AI's rise could reshape money markets, leaving traditional players behind as crypto gains traction.

The post Jordi Visser: AI and crypto will disrupt existing market structures, stablecoins are processing more volume than Mastercard, and Bitcoin’s performance is closely tied to software ETFs | The Wolf Of All Streets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The tariff hike may strain international trade relations, potentially leading to retaliatory measures and impacting global economic stability.

The post Trump declares global tariff hike to 15% following court setback appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Trove's token sale raised $11.5 million, focusing on real-world assets like collectible cards. The ICO process for Trove was oversubscribed, leading to incomplete refunds for investors. The token sale process lacks the structure needed for success, highlighting a gap in support for token founders.

The post Luca Netz: Trove’s $11.5 million token sale highlights flaws in ICO structure, liquidity issues threaten NFT market, and the rise of echo groups over traditional VC | Unchained appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The incident highlights the critical need for robust security measures in blockchain platforms to maintain user trust and market stability.

The post IoTeX confirms token safe incident, says situation ‘under control’ appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Nasdaq's move into tokenization could accelerate blockchain adoption in traditional finance, potentially reshaping asset management and trading.

The post Nasdaq hires product manager to lead tokenization innovation appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Nakamoto Inc. ($NAKA) Completes Acquisition of BTC Inc. and UTXO Management

Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) announced today that it has completed its acquisitions of BTC Inc. and UTXO Management GP, LLC (“UTXO”), finalizing merger agreements previously announced earlier this month.

The transaction was structured entirely through the issuance of Nakamoto common stock. BTC Inc. and UTXO securityholders received 364,795,104 shares of Nakamoto stock, at a combined value of $81,632,852 based on Nakamoto’s closing price on February 19, 2026, of $0.248. In a form 8-K filing yesterday, Nakamoto disclosed that the two businesses reported a combined revenue of $80.5 million, $34.2 million in EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Amortization), and $40.1 million in net income for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2025.

The deal followed the terms of Nakamoto’s call option under its Marketing Services Agreement, which was previously approved by shareholders.

BTC Inc. is a global Bitcoin media company that produces Bitcoin Magazine, one of the longest-running publications covering the cryptocurrency industry. 

The company also organizes The Bitcoin Conference, a series of events held across the U.S., Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, which attracted over 67,000 attendees in 2025. BTC Inc. also operates Bitcoin for Corporations, a membership platform for companies using Bitcoin as a treasury asset.

UTXO Management serves as an adviser to a hedge fund focused on Bitcoin and related investments. Its team allocates capital across public and private markets in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The firm’s integration into Nakamoto expands the company’s investment and advisory capabilities.

Nakamoto: A portfolio of bitcoin adjacent companies 

David Bailey, Chairman and CEO of Nakamoto Inc., said earlier this week that the “acquisition aligns with our plan to operate a portfolio of companies across media, asset management, and advisory services. BTC Inc. and UTXO provide recurring earnings and institutional capabilities that support our growth strategy.”

Brandon Green, CEO of BTC Inc., added, “Joining Nakamoto allows us to scale our media and event platforms and extend our reach to a wider audience of companies and investors in Bitcoin.”

Tyler Evans, Chief Investment Officer of Nakamoto and UTXO, said the combination provides an opportunity to reinforce Bitcoin’s role in modern capital markets and to develop new investment strategies.

With the acquisition complete, Nakamoto now operates a diversified portfolio of Bitcoin-native enterprises spanning media, events, asset management, and advisory services. 

The company intends to use the combined platform for future strategic initiatives, including additional Bitcoin accumulation and potential acquisitions.

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

This post Nakamoto Inc. ($NAKA) Completes Acquisition of BTC Inc. and UTXO Management first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nik and Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Core Issue: Cluster Mempool, Problems Are Easier In Chunks

Cluster Mempool¹ is a complete reworking of how the mempool handles organizing and sorting transactions, conceptualized and implemented by Suhas Daftuar and Pieter Wuille. The design aims to simplify the overall architecture, better align transaction sorting logic with miner incentives, and improve security for second layer protocols. It was merged into Bitcoin Core in PR #33629² on November 25, 2025. 

The mempool is a giant set of pending transactions that your node has to keep track of for a number of reasons: fee estimation, transaction replacement validation, and block construction if you’re a miner. 

This is a lot of different goals for a single function of your node to service. Bitcoin Core up to version 30.0 organizes the mempool in two different ways to help aid in these functions, both from the relative point of view of any given transaction: combined feerate looking forward of the transaction and its children (descendant feerate), and combined feerate looking backwards of the transaction and its parents (ancestor feerate). 

These are used to decide which transactions to evict from your mempool when it’s full, and which to include first when constructing a new block template. 

How Is My Mempool Managed?

When a miner is deciding whether to include a transaction in their block, their node looks at that transaction, and any ancestors that must be confirmed first for it to be valid in a block, and look at the average feerate per byte across all of them together considering the individual fees they paid as a whole. If that group of transactions fits within the blocksize limit while outcompeting others in fees, it is included in the next block. This is done for every transaction.

When your node is deciding which transactions to evict from its mempool when it is full, it looks at each transaction and any children it has, evicting the transaction and all its children if the mempool is already full with transactions (and their descendants) paying a higher feerate. 

Look at the above example graph of transactions, the feerates are shown as such in parentheses (ancestor feerate, descendant feerate). A miner looking at transaction E would likely include it in the next block, a small transaction paying a very high fee with a single small ancestor. However, if a node’s mempool was filling up, it would look at transaction A with two massive children paying a low relative fee, and likely evict it or not accept and keep it if it was just received. 

These two rankings, or orderings, are completely at odds with each other. The mempool should reliably propagate what miners will mine, and users should be confident that their local mempool accurately predicts what miners will mine. 

The mempool functioning in this way is important for:

• Mining decentralization: getting all miners the most profitable set of transactions
• User reliability: accurate and reliable fee estimation and transaction confirmation times
• Second layer security: reliable and accurate execution of second layer protocols’ on-chain enforcement transactions

The current behavior of the mempool does not fully align with the reality of mining incentives, which creates blind spots that can be problematic for second layer security by creating uncertainty as to whether a transaction will make it to a miner, as well as pressure for non-public broadcasting channels to miners, potentially worsening the first problem. 

This is especially problematic when it comes to replacing unconfirmed transactions, either simply to incentivize miners to include a replacement sooner, or as part of a second layer protocol being enforced on-chain. 

Replacement per the existing behavior becomes unpredictable depending on the shape and size of the web of transactions yours is caught in. In a simple fee-bumping situation this can fail to propagate and replace a transaction, even when mining the replacement would be better for a miner. 

In the context of second layer protocols, the current logic allows participants to potentially get necessary ancestor transactions evicted from the mempool, or make it not possible for another participant to submit a necessary child transaction to the mempool under the current rules because of child transactions the malicious participant created, or the eviction of necessary ancestor transactions. 

All of these problems are the result of these inconsistent inclusion and eviction rankings and the incentive misalignments they create. Having a single global ranking would fix these issues, but globally reordering the entire mempool for every new transaction is impractical. 

It’s All Just A Graph

Transactions that depend on each other are a graph, or a directed series of “paths.” When a transaction spends outputs created by another in the past, it is linked with that past transaction. When it additionally spends outputs created by a second past transaction, it links both of the historical transactions together. 

When unconfirmed, chains of transactions like this must have the earlier transactions confirmed first for the later ones to be valid. After all, you can’t spend outputs that haven’t been created yet. 

This is an important concept for understanding the mempool, it is explicitly ordered directionally. 

It’s all just a graph. 

Chunks Make Clusters Make Mempools

In cluster mempool, the concept of a cluster is a group of unconfirmed transactions that are directly related to each other, i.e. spending outputs created by others in the cluster or vice versa. This becomes a fundamental unit of the new mempool architecture. Analyzing and ordering the entire mempool is an impractical task, but analyzing and ordering clusters is a much more manageable one. 

Each cluster is broken down into chunks, small sets of transactions from the cluster, which are then sorted in order of highest feerate per byte to lowest, respecting the directional dependencies. So for instance, let’s say from highest to lowest feerate the chunks in cluster (A) are: [A,D], [B,E], [C,F], [G, J], and last [I, H]. 

This allows pre-sorting all of these chunks and clusters, and more efficient sorting of the whole mempool in the process. 

Miners can now simply grab the highest feerate chunks from every cluster and put them into their template, if there is still room they can go down to the next highest feerate chunks, continuing until the block is roughly full and just needs to figure out the last few transactions it can fit. This is roughly the optimal block template construction method assuming access to all available transactions. 

When nodes’ mempools get full, they can simply grab the lowest feerate chunks from every cluster, and start evicting those from their mempool until it is not over the configured limit. If that was not enough, it moves on to the next lowest feerate chunks, and so on, until it is within its mempool limits. Done this way it removes strange edge cases out of alignment with mining incentives. 

Replacement logic is also drastically simplified. Compare cluster (A) to cluster (B) where transaction K has replaced G, I, J, and H. The only criteria that needs to be met is the new chunk [K] must have a higher chunk feerate than [G, J] and [I, H], [K] must pay more in total fees than [G, J, I, H], and K cannot go over an upper limit of how many transactions it is replacing. 

In a cluster paradigm all of these different uses are in alignment with each other. 

The New Mempool

This new architecture allows us to simplify transaction group limits, removing previous limitations on how many unconfirmed ancestors a transaction in the mempool can have and replacing them with a global cluster limit of 64 transactions and 101 kvB per cluster. 

This limit is necessary in order to keep the computational cost of pre-sorting the clusters and their chunks low enough to be practical for nodes to perform on a constant basis. 

This is the real key insight of cluster mempool. By keeping the chunks and clusters relatively small, you simultaneously make the construction of an optimal block template cheap, simplify transaction replacement logic (fee-bumping) and therefore improve second layer security, and fix eviction logic, all at once. 

No more expensive and slow on the fly computation for template building, or unpredictable behavior in fee-bumping. By fixing the misalignment of incentives in how the mempool was managing transaction organization in different situations, the mempool functions better for everyone. 

Cluster mempool is a project that has been years-long in the making, and will make a material impact on ensuring profitable block templates are open to all miners, that second layer protocols have sound and predictable mempool behaviors to build on, and that Bitcoin can continue functioning as a decentralized monetary system. 

For those interesting in diving deeper into the nitty gritty of how cluster mempool is implemented and works under the hood, here are two Delving Bitcoin threads you can read:

High Level Implementation Overview (With Design Rationale): https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/an-overview-of-the-cluster-mempool-proposal/393 

How Cluster Mempool Feerate Diagrams Work: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/mempool-incentive-compatibility/553 

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://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27677 

[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629 

This post The Core Issue: Cluster Mempool, Problems Are Easier In Chunks first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Shinobi.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Pops After Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs

The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariff regime, ruling 6-3 that he exceeded his authority by imposing broad import duties under a national emergency law.

The decision invalidates tariffs Trump levied in early 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a statute enacted in 1977 and historically used to sanction foreign adversaries during crises. Trump cited persistent trade deficits and national security concerns, including fentanyl trafficking, to justify duties ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from nearly every major trading partner.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Constitution leaves little ambiguity about who controls the taxing power.

“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Roberts wrote, adding that no previous president had used the statute to impose tariffs “of this magnitude and scope.”

The ruling marks the first major test of Trump’s second-term economic agenda before the high court, which includes three justices he appointed during his first term. Lower courts had already found that the administration overstepped, emphasizing that Article I of the Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress.

President Trump said he has a backup plan to pursue tariffs following the court ruling, according to various sources.

Bitcoin jumps on the news 

In financial markets, the reaction was swift and unsettled. Bitcoin rose about 2% within minutes of the decision, briefly climbing above $68,000 before retreating toward $67,500. The move reflected a familiar pattern in digital asset markets, where headline-driven rallies have struggled to hold.

The mixed response underscored the ambiguity surrounding the ruling’s economic impact. For some investors, the invalidation of tariffs removes a source of policy uncertainty that has weighed on global trade. 

For others, it introduces new questions about fiscal gaps, refund obligations and next steps from the White House.

Reuters has reported that more than $133 billion in tariff revenue collected under the emergency authority could be subject to refunds. Trump has said his broader tariff program generated roughly $600 billion, though that figure has been disputed. If significant sums must be repaid, Treasury financing needs could shift at a delicate moment for bond markets.

Earlier Friday, economic data painted a complicated picture. The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at a 1.4% annualized rate in the final quarter of 2025. 

Core personal consumption expenditures, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, rose 3% year over year, above expectations. 

Annual growth for 2025 slowed to 2.2%, the weakest pace since 2020.

Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth, described the data as sending a “messy message” of firmer inflation alongside cooling growth, according to CoinDesk. That backdrop has reinforced expectations that the Federal Reserve will proceed with caution on rate cuts.

Is this ruling good for bitcoin?

For Bitcoin traders, the tariff case has been less about trade flows than about liquidity and risk appetite. During prior episodes of trade escalation, digital assets tended to move in tandem with equities as investors reassessed growth and inflation risks. 

A court decision that removes tariffs could ease cost pressures over time, yet the near-term effect hinges on how Washington fills any fiscal hole.

Stephen Coltman, head of macro at 21Shares, said before the ruling that a negative outcome for the administration could pressure the dollar and Treasuries while favoring stocks and bitcoin. 

Others, including VanEck’s Matthew Sigel, have argued that reduced tariff revenue could widen deficits, increasing the appeal of assets like bitcoin viewed as hedges against currency debasement.

Online prediction markets had assigned high odds to the court striking down the tariffs, suggesting traders were prepared for the headline. 

For now, the court’s decision narrows presidential authority over tariffs and returns leverage to Congress. Whether lawmakers move to codify elements of Trump’s trade agenda or chart a different course remains unclear.

Bitcoin is trading near $67,600.

This post Bitcoin Pops After Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin’s 50% Slide: Quantum Scare or Capital Rotation?

Bitcoin’s 46% decline from its October peak near $126,100 to roughly $67,000 has triggered debate over what is driving the pullback. Some market participants have pointed to quantum computing as a looming threat to the network’s cryptographic security. Others argue the explanation lies elsewhere, in shifting capital flows, tightening liquidity and changing miner economics.

On a recent episode of the Unchained podcast hosted by Laura Shin, Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo rejected the idea that quantum fears are behind the downturn. If investors were pricing in imminent quantum risk to Bitcoin’s cryptography, he said, Ether would likely be outperforming rather than falling in tandem.

Bitcoin is down roughly 46% from its all-time high, while Ether has fallen roughly 58% since an early-October market break. Corallo argued that this parallel weakness undercuts the claim that quantum computing is uniquely weighing on Bitcoin. He added that some holders may be looking for a scapegoat to explain weak price action.

The quantum debate has gained visibility as researchers explore post-quantum cryptography and as asset managers update disclosures. Last year, BlackRock amended the registration statement for its iShares Bitcoin ETF to flag quantum computing as a potential risk to the network’s integrity.

Corallo countered that market pricing does not signal urgency. He framed the current environment as one in which Bitcoin is competing for capital against other sectors, especially artificial intelligence. 

Bitcoin mining and AI infrastructure 

AI infrastructure requires large data centers, specialized chips and significant energy capacity. That capital intensity, he suggested, has drawn investor attention and funding that might otherwise have flowed into digital assets.

Mining data reflects these crosscurrents. Bitcoin mining difficulty recently climbed to 144.4 trillion, a 15% increase and the largest percentage jump since 2021, when China’s mining ban disrupted the network before operations stabilized. 

Difficulty adjusts every 2,016 blocks, about every two weeks, to keep block production near a 10-minute average regardless of hashrate changes.

The latest increase follows a 12% decline in difficulty after a drop in total computational power. In October, when bitcoin traded near $126,500, hashrate peaked around 1.1 zettahash per second. As prices slid toward $60,000 in February, hashrate fell to 826 exahash per second. It has since recovered to about 1 zettahash per second as bitcoin rebounded to the high-$60,000 range.

Even with that recovery, miner economics remain tight. Hashprice, a measure of daily revenue per unit of hashrate, sits near multi-year lows around $23.9 per petahash per second. Lower revenues have pressured margins, particularly for operators with higher energy costs. Large-scale miners with access to inexpensive power have continued to expand. The United Arab Emirates, for example, is estimated to hold roughly $344 million in unrealized profit from mining operations.

At the same time, several publicly listed mining firms are reallocating energy and computing resources toward AI and high-performance computing data centers. Bitfarms recently rebranded to remove explicit bitcoin references as it increases its focus on AI infrastructure. 

Activist investor Starboard Value has urged Riot Platforms to expand further into AI data center operations. The shift underscores Corallo’s point that bitcoin now competes directly with other capital-intensive technologies.

Bitcoin is consolidating in ‘extreme fear’

Onchain data suggests the market remains in a compression phase. Analytics firm Glassnode reports that BTC has broken below its “True Market Mean,” a model that tracks the aggregate cost basis of active supply and currently sits near $79,000. 

The firm identifies the Realized Price, around $54,900, as a lower structural boundary. Bitcoin has traded between roughly $60,000 and $70,000 in recent sessions, within that corridor.

Sentiment remains fragile. The Crypto Fear and Greed Index has registered “extreme fear” for weeks. Yet some analysts see valuation support. 

Bitwise’s head of European research, André Dragosch, said bitcoin appears undervalued relative to global money supply growth, gold and exchange-traded product flows. He expects consolidation rather than a rapid recovery, noting that sharp capitulations rarely produce immediate V-shaped rebounds outside crisis events.

Macro data may shape the next move. Traders are watching U.S. core PCE inflation figures for signals on Federal Reserve policy. Higher inflation could support scarce assets in theory, but a hawkish response could strengthen the dollar and pressure risk markets.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading near $67,000. 

This post Bitcoin’s 50% Slide: Quantum Scare or Capital Rotation? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Fed’s Kashkari: Crypto “Utterly Useless,” Stablecoins No Match for Venmo

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari delivered another pointed criticism of crypto while defending the Federal Reserve’s independence during remarks in Fargo, North Dakota, today.

Speaking at the 2026 Midwest Economic Outlook Summit, Kashkari questioned the practical value of digital assets, stating that “crypto has been around for more than a decade and it’s utterly useless,” according to Bloomberg. 

He contrasted crypto with artificial intelligence tools, which he said have demonstrated clear, everyday utility for consumers and businesses.

Kashkari also dismissed the promise of stablecoins, arguing they offer little improvement over existing payment systems. “I can send any one of you $5 with Venmo or PayPal or Zelle,” he said during a question-and-answer session. “So what is it that this magical stablecoin can do?”

While acknowledging claims that stablecoins could make cross-border transfers faster and cheaper, Kashkari argued that recipients must still convert digital tokens into local currency for everyday purchases, creating additional friction and cost. He said advocates have yet to present a compelling use case for U.S. consumers.

Beyond digital assets, Kashkari addressed criticism from National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett regarding a New York Fed study on tariffs. The Minneapolis President characterized the remarks as “another step to try to compromise the Fed’s independence.”

“Over the last year, we’ve seen multiple attempts to try to compromise the Fed’s independence,” he said, referencing a December subpoena from the Department of Justice to the Board of Governors related to building expenses.

The Minneapolis President emphasized that central bank independence underpins effective monetary policy. “Every advanced economy in the world has an independent central bank,” he said, arguing that policy decisions serve the public best when based on data and analysis rather than short-term political considerations.

On the economy, Kashkari noted inflation has eased to between 2.5% and 3%, while unemployment has risen from roughly 3.5% to 4.3%. 

He said the Fed is “pretty close to neutral” after cutting interest rates multiple times over the past two years.

Kashkari: Crypto is like the ‘Beanie Babies’ bubble

Last November, Kashkari had a similar criticism, comparing the sector to the 1990s Beanie Babies bubble and arguing it still lacks meaningful economic use. 

Speaking on CNN, Kashkari said he was more confident in the utility of AI, which he sees as delivering real economic value, whereas crypto fails to demonstrate a compelling purpose. 

He questioned the everyday use of digital assets in the U.S., noting that the main application he hears is to bypass banking regulations like know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering rules — a use he described as “lousy” for a Federal Reserve policymaker.

This post Fed’s Kashkari: Crypto “Utterly Useless,” Stablecoins No Match for Venmo first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Stablecoin supply is crypto’s deployable cash. With a total stablecoin market cap of around $307.92 billion and down -1.13% in the past 30 days, the pool has stopped growing month over month.

When supply stalls, price moves get sharper, and Bitcoin feels it first in thin depth and bigger wicks.

Stablecoins sit in a strange middle ground in the crypto market. They behave like cash, yet they arrive there through private issuers, reserve portfolios, and redemption rails that look more like a money-market complex than a payment app.

For trading, though, they play one role so consistently that it earns a macro comparison: stablecoins function as crypto’s closest proxy for deployable dollars.

When the pool of available stablecoins expands, it makes risk-taking easier to finance and easier to unwind. When the pool flattens out or shrinks, the same price move can travel farther and faster.

When the stablecoin supply stops growing, the price can travel farther on the same flow.

Related Reading

This is how M2 money supply and the dollar REALLY move Bitcoin price – The truth influencers aren't telling you

Social media oversimplifies M2 and dollar charts. Bitcoin’s drivers are far more complex.

Nov 23, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The stablecoin backdrop in two numbers

Total stablecoin market cap sits around $307.92 billion, and is down -1.13% in the past 30 days.
A 1% to 2% drawdown might look small on its face, but in practice, it changes the market sentiment because it shows cash leaving, staying idle, or being reallocated.

A 1% supply dip also shifts market microstructure. Less fresh stablecoin collateral means less immediate absorption during liquidation bursts, which leads to price traveling farther to find size.

For Bitcoin, that matters as microstructure, because stablecoins are the default quote asset on major venues.

They're the base collateral for a large share of crypto leverage, the bridge asset that moves fastest across exchanges, chains, desks, and lenders.

They have become central to the way the crypto market functions, providing depth to the market and gas for trading activity.

The M2 analogy

M2 is a broad money measure in TradFi.

It adds more liquid forms of money on top of narrow money, including retail money-market fund shares and short-term deposits.

Stablecoin supply maps to a trader-useful question: how many dollar tokens exist inside the crypto perimeter to settle trades, post collateral, and move between venues?

That's why a stall in supply can matter when the price looks calm, which means it frames what kind of liquidity the market is operating with.

For traders, supply describes how much collateral the system can recycle before slippage rises and liquidation risk increases.

How supply moves: mint, burn, reserves

Stablecoin supply changes through a simple loop: minting adds tokens when dollars enter the issuer’s reserve stack, and burning removes tokens when holders redeem for dollars.

The market sees the token count, and behind it sits the reserve portfolio, invisible to most.

For the largest issuers, that portfolio has increasingly resembled a short-duration cash management book.

Tether publishes reserve reports and keeps daily circulation metrics, alongside periodic attestations.  Circle publishes reserve disclosures and third-party attestations for USDC, with a transparency page that outlines the reporting cadence and assurance framework.

This reserve design creates a mechanical link between crypto liquidity and short-term dollar instruments. When net issuance rises, issuers tend to add cash, repos, and Treasury bills.

When net redemptions rise, issuers fund those outflows by drawing down cash buffers, letting bills roll, selling bills, or tapping other liquid holdings.

Kaiko tied stablecoin usage to market depth and trading activity. BIS research added a second anchor: stablecoin flows interact with short-term Treasury volumes, using daily data and treating stablecoin inflows as a measurable force in safe-asset markets.

This means that stablecoin supply is connected to how reserves are managed in traditional instruments and how depth behaves on crypto venues.

What changed: the pool stopped expanding

We can split the “why” behind the current stablecoin market cap decline into two broad buckets:

• Bucket one: net redemptions. Money leaves stablecoins for dollars, often due to risk reduction, treasury management, or conversion into bank balances and bills outside the crypto perimeter.
• Bucket two: redistribution. Money stays inside crypto, yet it moves between issuers or chains. That can flatten the headline total even when activity stays strong.

A simple tripwire helps separate a wobble from a real shift: a 30-day decline that persists for two consecutive weeks, paired with weakening transfer volume.

21Shares used a similar discipline in stress-window framing. Its note described a period where total stablecoin supply fell by roughly 2% during peak stress and then stabilized, while transfer volume stayed large, including a cited figure of roughly $1.9 trillion in USDT transfer volume over 30 days. The value of that framing lies in the separation of dimensions: supply is one dimension, operational usage is another.

Broad contraction vs redistribution

The question is broad contraction versus redistribution across issuers and chains.

Crypto has a lot of different dollar products. USDT dominates the total stablecoin set by market cap. Trailing closely behind is USDC, with its own reporting cycle and mint and burn rhythm. Beyond those, there are a number of other smaller, faster-moving stablecoins whose supply can swing with incentives, bridges, and chain-specific activity.

Rotation takes a few common forms:

• Issuer mix shifts: Traders move between USDT and USDC based on venue preferences, perceived reserve risks, regional rails, or settlement constraints. That can keep total supply flat while changing where liquidity feels deepest.
• Chain distribution shifts: Liquidity migrates between Ethereum, Tron, and other chains when fees, bridge incentives, or exchange rails change.
• Bridging artifacts: Bridges and wrapped representations can create temporary distortions in where balances appear, especially around large migrations.

A 30-day decline becomes more informative when it shows up across issuers and across major settlement hubs. A 30-day decline becomes less informative when it's paired with high velocity, steady exchange inventories, and steady leverage pricing.

The “Slack Check” dashboard

If stablecoin supply is the balance sheet, the market still needs a cash flow view. Three checks do most of the work, and they fit into a small weekly dashboard.

• Velocity: Is the cash still moving?

Stablecoins exist to settle transfers and trades. When supply contracts while transfer volume stays large, the rails can stay liquid even as the pool shrinks. The 21Shares note cited large USDT transfer volume during a stress window, which is one way to ground this check.

Quick read: Supply down plus velocity steady often signals recycling through a smaller base.

• Location: Where do balances sit?

Stablecoins sitting on exchanges and prime venues behave differently from stablecoins parked in passive wallets or DeFi pools. Exchange inventory often serves as immediate buying power and collateral. Off-exchange holdings can be idle liquidity, long-term storage, or DeFi working capital.

You can interpret a supply dip very differently depending on where balances move. A supply dip paired with rising exchange balances can indicate traders are preparing to deploy. A supply dip paired with falling exchange balances can indicate a pullback in risk appetite.

Quick read: Rising exchange balances often point to deployable collateral building.

• Leverage price: Are longs paying up?

Perpetual swap funding and futures basis act like the market’s interest rate on leverage. When stablecoin supply tightens, leverage can become more expensive to carry and more fragile to hold. The exact mechanism varies by exchange, collateral type, and margin regime.

Quick read: Funding and basis pressuring longs often signal fragility rising in a shrinking-supply backdrop.

This is also where broader liquidity conditions show up. Thin liquidity contributes to sharper crypto moves during selloffs and is often the main cause of volatility.

What it means for Bitcoin price action

Bitcoin can rally in a flat-supply environment, and it can also chop for weeks while stablecoin supply falls quietly in the background. The difference shows up when the price moves fast.

In an expanding-supply environment, dips tend to meet more immediate buying power across venues and desks. Spreads can stay tighter, and liquidation waves can find natural counterparties sooner.

In a contracting-supply environment, the market has less fresh collateral to absorb forced flows. Spot depth can thin, execution can worsen, and liquidations can travel farther before they find real size.
In drawdown regimes, the book feels thinner, and wicks get longer because counterparties show up later.

That's why a 30-day change of just 1% matters. It's a map of the terrain. Traders still need catalysts and positioning data to forecast direction. Supply helps set expectations for how violent the path can get.

A simple weekly rule-set

A workable dashboard uses a small set that you update the same day each week.

Start with the total stablecoin market cap and 30-day change. Add chain distribution from the chain view to see whether shifts are broad-based or concentrated. Add a velocity series, which can be as simple as stablecoin transfer volume on major rails, using a consistent source and a consistent lookback. Use funding and basis as the leverage price.

Then apply three simple rules:

1. Supply down for over 30 days
2. Velocity down across the same window
3. Leverage cost worsening for longs, with execution quality deteriorating

That combination is when caution earns its keep. It serves as a risk regime signal, and it shows when the market is operating with less slack. When slack disappears, the price starts moving fast on smaller headlines.

What to watch this week

• Stablecoin supply (30-day): Does the drawdown persist?
• Transfer volume and velocity: Steady recycling versus broad cooling
• Exchange balances: Deployable collateral building versus risk appetite fading
• Funding and basis: Leverage cost rising and fragility building

The final discipline is to separate issuer mechanics from market mood.

Stablecoin supply is a balance sheet measure. When the balance sheet stops growing, the market becomes more dependent on genuine inflows, cleaner catalysts, and tighter risk management. That's a lesson worth repeating, especially with stablecoins sitting above $300 billion and the pool no longer growing month over month.

The post Crypto has a native version of the M2 money supply that’s falling and killing Bitcoin liquidity appeared first on CryptoSlate.

European Central Bank President, Christine Lagarde, runs an institution that trades in certainty, and she does it in a moment that rewards ambiguity.

Earlier this week, the story around her took on a familiar European shape: official silence wrapped around very specific timing.

The FT reported Lagarde is expected to step down before her term ends in October 2027, with the timetable linked to France’s April 2027 presidential election and the succession politics that follow. Markets watch those puzzles closely because the next name at the microphone can change the texture of every decision.

The ECB, via a spokesperson, kept the public line simple: Lagarde has taken no decision on finishing her term and remains committed. That set of headlines would usually sit in the “personnel” bucket.

It lands differently this week because it arrives alongside a second story with dates, budgets, and a clear sense of momentum: the digital euro.

Central banks speak in long arcs, and this is one of those arcs turning into a schedule.

The ECB says it has moved into the next phase of the project, with workstreams that include system setup and piloting, in its phase update. In the pilot materials, the ECB points to a call for expressions of interest for payment service providers in Q1 2026.

It flags March 2026 as the publication month, with the call expected to run around six weeks, according to the pilot deck. When an institution like the ECB puts months on a slide, the ecosystem reacts in human ways.

Banks schedule meetings, payments companies assign teams, and compliance departments start drafting. Politicians ask staff for language that can survive a debate on privacy and control.

Lagarde’s visibility has mattered here because she has acted as the public translator for a project that touches daily life.

A leadership calendar is colliding with a payments calendar, and the next few weeks could turn the digital euro from a concept people argue about into a process companies have to respond to.

Two clocks move together, and both shape the mood

Let's start with the leadership clock. Lagarde’s term ends in October 2027, and FT reporting ties early-exit expectations to France’s April 2027 election window. That timing matters in Europe because institutions share an atmosphere with national politics, and careers and coalitions often move on the same track.

That tells you what markets want from this moment: a smooth handover, a clear narrative, and no surprises. Then there is the project clock, and it is easier to pin down.

The pilot materials sketch an on-ramp that begins with provider selection in Q1 2026, with a call published in March 2026 that is expected to run about six weeks. The same materials set expectations for a pilot starting in the second half of 2027 and running for 12 months.

They describe real-world transactions inside a controlled environment. This is where Lagarde’s personal timeline becomes more than gossip. The ECB also ties its bigger promise to a political hinge.

It works from an assumption that legislation is adopted in 2026, and it aims for readiness for potential issuance in 2029 on that basis.

Leadership matters here in the way it always matters in big public projects: through tone, persuasion, and the ability to keep multiple capitals aligned with one calendar.

The pilot is designed to feel real, and stay controlled

The word “pilot” can sound like a warm-up lap. The ECB’s version looks more like an infrastructure test with guardrails.

The pilot materials point to a start in H2 2027, running 12 months, with real-world transactions in a controlled environment. They also offer a scale clue as about 5,000–10,000 Eurosystem staff are reportedly involved, alongside a small merchant set of about 15–25.

That scale hints at what the ECB wants from this phase. It wants proof the plumbing works and a pressure test for how intermediaries fit into the system.

It also wants to shape public expectations without triggering a broad shift in behavior before the legal framework is settled.

That helps explain why leadership turnover reads as a question of continuity and messaging more than a question of whether the project survives.

The ECB describes a governance structure designed to keep this moving through institutions.

Digital euro work is steered by a Eurosystem High-Level Task Force that reports to the Governing Council, as outlined on its governance page.

That structure keeps the machine running, and it leaves the biggest variable where it belongs: politics and persuasion.

A successor can keep the plan on track and still change the public framing, especially around privacy, control, and how hard the ECB pushes lawmakers to stay aligned with the 2026 legislative assumption.

The money numbers make the stakes easier to feel

The digital euro debate can float above daily life, framed as strategy and sovereignty. Numbers bring it back to households. The ECB has put a price tag on the build.

It estimates total development costs around €1.3 billion, and annual operating costs around €320 million from 2029, according to its cost estimates.

That is public money aimed at creating a new layer of payments infrastructure. It also comes with a promise that the end result will serve the public, not just the industry. Set that next to the baseline the ECB is trying to protect: public money people can hold.

Euro banknotes in net circulation sit around €1.6 trillion as of January 2026, based on the ECB’s banknotes data.

Cash still exists at enormous scale, even as the habit of using it shifts across countries and generations. Zoom out again and you reach the wider pool of liquid money that frames every conversation about deposits and stability.

Euro area M2 is around €16.07 trillion as of December 2025, based on the ECB’s M2 data.

This is the backdrop for concerns about bank funding, arguments over holding limits, and political lines about protecting savers. These figures also help explain why stablecoins hover around the edges of this story.

A central bank moving toward a public digital instrument shifts how Europe defines safe digital money. That definition feeds into regulation, partnerships, and how payment rails compete for real users.

Markets price committee decisions, and people still shape the tone

The immediate market reality is likely to stay calm, even if the longer-term story still matters.

Monetary policy in the euro area is set by the Governing Council, and the president shapes how those decisions are communicated and understood.

That communication premium shows up most during transitions. It shows up first in the language markets trade: confidence, caution, and the implied reaction function. The macro backdrop also matters for tone.

On Feb. 5, 2026, the ECB held the deposit facility rate at 2.00% and reiterated a data-dependent approach in its decision statement.

Inflation is also easing. Annual inflation was at 1.7% in January 2026, down from 2.0% in December 2025.

That context shapes how a leadership story lands. In a calmer rate regime, communication carries more weight, and the personality at the top becomes a signal people look for even when votes are spread across many hands.

The cleanest forward-looking map sits with the digital euro’s legal gate, because the ECB ties readiness to legislation. If lawmakers adopt the regulation in 2026, the ECB’s working plan targets readiness in 2029. If the law slips into 2027, that logic pushes readiness toward 2030.

That also opens more room for private rails, including regulated euro stablecoins, to position themselves as an everyday bridge.

If the law drifts further, readiness drifts with it.

The story then shifts toward Europe’s slower pace while global crypto liquidity keeps leaning on dollar-based stablecoin infrastructure. The next tangible milestone sits in March 2026.

The ECB expects to publish its call for expressions of interest then, with a run of around six weeks. That window forces companies to decide whether they want a seat at the table.

It also forces policymakers to treat the digital euro as an active file with deadlines attached.

Lagarde’s status remains an open question in public, as captured by the spokesperson line in the WSJ. The project calendar looks more concrete, and it keeps moving.

People will experience any digital euro through banks, apps, merchants, and the routines that make payments feel invisible. The decisions sit with lawmakers and the ECB.

The moment feels like a hinge because two clocks are advancing together, one personal, one institutional, both pointing toward choices that shape how Europe pays and how crypto fits into that future.

The post ECB slaps a €1.3B price tag on the digital euro amid leadership change rumors appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin's current bear market could worsen over the next year if the flagship digital asset fails to address concerns about quantum computing.

In a Feb. 20 report, Charles Edwards, Capriole founder, claimed that Bitcoin’s market value should already be discounted for quantum risk and warned that the discount could deepen quickly if the network does not move toward quantum-resistant code.

According to him:

“Bitcoin will be worth half as much in little over a year if we do not progress an upgrade to quantum proof Bitcoin. Without progress, Bitcoin’s Quantum Discount Factor jumps to 75% in 2029.”

This projection implies that Bitcoin's price could drop to around $30,000 from its current level of $68,000 by next year.

However, he warned that this could be worse, as Bitcoin’s value could fall to zero after Q-Day if the network is unable to address quantum computing threats.

Despite these fears, Edwards argues that Bitcoin's current price is undervalued by about 30% as its current fair valuation is around $120,000, which would drop to $96,000 when accounting for quantum risk.

He wrote:

“In other words if you are a long-term investor in Bitcoin, and optimistic we will solve on the quantum threat in the next 2-3 years, then Bitcoin in the $60,000s is an attractive long-term opportunity.”

Essentially, the point is not that a quantum attack is imminent. Edwards’ framework is that markets may start marking down Bitcoin before any “Q-Day” event if investors believe the network’s governance and migration process will take years.

In his model, the risk becomes a valuation discount now because Bitcoin upgrades are slow and require broad coordination across developers, nodes, miners, exchanges, and wallet users.

Why the market can discount a future threat today

Edwards’ note argues that quantum risk has moved from a fringe topic to a timeline problem.

He cites a threshold of roughly 2,300 logical qubits as sufficient to threaten Bitcoin’s current cryptography and estimates, based on compiled industry forecasts, that a cryptographically relevant quantum event is likely by 2030 and increasingly probable by 2031.

According to him:

“Bitcoin Q-Day is likely to occur by 2030 (60% chance) and probable by 2031 (80% chance).”

However, his more immediate concern is Bitcoin’s response time.

Edwards estimates it would take roughly two years, and possibly one to three years, to move a majority of active users to quantum-resistant wallets and code, even in an aggressive scenario.

That gap between the pace of quantum progress and the pace of Bitcoin governance is the basis for his “discount factor” argument.

Meanwhile, this logic is no longer confined to crypto-native commentary.

Last year, BlackRock amended the prospectus of its iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, explicitly warning that advances in quantum computing could render Bitcoin’s cryptography ineffective.

According to the firm, this could potentially compromise wallet security and force network-wide changes that may require broad consensus and one or more forks. The filing also says there is no assurance that those transitions would be implemented successfully or on time.

For markets, that matters because it reframes quantum computing as a coordination and governance risk rather than just a hardware risk.

Even if the technology arrives later than feared, uncertainty around readiness can still pressure valuation in the meantime.

What is at stake, and why the debate is hard

Edwards breaks the Bitcoin quantum problem into two parts.

First, migrating active users to a quantum-resistant version of Bitcoin. Second, dealing with older or exposed coins that may be vulnerable if quantum systems can recover private keys from public keys.

He estimates that 20% to 30% of the Bitcoin supply is “public key exposed,” including older output types and dormant coins, and warns that those coins could become a major source of forced supply in a worst-case scenario.

At current prices, that 20% to 30% range translates into a very large pool of value. Using Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap and a spot price near $67,178, the at-risk range would be roughly $282 billion to $423 billion.

Notably, CoinShares’ February 2026 assessment puts numbers on the “long exposure” problem.

It estimates that exposure is concentrated in legacy Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) outputs, which are equivalent to roughly 1.6 million BTC, about 8% of the supply, because those formats leave public keys plainly visible.

However, the portion that could cause “appreciable market disruption” if stolen quickly is far smaller: CoinShares estimates 10,200 BTC sit in UTXOs large enough to matter in a rapid liquidation scenario.

Bitcoin has proposals, but consensus is the hard part

To solve the quantum computing threat, Edwards proposes a “dead man’s switch” concept after migration, in which coins that do not move to quantum-resistant outputs within a set window could be frozen.

He argues that the approach would better preserve network value, but also acknowledges it would be difficult to gain consensus because it cuts against Bitcoin’s “not your keys, not your coins” culture for users who lose access and cannot migrate.

He says that such a forced liquidation would undermine confidence in Bitcoin’s “hard money” thesis and could trigger a deep bear market.

Meanwhile, the Bitcoin community is not standing still, and proposals are being pushed to mitigate the risks.

A draft proposal, BIP 360, is now in the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals repository.

It introduces Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR), a proposed soft fork output type designed to reduce certain long-term quantum risks and pave the way for future post-quantum signature integration.

The draft explicitly says it is a first step and notes that protection against faster “short exposure” attacks may still require post-quantum signatures.

Outside of crypto, standards bodies are also pushing institutions to start preparing.

NIST says organizations should begin migrating systems to quantum-resistant cryptography, reflecting a broader shift toward long-lead planning rather than last-minute reaction.

That supports the idea that the market debate is moving from “if” to “when and how.”

For Bitcoin investors, that leaves a narrower question than the headline suggests. The issue is not whether quantum computers can break Bitcoin today.

The issue is whether Bitcoin can show sufficient visible progress along an upgrade path to prevent quantum risk from becoming a larger discount in an already fragile market.

The post Bitcoin may tumble toward $30,000 next year unless it shows real progress toward quantum proof upgrades appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin has until the end of the year to recover, or the Power Law will be invalidated.

The Power Law model isn't a prophecy. It's a time-based regression that treats Bitcoin's long-run price path as a power curve, and the “deadline” talk centers on a rising floor. Better yet, a lower band that rises every day, regardless of the price.

If Bitcoin chops sideways or sells off through the fall, that floor eventually catches up to price, creating the first headline break of a model that's held for the asset's entire history.

As of mid-February 2026, Newhedge's live Power Law tracker shows the central trendline near $121,733 and the floor near $51,128.

Bitcoin trades around $67,000 as of press time, well above the floor, but far below the trend.

The floor isn't static. Because the model is anchored to time since Bitcoin's genesis block on Jan. 3, 2009, and grows roughly to the power of 5.8, the floor drifts upward by about 0.093% per day, or roughly $47 per day at current levels.

By Oct. 1, the floor is projected to be around $62,700. By Oct. 31, it hits approximately $64,400. By year-end, it reaches $68,000.

That means if Bitcoin stays flat near $67,000 through the fall, the floor catches it by mid-December. Any serious dip below the mid-$60,000s in the fourth quarter turns into a “first break” narrative.

Related Reading

Can the Bitcoin Power Law model save the bull run?

The range that matters: $48k floor to $492k top, with the top increasing over time.

Oct 31, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The model in plain English

The Bitcoin Power Law family of charts fits the asset's long-run price trajectory to a power curve in time, often visualized as a straight line on a log-log plot.

Newhedge frames it as a long-term log-log power-law model and attributes it to astrophysicist Giovanni Santostasi, with prices growing roughly to the power of 5.8 over time.

Most versions aren't single lines, but corridors. A central regression represents “trend” or “fair value,” and parallel upper and lower rails act as “resistance” and “support.”

Santostasi frames his Power Law Theory as an attempt to describe Bitcoin as a scale-invariant growth system and argues that it is scientific and falsifiable.

That framing matters. If the model is falsifiable, it needs a pre-committed rule, such as a weekly close below the floor for a specified number of weeks. Without that rule, any break can be dismissed as noise.

Related Reading

Is the Bitcoin Power Law model more realistic than Stock-to-Flow?

Astrophysicist Giovanni Santostasi's BTC Scaling Law has garnered significant attention recently.

Jan 31, 2024 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Why October matters

The October deadline is shorthand for time tightening.

Because the model is time-based, the floor rises every day even if Bitcoin does nothing. That turns sideways markets into a countdown narrative. By late October, the floor enters the mid-$60,000s.

Any sustained price action below that level creates a clean headline: “Bitcoin breaks Power Law floor for the first time.”

But a floor break wouldn't “invalidate Bitcoin.” It would invalidate a specific parameterization, such as the site, bands, and data source.

It would signal a regime change relative to the historical fit, suggesting slower growth than the long-run curve implies. And it would hand critics a clean narrative. Log-log regressions can look stable in-sample but be statistically fragile.

Amdax's Tim Stolte has been a widely circulated critic on precisely these grounds, arguing that power-law fits to Bitcoin are spurious correlations driven by sample window sensitivity.

A 4-to-6% drawdown from current levels, enough to tag or break a mid-$60,000 floor, isn't exotic. It's routine volatility. One-month at-the-money implied volatility on Bitcoin recently sat around 51.77% on Feb. 10.

Deribit's DVOL explainer provides a rule of thumb for converting annualized volatility to the expected daily move: divide by the square root of 365, roughly 19. That translates to expected single-day swings in the mid-single-digit percentage range.

A sharp risk-off episode could easily push Bitcoin into the low $60,000s or below.

Fidelity's Jurrien Timmer has publicly framed roughly $65,000 as a “line in the sand” level, referencing power-law-style trend framing. That helps the story feel less like crypto numerology and more like a widely watched psychological level that happens to rhyme with the model's rising floor.

When institutional voices cite the same zone, the model's band becomes a self-fulfilling coordination point.

Related Reading

Using Power Laws to predict when the Bitcoin price will hit $1 million

In the current bull run, a new predictive model based on universal power laws emerges, potentially forecasting Bitcoin's future prices with unprecedented precision.

May 18, 2024 · Rajagopal Menon

Three scenarios for the fourth quarter

There are three potential scenarios for the fourth quarter.

The first is the “chop is dangerous” frame. Even if Bitcoin is flat, the floor rises toward it. Every week of consolidation shrinks the cushion. By late October, the buffer disappears entirely if the price stays near current levels.

Second, the “volatility makes breaks plausible” frame. Mid-teens monthly move magnitudes are normal given the current implied volatility. A 4-to-6% drawdown is not an outlier event.

If Bitcoin gaps down on a macro surprise or on accelerated ETF outflows, the floor gets tested immediately.

Third, the “mainstream anchor” frame. The mid-$60,000s keep showing up not just in power-law charts but in institutional commentary. That makes the zone a coordination point.

When enough participants treat a level as significant, it becomes significant through reflexivity.

The model ignores drivers, yet drivers determine where Bitcoin trades within the channel. Two variables matter most: ETF flow regime and risk-off volatility bursts.

Bitcoin has recently been trading in an environment where ETF demand is discussed as cooling or turning. US spot Bitcoin ETFs drove the rally from late 2023 through early 2024, but flows have moderated.

If outflows accelerate or inflows stall, the marginal bid weakens.

Additionally, recent sharp downside moves have been tied to broader risk sentiment, such as equity market stress, inflation surprises, and geopolitical shocks.

Those are exactly the regimes that create “gap risk” relative to a smooth trendline. The power-law model assumes continuous compounding. Real markets have discontinuities.

What a break would mean

A floor break would not “invalidate Bitcoin.” It would invalidate a specific parameterization, signal a regime change versus the historical fit, or hand critics a clean narrative.

Log-log regressions can look stable in-sample but be statistically fragile. They're vulnerable to spurious correlation risk, sensitivity to sample window, and overfitting.

However, the debate is becoming scientific again.

A recent academic preprint from February 2026 agrees that the Bitcoin price is approximately power-law-in-time but finds a different slope, roughly 4.2, on 2011-to-February-2026 data.

The paper argues that “activity-warped time,” which adjusts the time axis for volatility and transaction volume, improves fit and out-of-sample performance. Even sympathetic research sees parameter instability.

The power-law model isn't wrong. It's a first-order approximation that evolves as the system matures.

What to watch

Distance-to-floor, updated weekly, is the cleanest tracker. Whether “break” means a wick, a daily close, or a weekly close should be defined upfront.

Volatility regime matters: if implied vol pops, the probability of a floor tag rises mechanically. ETF flow headlines and macro risk-off episodes are the “why now” drivers that would push prices into the testing range.

Model disagreement itself is worth tracking. Different parameterizations produce different floors.
Some use the genesis block as the starting point. Others anchor to the first exchange price. Some refit annually. Others hold parameters fixed.

Those choices create meaningful divergence. A break on one chart might not show up on another.
The October deadline isn't a prophecy. It's a mechanical consequence of a time-based regression. The floor rises every day.

If Bitcoin chops sideways or sells off, the floor catches up. By late October, the cushion disappears.

Whether that matters depends on whether you believe the model has predictive power or is just a curve-fitted historical artifact. Either way, the next eight months will provide a clean test.

The post If Bitcoin stays near $67k, it breaks the Power Law floor by mid-December appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum’s new roadmap lands in a market that is less interested in vision and more interested in evidence.

That is the core tension behind the Ethereum Foundation’s Protocol Priorities Update for 2026, which breaks the network’s next phase into three tracks, including Scale, Improve UX, and Harden the L1.

The roadmap is technical, but the market question is not. Investors want to know whether these priorities can help ETH recover in this bear market, and whether they can do so by changing risk and economics rather than just developer sentiment.

That is why the Foundation’s framing matters. It is not selling one upgrade. It presents a system-level argument that Ethereum can simultaneously increase capacity, reduce user friction, and harden the base layer.

If that works, the market may assign a lower risk premium to ETH and become more willing to pay for Ethereum’s long-term role as a settlement layer.

Related Reading

Ethereum is testing Wall Street resolve as fund flows flip while a $1,800 retest looms

Ethereum ETFs experience mixed inflows and outflows, highlighting investor indecision during market slide.

Feb 12, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Scale is where the economic case gets judged

The most market-relevant part of the 2026 roadmap sits in the Scale track.

The Ethereum Foundation says the community has already raised Ethereum’s gas limit from 30 million to 60 million, the first significant increase since 2021.

The next target is progress toward and beyond 100 million, with execution and data availability work organized more tightly.

That is not just engineering housekeeping. It is a direct response to a competitive pressure that has defined this cycle.

Related Reading

Crypto privacy has turned into an economic crisis as MEV bots siphon millions and most users still leak everything

Confidential execution, encrypted mempools, and selective disclosure are rising, but the winners will be whoever makes privacy boring by default.

Feb 17, 2026 · Gino Matos

Ethereum needs to support more economic activity without pricing out users, while preserving the decentralization and neutrality that made institutions comfortable with the chain in the first place.

In light of this, two pieces inside the Scale track matter most for market structure.

One is ePBS (enshrined proposer-builder separation), which the Foundation identifies as part of Glamsterdam’s scaling components, alongside repricings and additional increases to the blob parameter.

ePBS is deeply technical, but its market significance is clearer than it looks. It addresses a long-standing concern about MEV extraction and the centralization pressure in block building.

If block production becomes more predictable and more credibly neutral, Ethereum reduces one of the structural risks that has made some investors cautious about its long-term security and governance profile.

The second is the zkEVM attester client, which the Foundation says is moving from prototype to production readiness.

That is an important signal because it suggests Ethereum’s future scaling is not only about external rollups operating on the base chain. It is also about making verification and proving feel more native to Ethereum’s core stack, and more robust in a way institutions can underwrite.

Put simply, the Scale track is not only about throughput. It is about preserving Ethereum’s economic relevance while reducing the perception that scaling requires too many tradeoffs.

That matters for price, but indirectly. Markets usually reward higher capacity only when they believe the added capacity can support durable, monetizable demand.

UX and L1 hardening are the risk premium story

The other two tracks, Improve UX and Harden the L1, deliver less immediate headlines, but they may yield more for Ethereum’s discount rate over time.

The Foundation says 2026 usability work will focus on native account abstraction and interoperability, with the goal of making smart contract wallets the default without the bundler and relayer complexity that slowed earlier designs.

It also points to EIP-7701 and EIP-8141 as steps toward embedding smart-account logic more directly in the protocol.

This sounds like product design, but it is also a market issue.

Wallet friction remains one of the biggest hidden obstacles to broader adoption. Cheaper transactions do not matter much if onboarding still feels complex and error-prone.

If Ethereum can reduce the number of signatures, simplify cross-chain behavior, and make wallets safer by default, it improves the odds that consumer and enterprise activity actually sticks.

The Foundation also ties this work to post-quantum readiness, arguing that native account abstraction creates a cleaner migration path away from today’s ECDSA-based authentication, while work continues to make quantum-resistant signature verification more gas-efficient.

That is not a near-term catalyst, but it is exactly the kind of future-proofing that long-duration capital tends to notice.

The Harden the L1 track completes the message.

The Foundation frames it as preserving core properties through security hardening, censorship-resistance research, and stronger test infrastructure to support a faster fork cadence.

It points to the Trillion Dollar Security Initiative and work such as post-execution transaction assertions and trustless RPCs. It also highlights FOCIL (EIP-7805), plus extensions spanning blobs and statelessness research, and an effort to develop measurable censorship-resistance metrics.

For institutional allocators, this is not optional. It is the base case.

Ethereum increasingly competes for roles that demand high trust, including stablecoin settlement, tokenized funds, and other real-world financial use cases.

Those markets care less about headline transaction counts than they do about whether the base layer remains secure, neutral, and predictable under stress.

The Foundation is trying to show that Ethereum can scale without weakening those properties.

If markets believe that, the reward is not only more usage. It is a lower perceived risk premium for ETH.

Ethereum still has gravity, but the fee story looks weak

Despite all of these great plans, the problem is that ETH trades on current optics as much as future design.

Right now, Ethereum’s fundamentals describe a network that is functional and active, but optically cheap on the metric many investors still use to judge ETH’s value capture, fees.

Gas prices are around 0.038 gwei on Etherscan’s tracker, which is extremely low. YCharts puts Ethereum network transaction fees per day at about 140.8 ETH, down roughly 40% year over year.

That is good for users and builders. It supports adoption. It makes more applications economically viable.

However, it also weakens the cleanest version of the post-EIP-1559 narrative. If transactions are cheap, and fee revenue stays low, then more usage does not automatically translate into stronger burn and tighter supply.

In other words, Ethereum can be winning on utility while still looking weak on the scoreboard that many ETH investors watch first.

This is where Ethereum’s role has shifted rather than shrunk.

The network still anchors a large part of the on-chain economy, but more of that economic activity now sits across its layer 2 networks.

Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, recently acknowledged this problem and conceded that Ethereum needs “a new path” that relies less on layer-2 networks.

According to him:

“The original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path.”

However, as these networks mature, the open question is how much of that growth accrues to ETH, and how quickly investors can see it in the numbers.

What would make the roadmap matter to ETH price?

So, can the Ethereum Foundation’s priorities help ETH recover from this bear market? Yes, but mostly by improving the setup quality.

This is consistent with asset manager 21Shares’ position, which ties ETH upside to specific conditions.

This includes the need for L2 activity to either drive a rebound in ETH burn or introduce structural mechanisms that better align L2 value accrual with mainnet economics.

The new roadmap can help achieve this if Ethereum moves toward and beyond 100 million gas, advances blob scaling, makes smart wallets feel native, and preserves censorship resistance and security at the base layer.

This would improve the odds that Ethereum remains the preferred settlement layer for on-chain dollars and tokenized assets. It can also make the next adoption wave easier to underwrite.

However, what it cannot do on its own is force ETF inflows to reverse or instantly restore a high-fee regime.

The post Ethereum’s 2026 roadmap just hit — but ETH won’t recover until one metric flips appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The $XRP Ledger (XRPL) has secured a major institutional victory as Société Générale, the 6th largest bank in Europe with $1.8 trillion in assets, officially deployed its euro stablecoin, EUR CoinVertible (EURCV), on the network. This move marks the third major blockchain for the MiCA-compliant token, following its earlier launches on Ethereum and Solana.

Quick Facts: The Institutional Surge on XRPL

• Société Générale: Launched EURCV on XRPL via its digital arm, SG-FORGE, on February 18, 2026.
• Multi-Chain Strategy: XRPL now hosts EURCV alongside Ethereum (2023) and Solana (2025).
• Network Growth: XRPL reached #2 in 30-day Real-World Asset (RWA) growth at 15.37%, trailing only Arbitrum.
• Institutional Backing: Deutsche Bank and Aviva Investors also announced XRPL-based integrations this month.

Why Société Générale Chose the XRP Ledger

The deployment of EURCV on the XRP Ledger is not a simple experiment. As a systemically important financial institution, Société Générale requires high throughput and low-cost settlement. SG-FORGE cited the scalability and speed of the XRP Ledger as primary reasons for the integration.

Furthermore, the launch is supported by Ripple’s custody solution (formerly Metaco), which provides the bank with the security infrastructure needed to manage reserves and on-chain issuance. This partnership allows EURCV to potentially be utilized as trading collateral within Ripple’s payment products, bridging the gap between traditional finance (TradFi) and digital assets.

Deutsche Bank and Aviva Join the XRPL Ecosystem

The XRP news today follows a series of high-profile institutional announcements in February 2026.

• Deutsche Bank: Revealed plans to integrate Ripple’s technology stack to modernize its cross-border payment rails and FX workflows.
• Aviva Investors: Partnered with Ripple to tokenize traditional fund structures directly on the XRPL, marking Ripple’s first major deal with a UK-based asset manager.

These developments have pushed the total value of tokenized assets on the XRP Ledger to approximately $1.5 billion. While the XRP price has faced headwinds in February—trading near the $1.40 support level amid a broader market correction—the fundamental utility of the network is at an all-time high.

XRP Price Prediction and Market Reaction

Despite the bullish institutional news, the XRP price has remained under pressure, down roughly 30% for the month. Analysts at Standard Chartered suggest that while short-term retail demand has cooled, the long-term structural demand remains intact due to these RWA integrations.

Bitcoin ($BTC) is currently navigating a pivotal consolidation phase following a volatile start to February 2026. After hitting an all-time high of $126,100 in late 2025, the flagship cryptocurrency faced a sharp correction, dropping toward the $60,000 support zone earlier this month. As of today, February 21, 2026, Bitcoin is showing signs of recovery, trading near $68,162. The question for many traders is whether the current momentum is sufficient to propel the $Bitcoin price back above the psychological $70,000 threshold.

Will Bitcoin Price Reach $70,000?

The current technical setup suggests that Bitcoin is testing a significant overhead supply zone. Based on recent price action, the $70,000 to $71,000 range has acted as a "wall" for bulls. However, with the Stoch RSI showing a bullish crossover in the oversold region and price action stabilizing above the $65,000 support, the path toward $70,000 remains the primary short-term target. A sustained break above $68,500 is the immediate prerequisite for this move.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The 4-Hour Chart Outlook

The 4-hour chart reveals several critical layers of price action that traders must monitor:

Resistance and Support Levels

• Immediate Resistance: The first hurdle lies at $68,500, followed closely by a secondary resistance at $69,500.
• The 70K Barrier: The $70,000 mark is not just a psychological level but aligns with previous rejection points seen in mid-February.
• Critical Support: On the downside, $65,077 remains the "line in the sand." If BTC falls below this, a retest of the $60,000 psychological floor becomes likely.

Momentum Indicators

The Stoch RSI (3, 3, 14, 14) is currently trending upward in the upper bounds (around 96.37). While this indicates strong buying momentum, it also suggests the asset is entering "overbought" territory on the short-term timeframe. This typically precedes a minor cooling-off period or a sideways consolidation before the next leg up.

Market Sentiment and Macro Factors

The broader crypto news landscape in February 2026 has been dominated by a mix of "Extreme Fear" and cautious optimism. According to recent data from Santiment, the "Lambo" memes and retail FOMO have largely dried up, which contrarian analysts view as a healthy sign for a sustainable bottom.

Bitcoin Price Prediction: What will Happen to BTC Price?

For those looking to trade the current range, comparing platforms is essential to ensure low slippage during high-volatility breaks. Check our exchange comparison to find the best liquidity providers for BTC/USD.

• Bullish Scenario: A daily close above $69,500 would likely trigger a liquidations-driven spike toward $72,000, effectively reclaiming the $70k handle.
• Bearish Scenario: Failure to breach $68,500 could result in a "double top" on the 4-hour chart, leading back to the $64,000 - $65,000 zone.

Regardless of the direction, securing your assets in hardware wallets is recommended during these periods of high macro uncertainty.

Conclusion: The Road to $70,000

Bitcoin is in a "wait-and-see" mode. While the technicals on the 4-hour chart lean bullish with the recovery from the $64,000 lows, the overhead resistance at $70,000 remains formidable. If the current neutral sentiment shifts toward a relief rally, the end of February could see Bitcoin firmly back in the $70,000 - $75,000 range.

The "Digital Gold" Debate Returns

In the world of finance, Bitcoin has long been touted as "digital gold"—a decentralized asset that thrives when traditional systems falter. However, as the threat of a direct USA-Iran military engagement looms in 2026, the reality of market mechanics often tells a different story.

Investors are currently weighing two opposing forces: the immediate "risk-off" panic that typically triggers a crypto sell-off, and the long-term narrative of Bitcoin as a hedge against currency debasement and sovereign risk. To understand what might happen next, we must look at the data from the 2024 and 2025 escalations.

Will Prices Go Up or Down?

Based on historical data from similar events in 2024 and 2025, the short-term answer is almost always down. Whenever a major missile strike or a declaration of war occurs, $Bitcoin and altcoins typically experience an immediate "flash crash" ranging from 5% to 15%. However, these dips are often followed by rapid recoveries once the initial shock subsides, sometimes leading to new highs within months.

Geopolitical Risk and "Risk-Off" Sentiment

In financial terms, a "Risk-Off" environment occurs when investors move capital away from volatile assets (like stocks and crypto) and into perceived safe havens (like the US Dollar, Gold, or Treasury bonds). Even though Bitcoin is decentralized, it is still categorized by institutional traders as a "high-beta" risk asset, meaning it often moves in tandem with—but more violently than—the stock market during a crisis.

Comparative Crypto Analysis: Lessons from 2024 and 2025

To predict the future, we look at the three most significant escalations between Iran, Israel, and the West in the last two years.

1. April 2024: Iran Attacks Israel

When Iran launched a barrage of drones and missiles at Israel in April 2024, the crypto market reacted instantly.

1. $BTC Movement: Bitcoin fell nearly 8%, dropping from approximately $67,000 to $61,000 in a single Saturday night session.
2. Altcoin Impact: Ethereum ($ETH) and Solana ($SOL) saw even steeper declines, with some altcoins losing up to 20% in value within hours.
3. Recovery: The market stabilized within 48 hours as it became clear the escalation would not immediately lead to a full-scale regional war.

2. June 2025: Israel’s "Operation Midnight Hammer"

In mid-2025, Israel conducted direct strikes on Iranian soil. This event was particularly notable because Bitcoin was trading at much higher levels (above $100,000) at the time.

1. BTC Movement: The price dipped from $110,000 to $103,000—a sharp but relatively contained 6% correction.
2. Market Sentiment: According to data from Coinglass, over $1 billion in long positions were liquidated in 24 hours.
3. The "Springboard" Effect: Surprisingly, within two months of this conflict, Bitcoin rallied 62% to hit new all-time highs, proving that war-related volatility can often act as a local bottom.

3. Early 2026: The Current Landscape

As of February 2026, the market is more fragile. Following a massive liquidation event in late 2025, Bitcoin has been struggling to hold the $65,000–$70,000 range. A US strike on Iran now would likely be a "de-risking" event, where investors seek immediate liquidity.

Why Crypto Drops During War Headlines

There are three primary reasons why crypto prices nosedive when the USA or its allies attack Iran:

• Liquidity Crises: Large hedge funds often sell their most liquid winners (like BTC) to cover margin calls on other failing positions or to move into cash.
• Oil and Inflation: Conflict with Iran often leads to spikes in oil prices. This raises inflation fears, which in turn leads the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates high—a major bearish factor for crypto.
• Regulatory Fears: During wartime, governments often tighten controls on capital flows to prevent "sanctions evasion," which can lead to crackdowns on exchanges.

The Case for the Upside: When Does Bitcoin Rise?

While the initial reaction is bearish, Bitcoin often rises in the medium term during geopolitical conflict for several reasons:

• Capital Flight: In countries directly affected by war or sanctions (like Iran), citizens often turn to Bitcoin to preserve their wealth as their local currency collapses.
• Alternative Financial System: If the conflict leads to the "weaponization" of the US dollar (e.g., cutting countries off from SWIFT), the narrative for a neutral, decentralized currency grows stronger.
• Safe Haven Maturity: As the market matures, more institutional investors may begin to treat Bitcoin like gold, especially if the traditional banking system shows signs of stress during the crisis.

Navigation Strategy for Traders

If the USA attacks Iran in 2026, history suggests we should expect a sharp, painful dip followed by a period of extreme volatility. For long-term holders, these dips have historically been excellent buying opportunities. However, for those using high leverage, such events are often account-ending.

The 2026 Market Context: A Sea of Red

The first two months of 2026 have been a reality check for many investors. Following a volatile 2025, $Bitcoin has struggled to maintain its momentum, currently trading down 23% since the January 1st open. This bearish pressure has permeated the crypto news cycle, as liquidations and neutral-to-negative funding rates signal a defensive shift.

Despite this, the "decoupling" of specific utility-driven assets is more apparent than ever. Investors are moving away from speculative "beta" plays and towards projects with "Expertise" and "Experience" in their respective niches.

Top 5 Altcoins that are UP in 2026

1. Kite ($KITE): +165% YTD

In the intersection of AI and blockchain, Kite has outperformed nearly every other token in the segment. Kite focuses on providing the "plumbing" for autonomous AI agents.

• The Catalyst: The imminent launch of the Kite AI mainnet on Avalanche and record-breaking daily agent interactions (over 1 million).
• Performance: Leading its sector, KITE has rallied 165% YTD, holding strong even as other AI tokens like Bittensor face headwinds.
• Why it's winning: Whale activity on-chain suggests coordinated capital movement ahead of the PoAI (Proof of Artificial Intelligence) consensus activation.

2. Stable ($STABLE): +117% YTD

While not a traditional "volatile" altcoin, the STABLE ecosystem (referring to the governance/yield layer of new-gen compliant stablecoins) has grown as institutional liquidity shifts.

• The Catalyst: The "structural bifurcation" of the market into regulated vs. offshore liquidity.
• Performance: The token has appreciated 117% as its underlying vaults capture record yields from tokenized RWA (Real World Assets) on Morpho and LayerZero.
• Why it's winning: 2026 is the year stablecoins "go to work," transitioning from crypto plumbing to essential payment infrastructure.

3. Morpho ($MORPHO): +46% YTD

The DeFi lending sector has seen a resurgence in 2026, led by Morpho. Unlike monolithic lending protocols, Morpho’s "isolated markets" approach has finally caught the eye of institutional curators.

• The Catalyst: On February 13, 2026, the Morpho Association announced a cooperation agreement with Apollo Global Management, allowing the firm to acquire up to 90 million tokens.
• Performance: Currently trading near $1.51, MORPHO has gained over 46% this year.
• Why it's winning: The anticipation for Morpho V2, which allows markets to price risk externally rather than through fixed protocol formulas, is driving accumulation.

4. Decred ($DCR): +45% YTD

A surprise veteran performer, Decred has capitalized on its hybrid PoW/PoS governance model as users seek "sovereign" assets during market uncertainty.

• The Catalyst: Renewed interest in privacy-focused, community-governed protocols that resist centralizing forces.
• Performance: DCR has seen a steady climb, currently sitting at 45% YTD gains after a significant mid-January breakout.
• Why it's winning: As regulatory scrutiny on "event contracts" and prediction markets intensifies (notably with platforms like Kalshi), Decred's decentralized decision-making is seen as a safer haven for long-term holders.

5. LayerZero ($ZRO): +31% YTD

LayerZero has emerged as a top performer following the announcement of its new Layer 1 blockchain, Zero. The project made waves in mid-February by revealing a modular architecture capable of 2 million transactions per second (TPS).

• The Catalyst: Strategic backing from Wall Street giants like Citadel Securities and ARK Invest.
• Performance: ZRO surged from a local low of $1.69 during the February crash to over $2.50, maintaining a YTD gain of roughly 31%.
• Why it's winning: The integration with Google Cloud to facilitate AI agent micropayments has positioned ZRO as a leader in the infrastructure race.

In a historic 6-3 decision delivered today, February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the sweeping "emergency" tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The court ruled that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to bypass Congress was an unlawful expansion of executive authority. This decision immediately invalidates billions in ongoing duties and triggers a massive fiscal scramble as corporations seek up to $175 billion in potential refunds.

A "Tax Cut" for Markets

For investors, this is an immediate bullish signal. The ruling effectively acts as a retroactive, large-scale tax cut for U.S. importers. As billions in capital are slated to return to corporate balance sheets, analysts expect a surge in market liquidity. Assets like $BTC are already showing sensitivity to the news, as increased dollar liquidity historically flows into high-growth, digital assets.

The Ruling: Why SCOTUS Sided Against the President

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that while the President has broad powers in national emergencies, the power to levy taxes—including tariffs—resides strictly with Congress.

• The "Emergency" Loophole Closed: The court rejected the administration's argument that trade deficits and fentanyl flows constituted a "national emergency" sufficient to trigger IEEPA for tariff purposes.
• Refund Mechanisms: While the court didn't outline a specific repayment timeline, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) is expected to oversee the refund process, which could see over $130–$175 billion returned to the private sector.

Market Impact: Why Crypto and Stocks are Reacting

The removal of these tariffs provides a dual-engine for a market rally:

• Inflation Relief: Removing the "tariff tax" eases upward pressure on consumer prices. This gives the Federal Reserve more breathing room, potentially sustaining a "risk-on" environment for crypto news and equities.
• Corporate Margins: Major retailers and tech firms (heavy importers) will see an immediate improvement in margins. This excess cash is frequently diverted into stock buybacks or diversified into liquid reserves like $Bitcoin.

Risks: Government Revenue Gap and "Backup Plans"

Despite the euphoria, the U.S. government now faces a $175 billion revenue hole. President Trump has already hinted at a "backup plan," potentially utilizing Section 232 (National Security) or Section 301 (Unfair Trade) to keep some levies in place. Furthermore, Treasury rates may rise as the government is forced to borrow more to cover the refund liabilities.

Ethereum developers scheduled a controversial upgrade for later this year. Buterin said it reinforces the network’s cypherpunk principles.

Researchers built AdGazer, a machine learning tool that predicts whether you'll actually look at a digital ad—before it's ever shown to you.

At ETH Denver, developers warned that advances in quantum computing could threaten Bitcoin’s digital signatures as the industry continues to debate how to prepare.

Bitcoin is down 46% from its October peak—and the largest holders keep depositing to exchanges, presumably to sell, says CryptoQuant.

Eric Trump called the offering a balance against meme coins, as the tokenization project has a lengthy timeline.

XRP is seeing rising optimism as its price begins to move to the positive side of the market, sparking a decent surge in its futures activity.

BlackRock has set to offer 83% staking rewards to investors amid plans to launch a new Ethereum staking ETF to boost Ethereum adoption.

Crypto news digest: Ripple Ex-CTO criticizes Logan Paul; $2 Billion in BTC scooped up by whales; Ripple partners with Deutsche Bank; SHIB price enters consolidation.

SBI Holdings has announced the launch of on-chain security token bonds that offer XRP payments to investors while utilizing XRP Ledger.

XRP's volatility has dropped to levels last seen in 2024, with analysts signaling that a major move might be brewing.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin has recovered to a new all-time high after every 40–50% correction recorded between 2014 and 2026. 
• The average trough-to-cycle-high multiple across nine correction events sits at approximately 3.4 times the low. 
• Recovery time within this correction range averages 9 to 14 months, far shorter than full bear market timelines. 
• Bitcoin’s maximum drawdown severity has declined each cycle, dropping from 84% in 2018 to roughly 50% today.

Bitcoin’s historical price behavior shows a consistent pattern that long-term analysts have tracked for over a decade.

When the asset drops between 40% and 50% from a cycle peak, it has recovered to new all-time highs in every recorded instance since 2014.

As of February 21, 2026, Bitcoin trades near $67,707, down roughly 47–50% from its October 2025 peak of $124,700. That places the current drawdown squarely within this historically notable correction range.

What Defines a 40–50% Correction in Bitcoin’s Cycle

A 40–50% correction refers to a drawdown from a running cycle peak to its lowest trough, with the maximum decline falling between those two percentages.

The peak is measured as the running high before a new high is set. The trough marks the deepest point of the pullback before recovery begins.

According to an analysis by market commentator Adam Livingston, the dataset covers daily Bitcoin price history from 2014 through February 20, 2026.

It identifies roughly nine distinct events fitting this correction definition. Only closed events count, meaning the drawdown period ends only when a new all-time high is confirmed.

This definition deliberately excludes deeper bear market crashes, where losses exceed 70%. Those recoveries typically take much longer. The 40–50% bucket behaves differently, and the data treats it as a separate category of market behavior.

Key Data Points From Nine Historical Events

The average multiple from the correction trough to the next cycle high sits at approximately 3.4 times. The range across all events runs from roughly 1.8 times on the lower end to 5.6 times at the top. That range reflects how different each recovery can be in magnitude.

Livingston noted that even the one event that eventually rolled into a deeper bear market still produced a roughly 116% gain and reached a new all-time high just after the 365-day mark.

As he wrote, “Even the ‘bad’ one still embarrassed the skeptics.” That recovery happened despite the correction preceding an extended downturn.

Average recovery time to a prior high within this correction range runs approximately 9 to 14 months. Full bear markets, by comparison, have historically taken 24 to 36 months or longer to recover. That represents a notably faster timeline for this specific correction bucket.

The Current Setup and What History Suggests

As of February 21, 2026, Bitcoin sits around $67,707. The October 2025 peak reached $124,700, placing the current drawdown at approximately 47–50%. That range matches the textbook entry zone identified across the historical dataset.

Livingston also pointed out that Bitcoin has shown early rebound behavior, trading roughly 8% above its February 5 low.

Historically, these initial snapbacks tend to follow a period where forced selling exhausts itself and selling pressure drops. The pattern repeats across multiple cycles in the data.

Beyond the current setup, the analysis also noted that maximum drawdown severity has decreased over successive cycles. The 2018 bear market saw drawdowns near 84%.

The 2022 cycle reached around 77%. The current cycle’s largest drawdown sits near 50%, which suggests growing market depth and stronger structural demand over time.

The post Is Bitcoin Current 47–50% Drawdown the Same Pattern That Has Always Led to New All-Time Highs? appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• STRC faces a major tailwind as U.S. money market funds lose $233.7 billion annually from a projected 300bps rate drop

• STRC pays 11.25% annually with $2.25 billion in cash reserves covering over 2.5 years of dividends at 5.6x overcollateralization

• A 0.5% rotation from money markets into STRC could generate $2–$4 billion, funding the purchase of up to 80,000 Bitcoin

• Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings could grow 13%–34% if STRC scales to $10–$20 billion in notional value by the year 2028

STRC, Strategy’s Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock, is drawing growing institutional attention as the Federal Reserve advances its rate-cutting cycle into 2026.

U.S. money market funds now hold $7.79 trillion, currently yielding between 4.5% and 5%. Analysts project yields on those funds could fall by 300 basis points.

That drop could push hundreds of billions toward high-yield alternatives. Trading near $100 par on Nasdaq and paying 11.25% annually, STRC stands positioned at that crossroads.

Fed Rate Cuts Threaten Hundreds of Billions in Annual Income

U.S. money market fund yields remain elevated from the prior rate-hiking cycle. However, the Fed has already moved 125 basis points into the current easing cycle, with markets pricing in another 75–100 basis points ahead.

Analysts expect front-end yields to compress toward 1%–2%, replicating the post-2008 and 2020 patterns.

A 300-basis-point decline across $7.79 trillion in money market assets equals roughly $233.7 billion in lost annual income.

Pensions, insurers, and corporate treasuries cannot simply absorb that loss. They are historically known to pursue higher-yielding alternatives when safe returns erode.

EPFR and McKinsey data indicate that for every 100-basis-point drop in short-term rates, alternative and high-yield vehicles see 10%–20% accelerated inflows within 12–18 months.

A 5%–10% rotation out of money markets alone could direct $390–$780 billion toward private credit, listed preferred stocks, and similar instruments.

STRC Positioned to Capture Institutional Yield Demand

STRC currently trades at $99.82 with an effective annual yield of 11.27%, paying dividends every month. Its notional value already stands at $3.458 billion. Average daily trading volume runs at approximately $128 million, reflecting growing market participation.

Analyst Adam Livingston wrote on X: “STRC sits at the perfect nexus because it’s liquid, high-yield, and structurally engineered to vacuum up the dumbest, most desperate money on Earth.”

He added that Strategy holds $2.25 billion in cash reserves, covering more than 2.5 years of dividends at 5.6 times overcollateralization.

If only 0.5% of projected capital rotation flows into STRC, that equals $2–$4 billion in new capital. At $100 par, that creates 20–40 million new shares issued. Proceeds from those shares go directly toward Strategy’s Bitcoin acquisition program.

Bitcoin Supply Could Face Pressure from STRC’s Expansion

Each $1 billion raised through STRC issuance allows Strategy to purchase approximately 14,700 Bitcoin at a $68,000 spot price.

A $4 billion capital inflow translates to roughly 58,800–80,000 additional Bitcoin removed from the open market.

Strategy currently holds 717,000 BTC. Analysts project STRC could scale to $10–$20 billion in notional value by 2028.

That growth range would add an estimated 95,000–242,000 Bitcoin to Strategy’s treasury, a 13%–34% increase in total holdings.

That accumulated buying would represent 8%–11% of annual Bitcoin issuance. Livingston noted: “Do that at scale and you’re talking supply-shock math that makes ETF inflows look quaint.”

Post-GFC private credit grew more than seven times as rate cuts redirected capital toward yield-bearing alternatives, and Bitcoin compounded sharply during each of those liquidity-driven periods.

The post STRC Yield Play: How Fed Rate Cuts Could Drive Billions Into Strategy’s Bitcoin Machine appeared first on Blockonomi.

Ever notice how the biggest opportunities show up when most people are too scared to look? That is exactly what is happening in crypto right now.

Robinhood just launched a blockchain testnet that processed 4 million transactions in its first week. Traditional finance is building deeper into crypto, not pulling back. At the same time, roughly $1 trillion was wiped from total crypto capitalization over recent months.

This disconnect between institutional building and retail fear creates a rare setup. And one presale is catching both crowds.

Pepeto: Investors Migrate for Utility and Explosive Upside

Traders and investors are actively moving toward projects that deliver actual usable tools instead of flashy promises. And Pepeto is at the center of that shift.

While most tokens fight to regain any kind of momentum in today’s volatile market, Pepeto offers something almost nobody else does at this stage: three working demo products. A cross chain swap, a bridge, and an exchange. Not concepts. Not wireframes. Working technology backed by dual audits from SolidProof and Coinsult.

Among these tools, the cross chain bridge stands out. Investors can move assets between blockchains without centralized intermediaries. That infrastructure turns Pepeto from a meme coin into something that could power an entire trading ecosystem.

Remember Pepecoin? It went from nothing to a $7 billion market cap. Zero products. Zero audits. Now imagine the same meme power plus working technology and a connection to the original Pepe cofounder.

Pepeto has raised over $7.258M so far at a price of $0.000000185. The presale is over 70% filled. The tokenomics carry a 0% buy and sell tax. And staking at 212% APY means a $20,000 position would generate roughly $42,400 in annual staking rewards.

But here is what really matters for investors thinking bigger. Staking is a holding bonus. The real play is what happens to your position when listings hit. If Pepeto captures even a sliver of the meme coin market that turned PEPE into a multi billion dollar token, the math on a 100x to 300x return is not wishful thinking. It is pattern recognition.

By providing real utility during a period of peak fear, Pepeto positions early investors to benefit from both adoption driven growth and price surges once market conditions flip. The presale window will not stay open much longer.

Avalanche Teases Recovery as AVAX Pushes Above $9

AVAX pushed above $9 this week, climbing from $8.63 to roughly $9.34 by February 20. Not a dramatic surge, but it hints at traders testing the waters after heavy selling.

Solana Investors Eye $100 as SOL Consolidates Around $86

Solana rose modestly from $84 to $86 as it consolidates. A push toward $100 is on investors’ radar. Many are balancing SOL positions with early stage projects offering working tools, which is why Pepeto is drawing attention.

Conclusion

While the altcoin market searches for its footing, capital is flowing toward projects that prove they can deliver. That is where Pepeto stands out. Three demo products live. Dual audits complete. A community growing fast enough to remind you of the early days of every meme coin that went on to create millionaires.

In a market that rewards function over speculation, the presale window at $0.000000185 will not last. Act while it is still open.

Visit the official website to buy into the Pepeto Presale now, and visit X for the latest community updates.

FAQs

Why is Pepeto gaining traction while bigger tokens struggle? Pepeto combines meme coin energy with working infrastructure: a swap, bridge, and exchange. That mix of culture and utility is drawing investors away from tokens that only offer speculation.

How do Pepeto’s demo products work for presale buyers? Presale participants can test the cross chain swap, bridge, and exchange demos. This gives buyers a hands on look at the technology before full public launch.

Is the 212% staking APY the main reason to invest? Staking is a holding bonus, not the primary thesis. The real opportunity is the potential price multiple when Pepeto lists on exchanges and captures meme coin market share.

The post Pepeto Presale Surges Past $7M as Robinhood Tests Blockchain and Major Coins Crumble: Why Investors See a 300x Opportunity Here appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Vitalik Buterin argues AI used correctly can empower democratic governance rather than centralize control over it.

• Personal AI agents could vote on a user’s behalf by learning from their writing, history, and stated preferences.

• Public conversation tools can aggregate views across many participants before asking them to weigh in on decisions.

• Multi-party computation allows private governance decisions without exposing sensitive data to any single participant.

AI governance is at the center of a fresh discussion sparked by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. He argues that AI, when applied correctly, can push democratic and decentralized governance forward rather than replace it.

His post addresses a long-standing problem: most people lack the time to participate meaningfully in governance decisions.

With thousands of choices across many domains, the current model of delegation concentrates power in too few hands.

Personal AI Agents Could Reshape How People Vote

Buterin proposes using personal large language models to handle the attention problem in decentralized governance.

A personal governance agent could cast votes on a user’s behalf by studying their writing, conversations, and stated preferences. This approach keeps individuals connected to decision-making without requiring constant attention.

When an agent is unsure how a person would vote on a given issue, it would pause and ask them directly. It would also provide all relevant context before prompting any response. This design avoids blind delegation and keeps the individual informed on matters that count.

The model differs sharply from current delegation systems, where supporters often lose influence after pressing a single button.

A personal agent maintains ongoing alignment with the user’s values. It acts as a filter rather than a replacement for human judgment.

Public Conversation Tools Can Aggregate Views More Accurately

Buterin also raises concerns about how collective decisions are currently formed. Simply averaging people’s views based on their own limited information does not produce well-informed outcomes.

A better process would gather and combine information across many participants before asking them to respond.

He points to tools like LLM-enhanced versions of pol.is as one direction worth pursuing. These systems summarize what people have in common based on their actual words. They can surface shared ground that might otherwise stay hidden in large groups.

Additionally, a public conversation agent could translate a person’s views into a shareable format without exposing private details.

This makes broader participation possible without forcing individuals to be publicly identifiable. Anonymity tools using zero-knowledge proofs could support this further.

Multi-Party Computation Addresses Private Decision-Making

One major weakness of democratic governance is its struggle with confidential information. Negotiations, internal disputes, and compensation decisions often require secrecy that open voting cannot provide. Buterin suggests multi-party computation as a technical solution to this tension.

Under this model, a participant’s personal LLM would enter a secure environment, review private data, and output only a judgment.

Neither the participant nor anyone else would see the private information itself. Trusted Execution Environments, or TEEs, have already demonstrated this approach in practice.

Buterin also calls for greater use of garbled circuits to achieve pure cryptographic security in at least two-party cases.

Privacy, he notes, must cover both participant anonymity and the contents of their inputs. Zero-knowledge proofs and multi-party techniques together form the foundation he envisions for this system.

The post Vitalik Buterin Outlines How AI Could Strengthen Decentralized Governance appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• The SEC reduced the stablecoin capital haircut from 100% to 2%, in line with money market fund treatment. 
• Broker-dealers previously needed $2 million in capital reserves just to hold $1 million in stablecoins. 
• The rule change allows regulated firms to use stablecoins for settlement, collateral, and tokenized assets. 
• Lower capital requirements are expected to drive broader institutional demand and stablecoin adoption in 2026.

Stablecoins have cleared a major regulatory hurdle in 2026. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission revised capital treatment rules for broker-dealers holding stablecoins.

Previously, firms faced a 100% haircut on stablecoin holdings, making institutional use prohibitively costly. The SEC now aligns stablecoin treatment with money market funds at a 2% haircut.

This change removes a long-standing barrier for regulated institutions looking to adopt stablecoins in daily operations.

SEC Cuts Capital Burden on Broker-Dealers

Under the old framework, broker-dealers faced a steep capital penalty for holding stablecoins. A 100% haircut meant every dollar in stablecoins required an equal dollar set aside.

A firm holding $1 million in stablecoins effectively locked up $2 million in balance sheet capacity. That structure made stablecoins costly and unattractive for regulated financial institutions.

This arrangement gave Wall Street little reason to integrate stablecoins into daily operations. The capital cost far outweighed any operational benefit stablecoins could realistically offer.

Consequently, traditional finance largely stayed away from stablecoin use under these rules. Regulated broker-dealers could not incorporate them without visibly straining their capital ratios.

Crypto market commentary account Bull Theory addressed the change directly in a post. “The SEC has changed the rules, which forced Wall Street to need $2 million in capital to hold $1 million in stablecoins,” the account stated.

The revised haircut now stands at 2%, consistent with money market fund treatment. Firms now set aside only a small buffer rather than freezing the full amount.

This correction makes stablecoins balance sheet friendly for the first time under U.S. regulatory rules. Broker-dealers can now hold stablecoins without straining their capital positions or compliance standings.

The change applies broadly across regulated institutions operating in traditional finance. It stands as one of the most practical regulatory adjustments for crypto in 2026.

Stablecoin Integration Into Traditional Finance Now More Viable

With the capital burden reduced, broker-dealers can bring stablecoins into everyday institutional workflows. Settlement, collateral transfers, and tokenized treasury transactions all become accessible for regulated firms.

These are standard financial functions that previously excluded stablecoin participation entirely. The revised rule opens those operational pathways directly to Wall Street.

Stablecoins have long served as the bridge between traditional finance and crypto markets. That bridge becomes far more functional when institutions can cross it without a capital penalty.

Greater institutional participation strengthens stablecoins as core financial infrastructure over time. Demand grows as more firms incorporate stablecoins into routine operations.

More demand for stablecoins also supports broader crypto market activity going forward. Settlement becomes more efficient when institutions move stablecoins freely across platforms.

On-chain transactions grow more practical for regulated entities operating at meaningful scale. The crypto market gains a more reliable and institutional-grade liquidity layer as adoption expands.

This regulatory shift did not expand the risk profile of crypto for institutions. Rather, it corrected a disproportionate treatment inconsistent with comparable low-risk financial instruments.

Stablecoins backed by short-term assets were previously treated far more harshly than similar products. The 2% haircut now aligns regulatory treatment with the actual financial risk stablecoins carry.

The post Stablecoins Clear Major Regulatory Barrier as SEC Revises Capital Rules appeared first on Blockonomi.

The price of Solana’s native SOL token is near $84, after a steep, multi-month slide that erased nearly 67% from its September 2025 all-time high, with new on-chain data and community debates pointing to a network under strain.

The mixed signals matter because they show a split between falling market sentiment and activity metrics that suggest users have not abandoned the chain.

Security Patch Delays and Infrastructure Concerns

A February 19 report from Santiment noted that a significant source of recent frustration for the Solana community stems from a critical security scare in January. Client maintainers urged validators to upgrade to Agave/Jito v3.0.14 after disclosing vulnerabilities that could crash nodes and threaten consensus integrity.

Tim Garcia of the Solana Foundation urged operators to update quickly, but reports at the time said over half of validators were still on older versions, exposing the chain to potential risks.

This operational friction resurfaced in February when a network disruption rerouted U.S. traffic through Europe and Asia. While infrastructure providers like DoubleZero noted that such rerouting is a normal part of internet networking, for validators operating a high-speed chain, milliseconds matter.

These events have forced the market to pay closer attention to how smoothly Solana’s decentralized validator set can respond to pressure, as that response directly affects uptime and the safety of funds moving through DeFi.

The uncertainty is reflecting on SOL’s price, which earlier in the month fell 25% in a week to about $96, with analysts such as Ali Martinez warning that losing the $100 zone could open a path toward $74 or even $50.

At the time of writing, the asset was trading around the $84 level, down about 35% over the past month and more than 51% year-on-year. Shorter time frames show mild relief, with gains near 3% in 24 hours and about 6% in seven days, per CoinGecko data.

Technical indicators remain mixed. Some traders say a breakdown near $80 confirmed a bearish chart pattern, while others see a shorter-term setup that could push prices back toward $114 if resistance clears. Santiment added that deeply negative funding rates suggest many traders are betting against SOL, a setup that sometimes comes right before short squeezes.

Activity Growth Contrasts With Fading Hype

Despite the price pressure, Santiment reported rising daily wallet creation in February. That metric tracks new addresses interacting with the network and suggests ongoing user interest even in the face of weakening sentiment.

Exchange data also shows outflows exceeding inflows in recent weeks, a sign that some holders are moving tokens off trading platforms rather than preparing to sell.

Nevertheless, the current mood contrasts with earlier cycles that defined Solana’s culture. According to Santiment, traders still reference past events such as NFT booms, meme coin launches, and exchange-related shocks that once dominated online discussion.

More recently, app builder Zora shifted a new product from Base to Solana, charging about 1 SOL per creation, which sparked debate about incentives but also signaled ongoing developer interest.

Ultimately, Solana’s is a layered picture, with prices and online attention having fallen since late 2025, yet new wallets, active builders, and crowded short positions showing that participation has not disappeared.

The post Santiment: Solana Growth Signals Hope Despite Woes appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin holds more than 240,000 ETH, currently valued at approximately $467 million, according to blockchain intelligence platform Arkham’s investigation into his on-chain holdings.

The analysis established Buterin as the largest accessible individual holder of Ethereum, though institutional players and exchange wallets dominate the top rankings of ETH ownership.

Buterin’s Portfolio Composition and Recent Transactions

The Arkham investigation, published on February 17, provided a detailed breakdown of Buterin’s known crypto assets. His Ethereum holdings have gradually declined over the years, from 662,810 ETH in December 2015, which represented 0.91% of the total supply, to the current 240,010 ETH, which now accounts for about 0.20% of all ETH in circulation.

This reduction stems from both periodic sales and the network’s inflationary supply increases over time. Beyond ETH, Buterin holds smaller positions in several tokens, including 10 billion WHITE worth about $1.16 million, 30 billion MOODENG tokens valued at about $442,000, and 869,509 KNC tokens.

His portfolio also includes roughly $11,000 in Tornado Cash’s TORN token, reflecting past usage of the privacy mixer for donations, including funds sent to Ukraine. Recent on-chain activity shows Buterin moving significant sums in alignment with his public commitments, including a 16,384 ETH withdrawal in late January 2026, worth around $43 million at current prices, to support open-source infrastructure development.

This followed his announcement that the Ethereum Foundation is entering a period of “mild austerity,” with Buterin personally assuming funding responsibilities for certain projects to ensure the Foundation’s long-term sustainability. Subsequent sales of around 2,961 ETH over three days in early February, valued at about $6.6 million, were routed through CoW Protocol using small swaps to minimize market impact.

Arkham’s assessment of the broader Ethereum holder landscape revealed that institutions and exchanges occupy the top positions. For instance, the ETH2 beacon deposit contract holds over 60% of the total supply, with Binance, BlackRock, and Coinbase ranking among the largest entities.

Notably, the single largest individual holder is Rain Lohmus, who possesses 250,000 ETH worth $786 million. However, these funds are inaccessible due to lost private keys, a situation Lohmus acknowledged publicly in 2023.

Wealth Trajectory and Philanthropic Focus

Buterin’s net worth has followed Ethereum’s volatile price history closely, given that ETH constitutes over 99% of his known portfolio. He briefly achieved billionaire status in 2021 when the token crossed $3,000, with his holdings peaking at $2.09 billion in November of that year.

Nonetheless, the subsequent bear market reduced his wealth by close to 75% by December 2022. In 2025, rising ETH prices again pushed his net worth above $1 billion during August’s all-time high near $5,000, though recent market corrections, which pushed ETH below $2,000, have brought valuations back to current levels.

His wealth originated primarily from the 2014 Ethereum pre-sale, where 16.53% of the initial 72 million ETH supply was allocated to founders. A $100,000 Thiel Fellowship grant that same year allowed Buterin to leave the University of Waterloo and dedicate himself fully to Ethereum development.

Unlike many crypto founders who have accumulated substantial stakes in centralized companies, Buterin’s wealth remains almost entirely liquid and tied directly to the network he helped create.

The post Inside Vitalik Buterin’s Wallet: How Much Ethereum (ETH) Does He Actually Own? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ripple’s cross-border token became one of the most volatile assets in the cryptocurrency space after the 2024 presidential elections in the US, going from $0.60 to over $3.60 within less than a year, before it crashed to $1.11 earlier this month.

Following this 70% decline from July 2025 to February 2026, the token has seen its “largest on-chain realized loss spike since 2022,” said Santiment. However, this could be a blessing in disguise for token holders.

The analyst from the analytics company noted that the last time such massive realized losses were recorded, of -$1.93 billion, the underlying asset exploded by 114% in the following eight months. If such a spectacular price increase is to repeat now, it would put XRP’s valuation at over $3.00.

“Significant realized losses happen when a large number of investors sell their coins at a price lower than what they originally paid. This usually coincides with fear taking over. When traders panic and capitulate, they lock in their losses instead of holding and hoping for a rebound,” explained the company.

However, the analysts added that while this might feel negative in the short-term, it can be an important price signal for the longer run.

If the so-called weak hands have already sold, fewer sellers are left to push the asset lower. Or, as Santiment put it: “a wave of heavy realized loss can mean that much of the damage has already been done.”

Additionally, the analysis reads that such large increases in realized losses occur near market bottoms because “extreme fear tends to peak before price does.”

“Once sellers are exhausted, even a small amount of new buying pressure can push prices higher. That does not guarantee an immediate rally, but it increases the probability of a bounce. “

The post Ripple Price Alert: Last Time This Happened, XRP Skyrocketed by 114% appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The cryptocurrency market is far from its best shape, with most assets trading 50% or more from their peaks recorded at some point last year. Some of the largest from this cohort, such as BTC, ETH, XRP, LINK, and ADA could provide proper entry opportunities at this point, but a few of them are believed to be more undervalued, according to data from Santiment.

Basing their findings on each asset’s Market Value to Realized Value (MVRV) metric, the analysts determined the following:

According to the 30-day MVRV’s of crypto’s large caps, which identifies overvalued and undervalued assets based on average trader returns, here are where things stand:

Undervalued:
Ethereum $ETH: -14.3%

Slightly Undervalued:
Bitcoin $BTC: -6.9%
Chainlink $LINK:… pic.twitter.com/Qu08RBaw1S

— Santiment (@santimentfeed) February 20, 2026

Ethereum stands out as the king of undervaluation, with -14.3%. The largest altcoin peaked last year at just under $5,000, which was inches above its previous all-time high. However, it has been mostly downhill since then, currently struggling to reclaim the $2,000 resistance.

This means that although its network capabilities have expanded, the underlying asset now trades 60% away from its peak.

Bitcoin was second in line, with an undervaluation score of -6.9%. The largest digital asset shot up to several new all-time highs last year, the latest being in early October of over $126,000. It now sits at $68,000 or 46% lower than its ATH.

LINK is third in Santiment’s ranking, with an undervaluation score of -5.1%. Chainlink’s native token was among the few that failed to mark new peaks in 2025. It trades at $8.88 as of press time, which puts it at a whopping 83% distance from its 2021 all-time high of $52.70.

XRP and ADA complete Santiment’s top five, with percentages of -4.1% and -2.0%, respectively. XRP rocketed to a fresh peak of $3.65 in July last year, but now sits 60% lower at $1.45.

It’s worth noting that ADA is arguably the poorest performer from this list. It also couldn’t come anywhere near its 2021 all-time high of over $3.00 last year. Moreover, its current price tag of $0.28 puts it at a 91% discount since those levels from four and a half years ago.

The post XRP Vs. ADA Vs. LINK Vs. ETH: Which Alt Is More Undervalued and Has the Biggest Upside? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

“The news about my death is greatly exaggerated.” Guess what, bitcoin is dead – again. At least according to people who search for that on Google and, of course, those who proclaim its demise.

Such instances in the past, though, have been followed by intense rallies as BTC typically tends to move in the opposite direction of what the crowd expects from it.

GOOGLE SEARCHES FOR “BITCOIN IS DEAD” JUST HIT ATHs.

This is the HIGHEST level since the FTX crash.

The generational rally is starting now. pic.twitter.com/EMkkC4scEq

— Rekt Fencer (@rektfencer) February 20, 2026

Bitcoin Is Dead Searches on the Rise

It’s worth noting that when we tried to recreate the same search for “Bitcoin Is Dead” on Google Trends, the results were somewhat different from what Rekt Fencer reported. The analyst said these queries on the world’s largest search engine had just hit ATHs, but our graph showed that the peak was in December 2025.

The levels are still quite high now, and have risen in the past few weeks, especially since BTC’s price tumbled from $90,000 to $60,000 by February 6. The retail crowd, which is usually Google Trends’ user base, has increased the searches for bitcoin’s untimely death.

Interestingly, the number of queries now is a lot higher than what happened after the FTX crash in late 2022. At the time, the uncertainty levels were through the roof, with many questioning the overall state of the market since one of its giants had just collapsed in days. Shortly after, bitcoin crumbled to $16,000 in what was a full-on bear market.

BTC’s crash at the time was for more than 75%, while this time, it retraced by a more modest 52% from top to bottom. Yet the crowd’s sentiment seems much more fragile now. However, most comments below Rekt Fencer’s post agreed that such negative feelings typically lead to immediate and impressive price reversals.

Dead 477 Times

Bitcoin used to be proclaimed dead so many times in the past, especially in its early and more volatile days, that websites had to be created to track all those obituaries. Two of the most popular ones – the obituaries page at 99bitcoins and bitcoindeaths – show close numbers. According to the former, BTC has been called dead 467 times, while the latter shows 477 such occasions.

The last such examples were from February when one Deutsche Bank strategist said BTC must no longer be considered ‘digital gold,’ or a Financial Times columnist argued that even at $69,000, BTC’s price is still too high.

Well, bitcoin didn’t die after each of those 467/477 death proclamations. Just the opposite; it returned stronger than ever, attracting new sorts of investors, reaching new price peaks, growing its network usage, and so on. Why should we believe things should be any different now?

The post ‘Bitcoin Is Dead’ Searches Hit New Highs: Is the Bottom In? appeared first on CryptoPotato.