import" your assets into a compatible wallet like MetaMask (for EVM) or Xverse (for Bitcoin).
3. Monitor Your Solana Assets: While the Solana marketplace is safe, it’s always a good idea to keep high-value NFTs in a cold storage solution.

What’s Next for Magic Eden?

The company is betting big on the $ME token and its new gambling ventures. Magic Eden hopes to become a leader in the intersection of finance and gaming. While the loss of the Bitcoin marketplace—where they once held 80% market share—is a blow to the Ordinals community, the company believes this leaner model is the only way to remain a "serious" player in the crypto news cycle of the future.

However, the price of ME tokens is down approximately 80% over the past 6 months, which makes it harder to get back on track.

Following a period of consolidation, Ethereum price is currently trading around the $2,240 mark, showing a steady climb from its March lows. As institutional interest remains a driving force, particularly through Ethereum spot ETFs, technical patterns on the 4-hour chart suggest that a major volatility event is on the horizon.

Ethereum Price Analysis: Important Levels to Consider

The 4-hour chart reveals a classic "stairs up" pattern. After the sharp dip highlighted by the green circle at the $1,800 level, $Ethereum has formed a series of higher highs and higher lows.

Key Support Levels

• Primary Support ($1,800): This is the "floor" for the current trend. A daily close below this would invalidate the bullish thesis.
• Intermediate Support ($2,150): This level acted as resistance earlier in the month and has now been successfully retested as support.

Resistance Zones

The Target ($2,400): Highlighted by the yellow circle, this is the "make or break" point. A breakout above this level, supported by high volume, could open the doors toward the $2,800 range.

Why is Ethereum Price Up?

While the technicals look promising, the "Why" behind the move is equally important. According to data from Bloomberg, institutional accumulation of Ethereum has stabilized after a volatile Q1.

Furthermore, Ethereum's ecosystem continues to expand following the "Glamsterdam" upgrade scheduled for the first half of 2026. The reduction in exchange-held supply suggests that investors are moving ETH into hardware wallets for long-term storage, effectively reducing selling pressure.

Is Ethereum a Good Investment?

No analysis is complete without considering the downside. While the RSI at 61.71 is healthy, a spike above 70 often precedes a local "top" or a cool-off period. If Ethereum fails to clear the $2,400 resistance on its first attempt, we might see a return to the $2,100 level to shake out late "long" positions.

A Bullish Outlook with Caution

Ethereum remains in a structurally sound uptrend. The combination of rising RSI, successful support retests, and positive institutional sentiment positions ETH as a frontrunner for the next leg of the crypto market rally.

• Bullish Scenario: A clean break above $2,400 targets $2,650.
• Bearish Scenario: A rejection at resistance leads to a consolidation between $2,050 and $2,200.

Bitcoin (BTC) has successfully reclaimed the $73,000 mark, bolstered by substantial institutional interest and a cooling of geopolitical tensions. While the broader market shows signs of recovery, the focus remains on the "institutionalization" of digital assets, with major players like BNY Mellon and CME Group expanding their footprints.

Crypto Price Today: Bitcoin and Altcoins Performance

As of this morning, the global crypto market cap sits near $2.51 trillion.

• Bitcoin ($BTC): Trading at approximately $73,010, up following a $350 million net inflow into spot ETFs.
• Ethereum ($ETH): Rising 2.01% to reach $2,230, as developers prepare for upcoming 2026 network upgrades.
• Altcoins: Solana ($SOL) and BNB have posted modest gains, while CME's recent listing of AVAX and SUI futures has shifted professional trading focus toward mid-cap assets.

Why is Bitcoin Rising Today?

The primary driver behind today's price action is a combination of institutional capital and regulatory clarity progress in the United States. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently urged Congress to pass the CLARITY Act, a move that would finally distinguish between digital commodities and securities.

"The lack of a clear regulatory framework is eroding U.S. leadership," Bessent stated, signaling that the "trust layer" for big banks is finally being built.

Furthermore, Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) has expanded its "Crypto-to-Treasury" corridor. This allows crypto-native clients 24/7 access to U.S. Treasury bills, effectively bridging the gap between decentralized finance and traditional fixed-income markets. You can track these real-time movements on our Bitcoin price ticker.

Crypto News Today: CME Lists New Altcoin Futures

In a move that caught many retail traders off guard, the CME Group officially launched regulated futures for Avalanche (AVAX) and Sui (SUI). This follows the path blazed by Bitcoin and Ethereum, moving these tokens into the category of "tradeable commodities" for Wall Street.

This expansion is a double-edged sword. While it provides deep liquidity and hedging tools for institutions, it also marks the end of the "wild west" era for these specific assets.

Ethereum's 2026 Roadmap: Glamsterdam and Hegotá

While Bitcoin dominates the headlines, Ethereum is quietly preparing for its next evolution. Following the 2025 "Pectra" and "Fusaka" updates, the community is now eyeing two major upgrades for 2026:

• Glamsterdam (H1 2026): Focused on optimizing Layer 2 scaling and further reducing gas fees for rollups.
• Hegotá (H2 2026): Aimed at transaction parallelization to increase the network's throughput.

These technical milestones are essential for Ethereum to maintain its dominance against high-speed competitors like Solana. For those holding large amounts of ETH or BTC, ensuring security is paramount—check out our hardware wallet comparison to find the best storage solution.

Risks to Watch: The Stablecoin Yield Debate

Despite the bullish sentiment, the market faces a potential hurdle: the proposed ban on stablecoin yield rewards. Leaked drafts of the CLARITY Act suggest that regulators might prohibit stablecoins from offering interest to prevent "deposit flight" from traditional banks. This uncertainty has caused minor volatility in shares of companies like Coinbase and Circle.

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

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

Is April a Good Time to Buy Crypto?

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

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

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

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

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

2. PEPE: The Volatility King

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

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

3. XRP: Regulatory Clarity Meets Institutional Adoption

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

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

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

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

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

5. Solana (SOL): The Ecosystem Powerhouse

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

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

Top 5 Cryptos to Buy in April 2026

Pulse, a player in the health-wearable DePIN space, has officially announced it is shutting down its independent operations.

In a candid message to its community, Pulse revealed that it has entered an agreement to transition its users to the JStyle app, its OEM partner. This move marks the end of a vision that sought to reward users for health data, falling victim to the "unforgiving" capital requirements of the hardware industry and a shifting investment landscape that has pivoted toward AI.

Is Pulse Shutting Down?

Yes, Pulse is sunsetting its app and website. The company has confirmed it can no longer scale due to a lack of capital. Users have until May 14, 2026, to migrate their data and transition to the JStylePro app to maintain device functionality.

What is DePIN and Why is it Struggling?

DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks) refers to protocols that use crypto-incentives to build and maintain real-world hardware networks—from WiFi routers to health sensors.

While software-based protocols can scale with minimal overhead, DePIN projects face massive "CapEx" (Capital Expenditure). They must design, manufacture, and ship physical goods. Pulse’s failure stems from a DePIN funding gap, where venture capital for physical infrastructure lagged behind the hype of liquid tokens and AI agents, leaving hardware-heavy firms with empty treasuries.

The Pivot to AI: A Case of "Too Little, Too Late"

The Pulse team admitted that they attempted to pivot toward Artificial Intelligence to capture the 2026 market momentum. However, the complexity of integrating AI into a failing hardware business proved insurmountable.

In the current crypto news cycle, projects that didn't secure long-term runway during the 2024-2025 bull run are now facing a "liquidity wall." Pulse’s experience shows that in the high-speed world of Web3, a pivot must happen before the burn rate consumes the core product.

Action Plan for Pulse Users: How to Save Your Data

If you own a Pulse wearable, the transition is mandatory to keep your device from becoming "e-waste."

Step-by-Step Transition Guide

• Firmware Upgrade: Open your existing Pulse app and install the latest firmware. This is required for compatibility with the new partner app.
• Download JStylePro: Access the new interface via the Google Play Store or Apple App Store.
• Data Export: Visit pulse.site/export immediately to download your historical health metrics.
• The Deadline: The Pulse ecosystem will be sunset on May 14, 2026. After this date, no data recovery will be possible.

Analyzing the 2026 Market: Why Companies Build and Quit

Pulse is part of a larger trend of "build and quit" cycles in the crypto space. Many projects raised significant seed rounds during the 2024 craze but failed to build a sustainable business model that didn't rely on token price appreciation.

Morgan Stanley’s Amy Oldenburg signaled that the Wall Street giant’s crypto journey has a long way to go.

A new initiative by Matterhorn and the ASI Alliance adds auditing tools and safety checks for AI-generated smart contracts.

A new multi-university study surveyed 69 economists, 52 AI experts, and 38 superforecasters. All three groups agree: faster AI means fewer jobs.

A new free-to-play web game based on an arcade classic will give you the chance to earn real Bitcoin—but it won't be easy.

Police say a 20-year-old man also threatened to burn down OpenAI’s headquarters shortly after the incident.

Preparations for Cardano's intra-era hard fork to Protocol Version 11 continue to gain steam.

XRP Ledger has seen reduced participation as XRP payments on the ledger fall to levels not seen this week despite the mild price increase.

Shiba Inu's pseudonymous founder Ryoshi sealed SHIB's fate with a single move at its launch.

Zcash (ZEC) has jumped 57% in the past week to outperform Bitcoin as the quantum threat shapes interest.

With more activity on XRP Ledger, more developers are now active in the ecosystem.

TLDR:

• Strategy holds approximately 761,000 BTC, trailing BlackRock’s IBIT by roughly 40,000 BTC currently.
• MSTR raises capital via equity and debt to buy Bitcoin directly, bypassing ETF demand dependency entirely.
• Strategy added 40,332 BTC in the first two weeks of March 2026, posting a 3.0% BTC yield.
• Bitcoin recorded eight straight days of gains, with past streaks delivering a median 30-day return of 19%.

Michael Saylor’s strategy has narrowed the Bitcoin holdings gap with BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust to roughly 40,000 BTC through relentless capital raises and direct purchases. With Bitcoin recovering steadily from February lows, the distance between the two could vanish within weeks.

Strategy’s Accumulation Model Sets It Apart

MSTR Bitcoin holdings currently stand at approximately 761,000 BTC. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust holds roughly 781,000 BTC, leaving a gap of around 40,000 BTC. 

Investor Mark Harvey noted that the difference has tightened considerably in recent weeks. Strategy raises capital through equity and preferred share issuance to fund direct Bitcoin purchases. 

This model allows it to accumulate Bitcoin independent of ETF demand cycles. IBIT, by contrast, grows only when investor inflows are strong.

The company completed two multibillion-dollar Bitcoin purchases in March. Last week alone, it acquired 2,337 BTC for approximately $1.57 billion. 

Over the first two weeks of March 2026, Strategy added 40,332 BTC and recorded a 3.0% BTC yield. Michael Saylor shared the firm’s year-to-date figures via X, noting sustained momentum behind its treasury approach.

Strategy frames Bitcoin accumulation as its core performance measure, using “BTC Gain” as a proxy for net income. Its long-term holding approach also removes coins from active circulation, gradually tightening available market supply.

Bitcoin’s Recovery Strengthens the Backdrop

Bitcoin bottomed near $63,000 in February amid geopolitical tensions tied to the Iran–Israel War. Prices recovered steadily after macroeconomic conditions stabilised and investor confidence returned. 

The asset recently climbed from below $66,000 to $76,000 before easing near $73,800. Bitcoin has now recorded eight consecutive days of price gains. 

According to Bitcoin Magazine Pro data, this streak has occurred only 15 times since Bitcoin’s creation. Past instances produced a median 30-day return of roughly 19%, though sharp pullbacks have also followed such runs.

Markets received a further boost over the weekend after signs of easing tensions around the Strait of Hormuz. Bitcoin also outperformed gold and the S&P 500 during this period. 

Traders are now watching whether prices can hold above $72,000, a level that could open the path toward $80,000.

The post Is Strategy About to Hold More Bitcoin Than BlackRock’s IBIT Fund? appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Iran’s Strait of Hormuz Management Plan, passed in late March 2026, mandates Bitcoin toll payments. 
• Each fully laden tanker carrying 2 million barrels faces a Bitcoin toll of up to $2 million. 
• Bitcoin surged toward $73,000 as shipping firms faced the prospect of stockpiling BTC for tolls. 
• Stablecoins were rejected due to freeze functions and GENIUS framework compliance requirements. 

Iran Bitcoin oil toll reports are drawing wide attention across crypto and energy markets globally. Iran has reportedly implemented a mandatory Bitcoin-based payment system for oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz to bypass international sanctions.

Iran’s Bitcoin Toll Structure and Payment Mechanics at the Strait of Hormuz

Financial Times report stated that Iran was considering Bitcoin payments for oil tanker tolls using the Strait of Hormuz, which handles roughly 20% of the global oil supply.

The Strait of Hormuz Management Plan, passed in late March 2026, formally codifies Bitcoin as the primary payment method.

Under this system, tankers must submit cargo details, crew lists, and destination ports to Iranian authorities up to 96 hours before arrival. A toll of $1 per barrel of crude oil is then charged, which amounts to $2 million for a fully laden Very Large Crude Carrier carrying 2 million barrels. 

Vessels attempting to pass without authorization have been warned via VHF radio of serious consequences.

The original report cited officials saying ships would have only a few seconds to complete a Bitcoin payment, pointing toward the Lightning Network as the likely mechanism. However, Alex Thorn of Galaxy noted the largest known Lightning transaction to date has reached $1 million. 

Given toll amounts ranging up to $2 million, Thorn suggested Iranian authorities would more likely provide a QR code or Bitcoin address upon transit approval instead.

Bitcoin’s Structure Makes It Iran’s Preferred Choice Over Stablecoins

Iran’s decision to use Bitcoin rather than stablecoins reflects a clear strategic rationale. BTC advocate Justin Bechler noted that stablecoins like USDT and USDC carry built-in blacklist functions at the smart contract level. 

When an address is flagged, issuers can freeze tokens entirely, making them completely illiquid and unusable.

Bechler further noted that the GENIUS stablecoin regulatory framework introduced compliance controls that make dollar-pegged stablecoins impractical for a sanctioned nation. 

Bitcoin has no issuer, no compliance officer, and no freeze function, removing any central point of control. The Iranian system also explicitly excludes the US dollar, though some reports suggest limited yuan acceptance for select nations.

Market reaction followed quickly after the reports emerged. Bitcoin prices moved toward $73,000 as shipping companies faced the prospect of holding BTC for transit payments. 

Hundreds of tankers have reportedly been waiting in the Persian Gulf, navigating the new requirements, while analysts suggest similar digital toll systems could emerge at other critical waterways globally.

The post Iran Enforces Bitcoin as the Only Means to Pay Toll on Strait of Hormuz appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bhutan reduced its Bitcoin holdings by 70%, from 13,000 BTC to 3,954 BTC, since October 2024. 
• Over $215.7 million in BTC has moved out of Bhutan’s holding addresses in 2026 alone. 
• Bhutan’s last Bitcoin mining inflow above $100,000 was recorded more than one year ago. 
• Bhutan’s remaining 3,954 BTC is now less than what Strategy typically buys in one week. 

Bhutan Bitcoin sell-off data confirms the kingdom has reduced its holdings by roughly 70% over the past 18 months.

Once sitting on approximately 13,000 BTC accumulated through a hydropower-backed mining operation, Bhutan now retains just 3,954 BTC valued at around $280.6 million. 

Arkham Intelligence data shows over $215.7 million in BTC has already moved out of Bhutan’s holding addresses in 2026 alone, with no public comment from Druk Holding and Investments.

Steady Outflows and Slowing Mining Signal a Strategic Shift in Bhutan’s Bitcoin Position

Bhutan’s sell-off traces back to October 2024, when the kingdom held roughly 13,000 BTC. Arkham Intelligence data shows a steady, methodical drawdown rather than a single liquidation event. 

Over $215.7 million in BTC has left Bhutan’s holding addresses in 2026 alone. A notable portion of these outflows has been routed to unlabeled wallets, while others have been sent to addresses linked to Galaxy Digital and OKX.

That pattern points to direct market sales rather than simple fund repositioning. In one recent transfer, roughly 319.7 BTC, worth $22.68 million, moved to two separate addresses in a single transaction.

Bhutan originally built its Bitcoin reserve through a hydropower-backed domestic mining operation run by Druk Holding and Investments. However, Arkham data shows no mining inflow exceeding $100,000 has been recorded in over a year. 

The operation that once converted river energy into Bitcoin appears to have slowed considerably or stopped entirely.

The economics behind this shift are straightforward. Bhutan’s mining operation worked when network difficulty was lower, and Bitcoin traded above $90,000. 

At current levels near $71,000, with difficulty at all-time highs and post-halving block rewards cut to 3.125 BTC, margins have compressed sharply. Selling hydropower directly to neighboring India may now generate more predictable revenue than mining Bitcoin.

Bhutan’s Retreat Stands Out as Institutional Buyers Continue Accumulating Bitcoin

Bhutan’s sell-off runs directly against the broader trend among institutional and sovereign-level holders. Strategy purchased 4,871 BTC for $330 million in a single weekend, bringing its total to 766,970 BTC. 

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs absorbed approximately 50,000 BTC in March alone, reflecting sustained institutional demand.

The contrast sharpens further when other market participants are considered. The Ethereum Foundation staked $93 million in ether rather than selling during the same period. 

Bhutan currently stands as the only sovereign-level holder visibly reducing its Bitcoin position while others continue to accumulate. Bhutan’s remaining 3,954 BTC is now smaller than what Strategy acquires in a typical week. 

The kingdom once mined 13,000 BTC directly from its own rivers and mountains. Druk Holding and Investments has not responded to multiple media inquiries, leaving the future of both its reserve and mining operations publicly unanswered.

The post Bhutan Kingdom Quietly Unwinds 70% of Its Bitcoin Reserve in 18 Months appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Nearly 38.9M ETH worth $85B is now staked, removing one in three tokens from open market circulation. 
• Lido, Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken collectively control the bulk of all staked Ethereum holdings. 
• ETH climbed from $2,050 to $2,260 in seven days, with buyers absorbing dips after the April 7 breakout. 
• Reduced liquid supply means demand-driven price moves face less resistance and tend to extend further.

Ethereum staking milestone data shows that 31.29% of the total ETH supply is now locked across major staking platforms. Nearly 38.9 million ETH, valued at approximately $85 billion, has been committed by institutional and retail participants alike. 

This marks a notable structural shift in how capital is engaging with the network. Rather than cycling through short-term trades, holders are locking funds for extended periods, collecting yield, and securing the Ethereum blockchain for the long term.

Institutional Capital and Staking Platforms Drive Ethereum’s Supply Contraction

Ethereum staking milestone figures confirm that roughly 38.9 million ETH is currently locked across staking platforms. That accounts for nearly one in every three ETH tokens removed from open market circulation. 

At current valuations, this committed capital totals approximately $85 billion. This is not speculative money rotating through short-term positions. 

Staking requires extended lock-up periods, delayed exits, and gradual reward accumulation. That structure attracts holders with longer time horizons rather than traders seeking quick returns.

The composition of staked ETH further sharpens this picture. Lido alone holds over 9 million ETH, while Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken account for substantial additional portions. 

This reflects coordinated, yield-focused capital flowing through established infrastructure rather than scattered retail activity.

Platforms such as ether.fi are also redeploying staked ETH across emerging yield layers within the ecosystem. ETH is no longer sitting idle — it is working inside structured financial systems built on Ethereum. 

This moves the asset from pure speculation toward active, yield-bearing participation. However, concentration among a handful of platforms raises governance considerations that the network will need to monitor closely over time.

ETH Price Action Mirrors the Conviction Reflected in Staking Data

Ethereum’s 7-day chart shows ETH climbing from roughly $2,050 to the $2,240–$2,260 range. A clear breakout occurred around April 7, after which prices held above $2,200 without any sharp retracement. 

That resilience after the surge is notable on its own. Higher lows followed the breakout consistently, with dips toward $2,180 absorbed relatively quickly by buyers. 

This points to a market where participants hold through short-term volatility rather than sell into strength. Staking yields appear to anchor behavior more than near-term price targets do.

Reduced circulating supply directly shapes these dynamics. When demand enters a market where a third of the supply is locked, upward moves face less resistance and extend further.

The absence of aggressive selling after the April 7 breakout reflects what stakeholder data already shows. Holders are not positioning to exit — they are building income streams while staying committed to the network.

The post Ethereum Staking Surpasses 30% as Institutional Capital Pours In appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Private credit funds saw sharp redemption requests in Q1 2026, affecting every major fund segment
• Carlyle and Blue Owl funds reported high withdrawal demand, with strict caps limiting investor payouts
• Major firms imposed withdrawal limits to manage liquidity amid rising investor exit pressure
• Concerns over software borrowers and tighter lending standards drove increased redemption activity

Private credit markets faced rising redemption pressure in the first quarter of 2026, as investors accelerated withdrawals.

Several major funds limited withdrawals, reflecting growing strain across a market valued between $1.8 trillion and $2.0 trillion.

Redemption Pressure Builds Across Private Credit Funds

Recent data shared in a widely circulated market update on social media pointed to sharp increases in redemption requests across leading private credit funds. Carlyle’s $7 billion Tactical Private Credit Fund reported requests totaling 16% of its shares during the first quarter.

That figure placed Carlyle among the most affected funds, though it trailed two Blue Owl vehicles. Blue Owl Technology Income recorded redemption requests at 41%, while Blue Owl Credit Income reached 22%. These figures placed both funds at the top of the industry in terms of withdrawal demand.

Despite the surge, Carlyle fulfilled only a portion of investor requests. The fund capped withdrawals at 5%, which translated to roughly $240 million paid out. Investors had sought to redeem close to $750 million during the same period.

The update noted that such restrictions were not isolated. Other major firms, including Apollo, Ares, Morgan Stanley, and BlackRock, also introduced similar limits on withdrawals. These measures appeared across multiple private credit business development companies and interval funds.

At the same time, the broader industry experienced a uniform trend. Every private credit BDC and interval fund reported elevated redemption requests during the quarter. No fund segment avoided the wave of withdrawal activity.

Market Strains Linked to Borrower Risks and Lending Conditions

The same market update connected the surge in redemptions to growing concerns around borrower stability. In particular, attention centered on software companies that rely heavily on private credit financing. Investors expressed caution as artificial intelligence developments began to reshape the sector.

As a result, fears around potential disruption to software revenue models gained traction. This shift raised questions about the strength of loan portfolios tied to such borrowers. Consequently, investor sentiment turned more cautious across private credit allocations.

At the same time, lending conditions tightened across the market. Funds adopted stricter standards, which limited new credit issuance. This approach reflected efforts to manage risk exposure while addressing rising uncertainty in borrower performance.

The combination of redemption demand and tighter lending created additional pressure. Funds needed to balance liquidity management with maintaining portfolio stability. Withdrawal caps became a common response, allowing managers to control outflows.

Meanwhile, the broader private credit market faced conditions not seen before. The scale of redemption requests, combined with sector-specific concerns, contributed to heightened stress levels. Market participants continued to monitor developments closely as conditions evolved.

These dynamics placed private credit under sustained scrutiny during the opening months of 2026. Investors adjusted positions while fund managers implemented measures to manage liquidity and risk exposure within their portfolios.

The post Private Credit Funds Face Rising Redemptions as Withdrawal Limits Expand in Q1 2026 appeared first on Blockonomi.

On-chain data reveals that BitMEX’s co-founder and former CEO has begun accumulating HYPE again after a multi-month hiatus.

The most recent purchase coincides with the asset’s significant run that drove it to over $40, as well as the latest developments on Bitwise’s HYPE ETF application.

Hayes Buys as Price Rockets

Lookonchain updated earlier on April 11 that the Maelstroms’ executive had spent over $1 million to accumulate 26,022 HYPE tokens. This was his first such purchase in almost three months. Wallets linked to him show that he currently holds 247,344 HYPE, worth around $10.44 million, and he sits on a paper gain of $2.5 million.

Arthur Hayes(@CryptoHayes) bought 26,022 $HYPE($1.1M) again after nearly 3 months.

He now holds 247,334 $HYPE($10.44M) and is up over $2.5M.https://t.co/BVqcbjKBOc pic.twitter.com/Qu5FgXTbAb

— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) April 11, 2026

Hayes has been quite active lately in terms of crypto purchases and sell-offs. The latest big accumulation that made the headlines was in mid-March when he bought ETHFI just hours before the asset was listed on Upbit, which led to a substantial price uptick.

His HYPE purchase comes in a rather compelling time for the asset, which has been on a substantial roll lately. After dipping below $27 when the war in Iran started on February 28, the asset surged to $44 by March 18. It slipped again, this time to $34, in early April, but jumped once again, reclaimed the $40 resistance, and now sits at $42.

HYPE ETF Comes Soon?

Perhaps a portion of HYPE’s latest gains could be attributed to the growing hype (no pun intended, seriously) in the race for a spot ETF. As reported several weeks ago, Grayscale filed an S-1 for its HYPE ETF application, while the latest development came from Bitwise at the end of the business week.

Bloomberg’s expert on the matter, Eric Balchunas, noted that Bitwise has updated its Hyperliquid ETF application to include the BHYP ticker and set a fee of 67 bps. He concluded that such moves “typically” mean that the product will see the light of day soon.

Bitwise w another update to Hyperliquid ETF includes ticker $BHYP and fee 67bps. Typically that means launch soon. HYPE is up 200% in past yr so they prob trying to strike while iron hot pic.twitter.com/xt5gc9BpSI

— Eric Balchunas (@EricBalchunas) April 10, 2026

The post Arthur Hayes Loads Up on HYPE as Bitwise’s Hyperliquid ETF Nears Launch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The non-profit organization dedicated to supporting and developing the Ethereum ecosystem has disposed of all 5,000 ETH it had planned to sell.

Meanwhile, some whales and institutions have started to accumulate, while the spot ETH ETFs ended the week in the green for the first time in almost a month.

EF Sells, Whales Buy

After reaching its goal of 70,000 staked ETH, the Ethereum Foundation outlined plans to dispose of 5,000 ETH to fund its operations. The sell-offs were completed in a couple of batches, with the first finishing on April 9 and the second on April 11.

The average price at which the organization disposed of its tokens was $2,221, according to data from Lookonchain. They converted the funds into 11.11 million DAI.

The #EthereumFoundation has sold the remaining 1,250 $ETH($2.8M).

So far, all 5,000 $ETH planned for sale have been fully converted into 11.11M $DAI, at an average price of $2,221.https://t.co/nwflbWOvSl pic.twitter.com/wAb4FA5V5N

— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) April 11, 2026

In contrast, additional data from Lookonchain shows that a wallet linked to Cumberland withdrew roughly $60 million in ETH from several exchanges, including OKX and Binance.

The spot Ethereum ETFs also finished the week strong, with $85.19 million in net inflows on Thursday and another $65 million on Friday. Given Monday’s $120.24 million, which offset the losses on Tuesday and Wednesday, the week ended with net inflows of $187.07 million, making it the first green week since the one that ended on March 13.

One Last Pump?

ETH was among the biggest beneficiaries of the two-week truce between Iran and the US, as it surged from $2,050 to over $2,250 as of press time. Well-known crypto analyst Ted Pillows believes the asset could target $2,350-$2,400 after rebounding above $2,200, which would “likely be the last pump” before another correction, as shown in his chart below.

$ETH is back above the $2,200 level.

If this zone holds, Ethereum could move towards the $2,350-$2,400 level, which would likely be the last pump. pic.twitter.com/3UQCv5nzKH

— Ted (@TedPillows) April 11, 2026

Meanwhile, another analyst, CW, indicated that there’s a notable uptick in ETH futures whales “ending their rest and moving again” as evident by the increasing number of long positions, which “had been quiet since the 8th.”

The post Ethereum Foundation Sells $11M Worth of ETH as Price Prepares for ‘Last Pump’ appeared first on CryptoPotato.

After weeks of diminishing inflows, which included multiple no-inflow days, the spot XRP ETFs finally saw a substantial uptick on Friday, marking a multi-month high.

The underlying asset has joined the market-wide rally, with a minor increase since last weekend, but some analysts remain hopeful of a more profound breakout.

XRP ETFs Finally in the Green

The funds tracking the performance of the popular cross-border token went into a violent spiral when March arrived. After two consecutive weeks of more outflows than inflows, it became the first month to end in the red since the ETFs’ inception in November last year. April began on the wrong foot again, with over $3.5 million in net inflows in the first week.

Moreover, there were numerous days when investors were apparently absent, with zero reportable data. The last two such examples were from the previous business week, on April 6 and 8, with SoSoValue showing a clear “$0.00” for both.

However, investors returned on Friday, recording a new inflow day of $9.09 million – the single-highest number since February 6, when the funds attracted over $15 million. The week also ended in the green, with $11.75 million in net inflows.

Nevertheless, these numbers are still far from the peaks recorded in November and December, a period in which the funds saw well over $1 billion in net inflows.

XRP Rebounds

The underlying asset has marked a minor 2.5% increase compared to last Saturday. It successfully defended the support levels at $1.32 and $1.30 and now sits close to $1.35.

Popular analyst CRYPTOWZRD weighed in on XRP’s closure yesterday, claiming that the bounce from the $1.32 support aligned with a potential bigger break against BTC could trigger a more substantial rally.

Crypto Tony also talked about XRP’s performance, but believes it could reverse the short-term bearish trend only after it reclaims the $1.39 level.

$XRP / $USD – Update

Reclaim $1.39 and we are good to go for a long and advance to higher targets. pic.twitter.com/eQCOuZboLO

— Crypto Tony (@CryptoTony__) April 10, 2026

The post XRP ETF Demand Returns? Ripple Funds Hit 2-Month Inflow High appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum is trading around $2,240 as markets navigate a tense macro environment. The Middle-East conflicts continue to dominate headlines, and inflation is pressuring retail liquidity.

Adding a layer of internal noise to the picture, the Ethereum Foundation sold 5,000 ETH earlier this week, which drew attention from the community, even though it only reflects operational treasury management rather than any fundamental shift in the protocol’s outlook.

Ethereum Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

The descending channel that has defined ETH’s price action since the October 2025 highs is on the verge of breaking to the upside on the daily chart. Both the 100-day MA (~$2.4k) and 200-day MA (~$2.9k) also continue to decline overhead and close in on the price.

The $2.4k zone is now acting as a dense resistance corridor, as it overlaps the channel’s higher trendline, the 100-day moving average, and the supply zone created by the bearish order block formed in February.

Currently, the asset is pressing up toward the lower boundary of that zone, with the RSI climbing into the 60s, which is the most constructive daily momentum reading in weeks. A daily close above $2.4k would be a significant development and the first real signal that the trend may be shifting. Yet, a failure to break through keeps the critical $1.8k demand zone firmly in play.

ETH/USDT 4-Hour Chart

On the 4-hour chart, ETH has been trading inside a broad range between $1.8k and $2.4k since February, with an ascending trendline from the lows gradually compressing price action upward. The most recent push has brought ETH back above $2,150,  a level that acted as resistance throughout March and early April. The price is now likely to test the lower edge of the $2.3k–$2.4k supply band, as mentioned earlier.

The RSI on this timeframe has been showing consistent values above 50, which reflects solid short-term momentum. A clean break and close above $2.4k would be the most bullish development on this timeframe since the correction began, and could accelerate a move toward $2.8k. On the downside, the ascending trendline near $2k and the $1.8k support band are the levels buyers need to defend to keep the short-term structure intact.

Sentiment Analysis

The Ethereum Coinbase Premium Index has flipped notably positive in the most recent readings, posting a value near +0.05, which is the first significant positive reading since the bull market peak in 2025. For most of the correction period, the index was deeply negative, particularly during the February crash, where it plunged toward -0.20, reflecting aggressive selling pressure from US-based participants on Coinbase.

The shift to positive territory is a meaningful development. It suggests that US demand — whether retail or institutional — is quietly returning to ETH at current levels. This signal has historically preceded at least short-term price appreciation.

That said, one week of green readings does not reverse a trend that dominated for over six months. The index needs to sustain positive values and gradually strengthen before it can be read as a reliable signal that US buyers are back in conviction mode rather than simply dipping a toe in the water, amid the shaky ceasefire with Iran.

The post Ethereum Price Prediction: How High Can ETH Climb After Reclaiming $2.2K Resistance? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Although it continues to trade in a multi-month range, BTC has neared the upper boundary and could be close to a more decisive breakout.

Here are some of the positive on-chain signs that support such a narrative, plus the dark horse that might actually decide the asset’s short-term fate.

3 Bullish Signals

Popular analyst Ted Pillows noted earlier today that the Coinbase Bitcoin Premium, the key metric showing the difference between BTC buying on the largest US exchange and Binance, has continued to be in the green and has actually marked a three-week high. Similar instances show that institutional investors, who are the typical clientele of Coinbase, have gone on an accumulation spree.

However, Ted explained that the significant increases over the past few days could be linked to Strategy’s latest multi-million-dollar purchase. Nevertheless, the graph below demonstrates that when the metric is in the red, BTC tends to underperform and vice versa.

Coinbase Bitcoin Premium has spiked to its highest level in 3 weeks.

And this is primarily due to $STRC aggressive accumulation. pic.twitter.com/HuUWytXc5f

— Ted (@TedPillows) April 10, 2026

Fellow analyst CW brought out the other bullish signals for BTC, which are in a similar category. They explained that “net buying of BTC long positions” has risen, which, coupled with the “steadily increasing” Open Interest, shows a “bullish trend.” On a similar note, bitcoin buying on other exchanges, such as OKX, has flipped to a positive territory.

Lastly, CW updated that the bitcoin exchange reserves have continued to decline, while whale accumulation has returned.

“We are currently still in the process of preparing for a bull market. There was no real bull market in this cycle,” the analyst concluded.

The Dark Horse

Although the aforementioned on-chain signs seem to be going in bitcoin’s way, there’s one significant uncertainty that continues to impact the asset the most: the war in the Middle East. The two-week cease-fire announced earlier this week served as a breath of fresh air for BTC, which jumped from $68,000 to over $73,000 earlier today.

The latest news on the matter came hours ago as the US delegation led by VP JD Vance touched down in Islamabad, Pakistan, where they are scheduled to begin face-to-face talks with Iran’s reps, led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Badher Ghalibaf. A permanent peace decision or a war escalation could influence BTC’s price even faster and more violently than the signals mentioned above.

The post 3 Bullish Signs for Bitcoin After Surge to 3-Week Peak: Can BTC Push Higher? appeared first on CryptoPotato.