Milei's alleged deeper involvement in the LIBRA scandal could undermine public trust and destabilize Argentina's political landscape.

The post Argentina’s President Milei faces renewed scrutiny after evidence suggests deeper ties to LIBRA scandal appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Chaos Labs is leaving Aave, saying V4s added risk burden and budget constraints no longer support the standard the protocol demands.

The post Chaos Labs exits Aave risk role after clash over V4 scope and economics appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Polymarket is upgrading its exchange stack, replacing USDC.e with Polymarket USD as it revamps core trading infrastructure.

The post Polymarket unveils exchange revamp with new trading engine and native stablecoin appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The acquisition signifies a shift towards AI-driven financial management, potentially transforming wealth creation and asset management strategies.

The post Anthony Pompliano’s ProCap completes acquisition of AI finance lab Silvia appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's rejection of a ceasefire heightens regional instability, potentially increasing the likelihood of regime change and impacting global markets.

The post Iran rejects ceasefire, demands permanent resolution amid rising tensions appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Second’s Bark Boasts New era of Bitcoin Payments, drawing in former Blockstream developers

Second, a new Bitcoin development lab, has gained attention recently as it drew in yet another former Blockstream employee known as “Grubles”, with over 8 years of engineering at the company. Bark, Second’s lead product, promises to deliver a next-generation “Fast, low-fee, self-custodial” wallet. 

Alongside Grubles, other former Blockstream employees have joined the Second, such as Neil Woodfine (CMO), Steven Roose (CEO), and Erik De Smedt (CTO). The lab is currently focused on the cutting-edge of end-user Bitcoin wallet technology. In this niche of the industry, the Ark protocol is the new kid on the block, a layer two payments protocol that makes different trade-offs than the Lightning Network to deliver end users scalable self-custody and payments features at a low cost. Bark is Second’s custom implementation of the Ark protocol, designed for interoperability with the Lightning Network. 

“The technique used for Bark is different from payment channels in Lightning, but the two are actually very complementary.” Grubles told Bitcoin Magazine in an exclusive interview, adding that “At Second, we’ve chosen to build an Ark that is focused entirely on making Bitcoin onboarding and payments excellent.” Their website describes an Ark-to-Lightning bridge that lets users pay Lightning invoices directly from an Ark balance with no channels, liquidity, or LSPs required. Handled atomically.

According to Grubles, the company has raised 5.1M from a private investor, with a team of 11 people working on Bark. Deep technical documentation about the project can be found at second.tech, with the main net launch expected “Soon”. 

Interested users can test out making Bark payments on Signet. “I highly recommend doing so since it’s such a shift in the way we can do onboarding and payments,” said Grubles, encouraging early adopters to test out the tech. 

Scaling Bitcoin Self-Custody

The most impressive claim made by Bark is the promise of self-custody at a low cost. While it is relatively trivial to scale Bitcoin payments in a custodial manner, as demonstrated by apps like Wallet of Satoshi, or as is being done now by the payments giant Cash App. Delivering self-custody for relatively small amounts of value to millions of people is another matter entirely.

Onchain Bitcoin can handle roughly 7 transactions per second, which does not scale to too many users if they are all doing maximum self-custody on-chain transactions multiple times a day. To quote Knifefight’s excellent article on the matter on Bitcoin Magazine, tittled “Free As In Freedom Is Not Free As In Beer”; “Bitcoin confirms ~0.4M transactions/day. That’s one transaction/person every ~55 years, assuming no one is born or dies while waiting.” Onboarding users with onchain Bitcoin can also be rather awkward, as wallets correctly signal that deposits made to new users are pending confirmation until confirmed, which can take up to 30 minutes while blocks are mined. 

To address the challenges of scaling Bitcoin payments to the whole world, while retaining the cypherpunk and decentralization qualities of onchain self-custody, the Lightning Network was developed, and for the most part, it has worked, but with significant trade-offs. Self hosting a sovereign Lightning node, — while easier than ever today — still requires a significant learning curve, or specialized hardware that pushes all the right buttons for you. Both of these barriers to entry are too much for most people who don’t care about tech and just need to be able to pay a bill securely.

Mobile wallets like Phoenix have taken Lightning Network-style self-custody to end users, but with some caveats. Users need to trust Phoenix with some extreme scenarios, while they also give up a significant amount of privacy, since Acinq, the app developer, needs to know user balances pseudonymously to process transactions. Users are also locked into Phoenix as a liquidity provider, paying often higher fees than custodial lightning alternatives. The app is non KYCed, and offers users self-custody recovery paths, and an excellent feature set, but still falls short of the user experience expected from cash, where onboarding is as easy as handing a new user some paper money — no liquidity challenges, channel managment or onboarding fees — and payment is as easy handing over a bill and calculating the cash back for change.

Phoenix specifically works very well after users have been onboarded, but the process can cost over $10 dollars in SATS and take over 30 minutes, which is too high a cost when trying to sell Bitcoin as digital cash, and trying to onboard new people on the spot.

Other companies have attempted to solve these scaling and user experience challenges by leveraging Blockstream’s Liquid Network, an international federation of Bitcoin corporations that operate an alternative Bitcoin-compatible blockchain with fast block times and much larger on-chain capacity. Wallets like Bull Bitcoin or Aqua onboard users with Liquid’s LBTC, which can take a minute or less to confirm a transaction and then offer them a built-in swap exchange to onchain BTC, or the Lightning Network for payments compatible with the broader Bitcoin market. 

Both of these solutions work ok, but Bark believes they can do better. The reasonable self-custody recovery paths that onchain Bitcoin users know and love, with the instant payment velocity of the Lightning Network, are both delivered upon app download to users, without the onboarding roadblocks of a Liquid side chain or Lightning channel management. 

“I think the UI for Bark wallets will be simplified in comparison, considering how you won’t need to differentiate between L-BTC and BTC,” said Grubles of current Liquid and Lightning solutions. “This is important when thinking of onboarding new Bitcoin users. You don’t want to bombard them with information that can be confusing.”

“Don’t get me wrong, we love Lightning,” added Grubles, explaining that “Many of us at Second have worked on projects like Blockstream’s Core Lightning or are currently working on things like the rust-lightning library…So I do not say it lightly that Lightning is in Second’s DNA. With a Bark wallet, you can receive some bitcoin and begin doing Lightning payments literally in seconds. All of the liquidity micromanagement is gone. The onboarding potential is huge, and a large reason why I was attracted to Second and the technology in Bark.” 

The Virtual UTXO

As an implementation of the Ark protocol, Second’s Bark lets users pay each other with Virtual Unspent Transaction Outputs, or vUTXOs. Shinobi, the Technical Writer for Bitcoin Magazine, wrote about the Ark protocol in 2025 in detail, explaining that vUTXOs “are simply pre-signed transactions that guarantee the creation of a real UTXO under the unilateral control of a user once submitted onchain, but are otherwise held offchain.”

“There are other exciting things you can do with VTXOs, such as mass payouts,” said Grubles of the scalability of Bark. “Imagine you’re an employer and need to process payroll. That’s something you can do with instant finality and low fees using Bark. Mining pools could also offer more frequent payouts for their clients instead of forcing them to wait a long time because onchain fees can be high.”

These vUTXOs function in a similar way as Lightning Network transactions, moving offchain with an option to settle to the main Bitcoin blockchain when needed. Though unlike the Lightning Network, each Ark implementation has a centralized coordination server that enhances the service, this is the main trade-off made by Ark-style protocols, and its risks are mitigated by moving all self-custody-related power to the end user in what is often described as “unilateral exit” capabilities. 

Shinobi further explained the trade-offs of Ark, saying, “The protocol depends on a central coordinating server in order to function properly, but despite that, it is able to provide the same functionality and security guarantees that the Lightning Network does.” Similar to Lightning, self-custody is governed by a kind of smart contract with multiple people involved and a time constraint, in this case, the Ark operators, each user, and a round to refresh vUTXO’s every month or two. “As long as a user stays online during the required time period,” Shinobi adds, “(unless they choose to trust the operator for short periods of time) every user is capable of unilaterally exiting the Ark system at any time and taking back full unilateral control of their funds on-chain.”

This unilateral exit is the very definition of self-custody in the context of Bitcoin. By enabling it offchain, it bypasses the constraints of Bitcoin’s block size, respecting the decentralization of the network, so users can run full nodes, audit the full supply and integrity of the chain, but also access unprecedented levels of sovereignty over their money, even in a future where the fees are high and the blocks are full. 

Grubles believes the time constraint in Bark is not only manageable but more lenient than that of the Lightning Network; “There are real tradeoffs like with any scaling solution. Wallets need to come online at least once a month (though Lightning technically requires always-on to be secure). Emergency exits require multiple onchain transactions and can be expensive, but cooperative offboards are the normal path,” adding that “I think the breakthrough is going to come down to execution. As long as we’re managing our Lightning gateway well and have a reliable SDK, the ingredients are there to deliver a bitcoin payment UX that beats everything else out there. Our expectation is that Bark becomes the default way end users engage with the Lightning Network.”

This post Second’s Bark Boasts New era of Bitcoin Payments, drawing in former Blockstream developers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strive (ASST) Adds 113 Bitcoin at an Average Price of $68,584 per BTC

Strive has expanded its Bitcoin treasury with a new acquisition of 113 BTC, reinforcing a steady accumulation strategy among publicly traded firms increasingly treating Bitcoin as a core balance-sheet asset.

According to a recent filing, the company purchased the Bitcoin for approximately $7.75 million, implying an average price near $68,584 per BTC. The latest addition brings Strive’s total holdings to 13,741 BTC.

The move comes during a period of elevated volatility across digital asset markets, with Bitcoin trading around the $70,000 level. Despite price fluctuations, corporate demand continues to provide a structural bid, particularly from firms pursuing long-term treasury diversification strategies.

Strive’s accumulation pattern reflects a disciplined, incremental approach rather than large one-off purchases. 

Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset for Strive

Corporate Bitcoin adoption, once a niche strategy, has expanded significantly since 2020. Early adopters framed Bitcoin as a hedge against currency debasement and a non-sovereign store of value. That narrative has since evolved into a broader institutional thesis, positioning Bitcoin as a “digital reserve asset” alongside cash and fixed-income instruments.

Firms such as Strategy pioneered the model of converting significant portions of corporate treasuries into Bitcoin, setting a precedent that has influenced a growing number of public companies. Strive’s latest purchase reflects continued adherence to that framework, albeit at a smaller scale.

The company’s total holdings of 13,741 BTC now place it among a cohort of corporate treasuries that collectively control a meaningful share of Bitcoin’s circulating supply. 

While still far below industry leaders, the accumulation trend underscores a broader shift in corporate finance, where digital assets are increasingly integrated into capital allocation strategies.

Earlier today, Strategy said they acquired 4,871 BTC for about $329.9 million between April 1–5, bringing its total holdings to roughly 766,970 BTC valued at around $58 billion. The purchases were funded through at-the-market equity programs, including preferred stock (STRC) and common share sales, as the company continues using capital markets to expand its Bitcoin treasury strategy despite ongoing unrealized losses of about $14.46 billion in Q1.

Despite reporting a significant paper loss on its Bitcoin holdings, both Strive and Strategy remains committed to its aggressive accumulation approach, with management reaffirming Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset and investors continuing to treat the company as a leveraged proxy for Bitcoin exposure.

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

This post Strive (ASST) Adds 113 Bitcoin at an Average Price of $68,584 per BTC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Briefly Tops $70,000 as Donald Trump’s Iran Signals Rattle Markets

Bitcoin price pushed back toward the top of its recent range after a burst of geopolitical headlines tied to Donald Trump and tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.

The Bitcoin price touched $70,271 before easing to about $69,300, extending a move that triggered large liquidations across derivatives markets. Data from Bitcoin Magazine Pro and CoinGlass shows about $255 million in positions were wiped out over a 24-hour period, with short sellers accounting for the bulk of losses.

The move followed a series of conflicting statements from Trump, who threatened strikes on Iranian infrastructure while also signaling that negotiations could produce a deal within a day. In a post on Truth Social, Trump warned that Iran would face severe consequences if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, naming power plants and bridges as potential targets.

Hours later, Trump told Fox News that Iran is engaged in talks and suggested a resolution may be close. A report from Axios added that US and Iranian officials, along with regional intermediaries, are discussing terms for a 45-day ceasefire that could end the conflict.

The mixed messaging has kept markets on edge. Oil prices climbed to about $112 per barrel as traders priced in the risk of supply disruption tied to the closure of one of the world’s most important shipping routes. Higher energy costs have raised concern about inflation, with analysts warning US consumer prices could rise toward 3.7% if oil holds near current levels for several weeks.

Bitcoin price’s tight range

Bitcoin price’s reaction points to its evolving role during periods of geopolitical stress. The asset has traded in a wide band between $65,000 and $75,000 in recent weeks, holding that range despite sharp swings across commodities and equities. 

While the bitcoin price remains below its prior peak above $126,000, its price action has shown signs of stability relative to earlier cycles.

Market structure also reflects a shift away from leverage-driven rallies. According to analysts, the latest move has been supported by steady spot demand rather than speculative positioning. Liquidations have cleared out bearish bets, with about $195 million in short positions closed during the recent move higher.

Institutional flows have provided another layer of support. US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded $22.3 million in net inflows last week, signaling continued interest from asset managers despite macro uncertainty. That demand has helped anchor prices near the upper end of the current range.

Downside risks remain tied to both macro developments and technical levels. Bitcoin Magazine analysts point to the $65,000 to $66,000 zone as a key support range. A break below that level could weaken demand and shift sentiment.

At the time of writing, the bitcoin price is $69,454.01.

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

This post Bitcoin Price Briefly Tops $70,000 as Donald Trump’s Iran Signals Rattle Markets first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) Buys $330 Million in Bitcoin, Holdings Near 767K BTC

Strategy Inc. (MSTR) expanded its bitcoin holdings in early April, purchasing 4,871 BTC for approximately $329.9 million as the firm continues to double down on its balance-sheet strategy despite significant unrealized losses.

The company disclosed Monday that the purchases were made between April 1 and April 5 at an average price of $67,718 per bitcoin. The latest accumulation brings Strategy’s total holdings to 766,970 BTC, acquired for roughly $58.02 billion at an average cost basis of $75,644 per coin.

At recent prices near $69,500, the firm remains underwater on its aggregate position, reflecting the continued gap between market value and acquisition cost.

To fund the purchases, MSTR tapped its at-the-market (ATM) equity programs. The company raised approximately $227.3 million through sales of its variable-rate Series A perpetual Stretch preferred stock (STRC) in late March, followed by an additional $102.6 million in early April. It also generated $72 million from the sale of Class A common shares during the same period.

STRC is a Variable Rate Series A perpetual preferred stock issued by Strategy that is designed to trade near a $100 par value while paying a high, adjustable monthly dividend. It functions as a bridge between traditional income-focused investors and the company’s Bitcoin-heavy balance sheet by translating Bitcoin exposure into a more stable, yield-oriented instrument. 

In practice, STRC enables Strategy to raise capital from fixed-income markets and channel it into acquiring more Bitcoin.

The financing activity underscores Strategy’s ongoing reliance on capital markets to support its bitcoin acquisition plans, which has defined the firm’s corporate identity in recent years.

Strategy’s unrealized losses

For the first quarter ended March 31, 2026, Strategy reported a $14.46 billion unrealized loss on its digital asset holdings. The loss was partially offset by a $2.42 billion deferred tax benefit. The company recorded a carrying value of $51.65 billion for its bitcoin portfolio, indicating that fair value remains below cost.

Management noted that additional valuation allowances on deferred tax assets related to its software business may be required, highlighting the broader financial impact of bitcoin price volatility on its balance sheet.

Despite the losses, Strategy has maintained its aggressive accumulation strategy, continuing to position Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset. The company’s approach has drawn both strong support and criticism, as investors weigh the upside potential of bitcoin exposure against the risks tied to leverage and market swings. Last week, the company announced no bitcoin purchases. 

Shares of MSTR rose 3.9% in premarket trading following the disclosure. 

Last week, Bernstein analysts said that Bitcoin had likely bottomed and reiterated a $150,000 year-end price target, citing strong ETF inflows and growing corporate demand. 

The firm highlighted Strategy’s massive holdings—about 3.6% of total supply—as a key signal of institutional conviction, with continued buying supported by billions raised in 2026. 

Strategy has also expanded its capital-raising capacity through major Wall Street partners, enabling up to tens of billions in additional stock and preferred share offerings. 

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

This post Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) Buys $330 Million in Bitcoin, Holdings Near 767K BTC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Charles Schwab Teases Direct Bitcoin Trading With New ‘Schwab Crypto’ Account

Financial services giant Charles Schwab is preparing to expand deeper into digital assets, announcing plans for a forthcoming product that will allow clients to buy and sell cryptocurrencies directly through its platform.

The firm revealed that “Schwab Crypto” is in development and will be offered through Charles Schwab Premier Bank, positioning the product as a gateway for retail investors seeking direct exposure to leading cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. The company has opened a waitlist for clients interested in early access, though availability will be subject to regulatory approval and eligibility requirements.

The move marks a notable shift for Schwab, which until now has limited crypto exposure to indirect investment vehicles. Currently, clients can access digital asset markets through exchange-traded products (ETPs), crypto-related equities, and thematic funds. Examples include publicly traded firms like Coinbase, MicroStrategy, and Riot Platforms, as well as funds tied to blockchain and crypto industry performance.

All aboard the Charles Schwab Bitcoin train

Schwab’s entry into spot trading places it in more direct competition with established crypto platforms such as Coinbase, Robinhood, and Webull. 

CEO Rick Wurster first signaled the firm’s intent to enter spot crypto markets in late 2024, citing expectations for a shifting regulatory environment under the administration of Donald Trump. The company has since positioned itself to move once conditions allowed for broader participation by traditional financial institutions.

Schwab is also preparing additional crypto-related products, including a potential stablecoin offering following the passage of the GENIUS stablecoin bill.

A recent report from Charles Schwab found that Bitcoin volatility has declined significantly, with historical volatility falling to 42% in 2025 — about half its 2021 level — making it comparable to or lower than major tech stocks like Tesla and Nvidia. 

Despite fewer extreme swings, bitcoin still experiences sharp drawdowns, including a 32% drop in 2025 and a 50% peak-to-trough decline over three years. 

Long term, volatility remains elevated versus traditional assets. The report suggests bitcoin is maturing as it integrates into mainstream finance, with growing institutional adoption and ETF developments signaling increased acceptance.

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

This post Charles Schwab Teases Direct Bitcoin Trading With New ‘Schwab Crypto’ Account first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Crypto AI company OpenServ is trying to sell two things at once: an AI infrastructure story and a crypto token story. Its claim that its new model, SERV Nano, can match or beat OpenAI on some tasks has made that pitch more interesting, but they have also raised the standard of proof.

The company describes itself as an end-to-end suite for building, launching, and operating autonomous startups, with product rails that span AI agents, workflow tooling, reasoning architecture, token launch mechanics, and on-chain monetization. That places it in a category that remains underbuilt.

Why this matters: EDX Markets’ bid for a federal trust bank charter is a live test of whether Wall Street-backed firms can move more of crypto’s custody and settlement stack inside the U.S. banking perimeter. It carries broader implications than a standard crypto expansion story.

A large share of the AI market still revolves around models, wrappers, and user interfaces, while a more difficult operational layer sits lower in the stack, where systems need bounded reasoning, cost discipline, auditable outputs, and enough structure to handle tasks that carry budget, execution risk, and real-world consequences.

Top AI Crypto Assets by Market Cap

#	Coin	Price	24h %	MCap	24h Vol
1	Chainlink LINK	$8.99	+4.42%	$6.54B	$577.9M
2	Bittensor TAO	$320.88	+7.63%	$3.47B	$354.86M
3	NEAR Protocol NEAR	$1.27	+3.26%	$1.64B	$138.25M
4	Internet Computer ICP	$2.35	+3.82%	$1.29B	$53.51M
5	Render RENDER	$1.93	+4.11%	$998.8M	$66.71M
6	DeXe DEXE	$8.93	+2.26%	$747.44M	$21M
7	Artificial Superintelligence Alliance FET	$0.24	+3.41%	$532.36M	$162.4M
8	siren SIREN	$0.59	+3.68%	$427.02M	$68.05M
9	Virtuals Protocol VIRTUAL	$0.65	+5.52%	$425.64M	$49.63M
10	AINFT NFT	$0	+1.68%	$329.08M	$12.68M

The company’s branding around its launch on Base and Solana has raised a basic but important question. Is OpenServ a blockchain project, or is it an AI project with blockchain rails attached?

The available evidence points toward the latter. OpenServ’s own documentation presents the platform as an agentic infrastructure layer that supports AI-driven products and autonomous business workflows, while the crypto side handles token creation, launch mechanics, incentives, fee flows, and capitalization.

Its $SERV token documentation describes the asset as a native ecosystem token tied to usage, burn, and reward mechanisms across the platform. That framing points toward a crypto-native AI business, rather than a base-layer blockchain protocol.

OpenServ is not trying to compete with Base, Solana, or any other chain as a network. It is trying to sit above models and above chains, then own a layer where agents can be structured, deployed, and monetized.

In practice, that means the blockchain element serves distribution, launch, and economic coordination, while the core technical proposition sits inside the orchestration and reasoning layer. The market has started to reward projects that can present this as a full-stack system.

The risk is that multiple claims can be bundled into a single narrative premium before each layer has cleared its own evidentiary threshold.

Base, Solana, and the attempt to turn AI infrastructure into a crypto-native business model

OpenServ’s architecture is easiest to understand as a layered stack. At the top sits the product narrative around autonomous startups, AI agents, and self-serve tooling. At the middle sits the orchestration claim, where OpenServ argues it has built a structured reasoning framework that can coordinate agent behavior more efficiently than generic prompt chains.

At the bottom sits the crypto monetization layer, where projects can launch tokens, create liquidity, and route platform value through an ecosystem asset. The company’s public materials repeatedly tie these pieces together.

Its website presents building, launching, and running as one continuous path, while the docs spell out token launch mechanics and ecosystem value capture in more detail.

That structure helps explain the use of Base and Solana. Base gives OpenServ an EVM-aligned environment for token launches and liquidity workflows, while Solana gives it access to a faster, lower-cost ecosystem that remains active in retail token experimentation and on-chain application design.

The use of both chains broadens the platform’s addressable market and gives OpenServ a way to present itself as chain-flexible rather than chain-dependent. For a company trying to sell AI tooling into a crypto-native audience, that design makes commercial sense.

It allows OpenServ to say its reasoning layer can drive autonomous systems, while the blockchain rails handle launch, ownership, incentives, and financial coordination.

A harder question sits underneath the packaging, around where the durable moat actually lives. A token launch framework can attract attention quickly, especially when it taps into the current market appetite for AI-linked assets. Distribution can move fast. Capital can move even faster.

Defensibility usually lives deeper in the stack. If OpenServ’s durable edge sits in orchestration, then Base and Solana function as useful deployment venues, while the real asset is the proprietary reasoning layer that claims to make AI agents cheaper, faster, and more reliable.

If the core edge sits instead in token design and chain-level packaging, then the platform looks closer to a crypto distribution machine wrapped around an AI narrative.

The blockchain assessment, therefore, needs to stay tied to the benchmarks. OpenServ’s crypto rails can explain how value moves through the ecosystem. They do not answer whether the system actually performs better than alternatives.

The market often compresses these issues into a strong team, a large market, early positioning, and an underpriced token. That framing can produce attention and liquidity.

It does not resolve whether the product has crossed the line from interesting architecture to independently validated infrastructure. The value of Base and Solana in this setup depends on what they are supporting.

If they are supporting a reasoning layer with measurable economic and operational gains, the blockchain component becomes part of a coherent stack. If they are supporting a narrative premium around benchmark snippets and selective adoption language, then the on-chain layer amplifies volatility more than it compounds product strength.

OpenServ’s own materials give enough evidence to establish one point clearly. This is a crypto-native AI platform that uses blockchain for launch, monetization, and ecosystem coordination.

That seems more precise than calling it a blockchain protocol, and more useful than reducing it to an AI wrapper with a token. The platform is trying to merge agent tooling with on-chain economic rails, then own the operational layer between models and monetized deployment.

That ambition is clear. The remaining work lies in proving that the middle of the stack is as strong as the outer packaging suggests.

OpenAI comparisons, SERV Nano, and the benchmark claims carrying the narrative load

The center of gravity in OpenServ’s current positioning sits in its benchmark language. The most forceful public claims center on the company’s reasoning framework and its SERV Nano offering, with executives and promoters arguing that the system can outperform or match OpenAI models on standard evaluations while running at a sharply lower cost and higher speed.

Those claims are designed to do two things at once. First, they signal that OpenServ is working on a real technical bottleneck inside agent systems. Second, they create a valuation bridge between infrastructure performance and token upside.

Once the market hears “matched GPT-5.4 at 20x lower cost and 3x the speed,” the burden of proof shifts to methodology, task selection, reproducibility, and evidence of deployment.

OpenServ has published material around its BRAID framework, short for Bounded Reasoning for Autonomous Inference and Decisions. The company says this layer improves performance-per-dollar and boosts reliability across bounded tasks by replacing loosely structured prompting with a more deterministic, machine-readable process.

The associated arXiv paper presents the framework in academic form and references internal benchmark logging. That gives OpenServ more technical surface area than a typical promo campaign. It also means the strongest claims can be tested against a higher standard.

The OpenAI comparison needs careful handling. OpenAI’s own documentation for GPT-5.4 nano frames the model as a low-cost, high-speed option for high-volume tasks.

That positioning already suggests the comparison is more nuanced than a simple frontier-versus-frontier showdown. When a third-party framework claims it can match or surpass an OpenAI model, the result can reflect several different sources of lift.

It can come from narrower task framing. It can come from routing logic. It can come from deterministic scaffolding. It can come from constraints that reduce output variance. It can come from cost accounting that measures system-level efficiency rather than raw model capability.

Each of those can be commercially meaningful. Each one also says something different about what has been achieved.

For OpenServ, the key question is what exactly is being compared. If SERV Nano is a model, then the company is making a single claim. If it is an orchestration layer or a structured wrapper that sits atop another model, then the claim takes a different shape.

If the result depends on bounded tasks with narrow decision trees, that can still be useful in enterprise settings where reliability and cost control carry more weight than a broad conversational range. If the result is being generalized into “beating every OpenAI model,” then the language moves faster than the information needed to evaluate it.

That distinction becomes even more important because the strongest market narratives often form around a cluster of adjacent claims. OpenServ’s public messaging combines benchmark wins, large speed and cost differentials, enterprise usage, government deployment language, and an under-$50 million valuation frame promoted by supporters.

At that point, the benchmark is doing more than technical work. It is underwriting a token thesis.

Public market data from CoinGecko currently places SERV in the small-cap range, with a mid-teens million market capitalization during the latest review, which keeps the asymmetry pitch alive for speculators. Yet token valuation and benchmark validity sit on different ladders.

A low market cap can create upside if the product is real. It can also create a fast-moving narrative pocket long before the product has been independently established.

Where the proof threshold now sits

None of this means the benchmark claims should be dismissed. A structured reasoning layer that delivers higher accuracy per dollar on bounded tasks would address a real pain point in enterprise AI.

Cost curves still matter. Latency still matters. Reliability under constraint still matters.

Enterprises do not need every workflow to resemble frontier research. Many need systems that execute repeatable tasks cheaply, quickly, and within defined boundaries.

That is exactly the environment where an orchestration layer can create value. It is also the environment where the proof standard should be the highest, because bounded systems can appear strong under curated conditions and then degrade when task complexity, ambiguity, or integration risk increases.

The next stage in evaluating OpenServ, therefore, sits in the evidence around configuration, task selection, reproducibility, and customer references. Which OpenAI models were compared, under which conditions? What does “matched” mean numerically and operationally? Were tools enabled? Were context windows aligned? Were tasks chosen from public benchmarks, private enterprise workflows, or internal composites? How much of the cost advantage came from model choice versus orchestration logic?

Those questions do not weaken the case. They define it. A serious infrastructure company should welcome that standard, because durable value in this category will accrue to platforms that can show their work and hold up under independent inspection.

The last layer in the OpenServ thesis sits beyond Base, Solana, and benchmark charts. It sits in proof. Public messaging around the platform has gone beyond model economics and into production credibility, with references to enterprise adoption and use by the UAE government.

Those claims, if fully substantiated, would materially strengthen the platform’s position. They would suggest that OpenServ has moved beyond a well-marketed architecture and into a narrower class of companies that can sell operational AI under real constraints.

That jump is large, and the evidence threshold should rise with it.

So far, public documentation gives partial visibility but not full verification. OpenServ’s own materials provide details on the framework, the token system, and the product architecture.

Press-release distribution and company-linked promotion reference enterprise usage and government-linked production environments. What remains difficult to establish through independent public sources is the exact identity of those deployments, the scope of usage, the distinction between paid production and pilot relationships, and the direct line between benchmark results and deployed business outcomes.

Those details will determine whether OpenServ belongs in the category of credible infrastructure companies or in the wider field of AI-crypto projects that can present an impressive stack faster than they can prove it.

The broader market context helps clarify this. AI infrastructure has moved into a phase where orchestration, control, auditability, and settlement are starting to carry as much strategic weight as model quality.

Recent reporting across crypto and AI has drawn more attention to verification, escrow, machine payments, and the coordination problems that arise when agents move beyond chat and begin transacting or acting under policy constraints. That backdrop gives OpenServ’s pitch more relevance than a generic AI-token narrative.

The company is pointing at a real bottleneck. Agents that carry budget, authority, and operational scope need a trustworthy execution layer. They need structure. They need bounded logic. They need enough determinism to make audit and accountability possible.

That backdrop also sets a more demanding test. Once a platform claims to sit in the trust layer of the agent stack, every supporting assertion takes on operational significance.

A government deployment claim should be nameable, scoped, and attributable. Enterprise relationships should be classifiable as pilots, design partnerships, paid contracts, or production systems. Benchmark papers should allow external readers to understand exactly what has been measured and where the lift originates.

A token should have a clearly legible role in value accrual rather than serving as ambient upside around a SaaS-style platform. Each of these is manageable. Together, they form the real threshold.

OpenServ deserves attention, but the correct frame remains disciplined. The company appears to be building an AI infrastructure platform with blockchain rails on Base and Solana, while using benchmark results against OpenAI-linked models to argue that its reasoning layer can deliver better economics on bounded tasks.

That package addresses a genuine market need. It also creates a promotional surface that can run ahead of independent confirmation.

The next phase will come down to named deployments, reproducible methodology, customer testimony, and evidence that gains from controlled benchmarks translate into messy operating environments.

For now, OpenServ looks less like a standalone blockchain protocol and more like a crypto-native AI infrastructure company.

Its blockchain rails help launch and monetize the platform. Its benchmark claims are carrying the heavier analytical load.

Its opportunity lies in proving that a structured reasoning layer can produce reliable gains in cost, speed, and operational trust. If that proof arrives, the platform will have a stronger foundation than many AI-token narratives currently trading on category heat.

If that proof remains diffuse, the market will still have learned something valuable about where attention is flowing in the next phase of agent infrastructure, toward the layer where models, execution, and monetization meet.

The post Crypto AI project OpenServ claims to beat OpenAI in direct benchmark comparisons appeared first on CryptoSlate.

EDX Markets’ bid for a federal trust bank charter is not just another crypto expansion story. It is a live test of whether Wall Street-backed firms can move more of crypto’s custody and settlement stack inside the U.S. banking perimeter.

Citadel, Fidelity, and Schwab-backed EDX wants to bring equity market structure to crypto through a federal trust bank

EDX Markets’ application for a federal trust bank charter opens a more consequential question than whether another large financial consortium wants deeper exposure to digital assets.

The sharper question is whether some of the firms that helped shape modern U.S. equity market structure are now trying to impose a similar functional separation on crypto, with custody, settlement, collateral management, and fiduciary asset handling pulled into a federally supervised banking perimeter.

That framing comes directly from EDX Trust’s application to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The filing argues that traditional financial markets evolved around specialized roles, brokers, exchanges, market makers, clearing institutions, and custodians, while digital asset markets developed around vertically integrated venues where execution, custody, and balance sheet functions often sit under one roof.

Why this matters: If this model wins approval and real flow, more of crypto’s back-end infrastructure could move away from all-in-one exchanges and toward federally supervised institutions. That would matter for who controls custody, how trades settle, and which firms become the preferred route for institutional capital.

EDX’s proposal attempts to redraw that map. Order matching would remain with EDX Markets, while the proposed national trust bank would handle custody, fiduciary asset management, settlement-related functions, and riskless principal activity.

Related Reading

The Fed is readying to punish banks for holding Bitcoin as US crypto tensions boil over

Basel’s thresholds and punitive risk weights can make direct Bitcoin exposure prohibitively expensive even when it’s legally permitted.

Mar 13, 2026 · Gino Matos

For a market still defined by the aftershocks of concentrated exchange risk, that distinction gives the filing its real weight. The application points to a bid to move a meaningful share of crypto infrastructure away from all-in-one venue design and toward a modular structure that institutions already understand.

The names behind EDX add force to that interpretation. Citadel Securities, Fidelity, and Charles Schwab backed the venue at launch, and the proposed trust bank lands at a moment when the federal charter process is starting to look like a competitive lane rather than an isolated regulatory experiment.

The OCC’s digital assets licensing applications page shows that EDX Trust joined a growing queue of pending applicants in March, alongside firms such as Morgan Stanley Digital Trust, zerohash, and Revolut Bank US.

That follows the OCC’s December announcement that it had conditionally approved five digital asset-related national trust bank charters, including applications tied to Ripple, Fidelity Digital Assets, BitGo, and Paxos.

The competitive significance lies in the pattern. Federal trust bank status is starting to look like an emerging layer of institutional crypto infrastructure, one that could shape who gets to intermediate regulated capital and who remains outside the most defensible perimeter.

That gives EDX’s filing a broader significance than a standard custody expansion. The application describes a model built around end-of-day net settlement for spot trades, rather than the heavily prefunded arrangements common across large parts of crypto trading.

EDX argues that this structure could improve capital efficiency and reduce the operational burden on institutional participants. The target users in the filing make the ambition clear: broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, registered investment advisers, corporations, and other regulated intermediaries whose participation depends on custody arrangements, counterparty controls, and supervisory familiarity.

Viewed through that lens, the filing signals an attempt to build a crypto market structure that can carry institutional flow on a larger scale, with federal oversight sitting closer to the assets and the settlement process than crypto venues historically allowed.

Related Reading

Congress has only weeks left to convince banks on crypto CLARITY Act or risk losing it to midterms

Congress must resolve stablecoin yield impasse or leave it to regulatory interpretation amidst intense banking pressure.

Mar 16, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Why the filing points to crypto plumbing, not another access story

The most revealing part of EDX’s application is the way it defines the market problem. The document spends far more time on structural separation than on promotional language around adoption or innovation.

That choice says a great deal. EDX is effectively telling the OCC that the missing layer in crypto is infrastructure that regulated institutions can route through without inheriting the operational and governance profile of vertically integrated exchanges.

That argument lands because it maps directly onto how large financial institutions already think about market participation. In equities and listed derivatives, institutions operate through a web of specialized actors and clearly delineated responsibilities.

Matching venues match. Custodians custody. Clearing and settlement functions sit in distinct frameworks. Risk is measured and transferred across known institutional channels.

Crypto still looks uneven by that standard. Exchanges often combine execution, asset custody, financing, and internal balance-sheet activities. The result is an architecture that can scale quickly in bull markets but looks brittle under stress.

EDX’s proposed trust bank aims to answer that structural gap. According to the application, EDX Trust would provide custody for digital assets and fiat balances, fiduciary asset management, and settlement support for spot transactions executed on EDX Markets.

The filing also states that custodied cash and stablecoins would be invested in highly liquid instruments targeting returns near the federal funds rate, while custodied digital assets could be staked or used in permissible yield-generating activities. That broadens the institution’s role beyond safekeeping. It places the proposed bank closer to the center of collateral, idle asset utility, and balance-sheet efficiency.

Related Reading

White House sets February deadline to settle $6.6 trillion fight between Coinbase and banks

Even “crypto” is split now, and the winner sets the template for every future fight on custody, DeFi, and taxes.

Feb 4, 2026 · Gino Matos

Settlement design sits at the center of the pitch

The settlement design is especially important. EDX states in its OCC application that spot trades would settle once per day on a net basis and that certain clients could post collateral rather than fully prefund activity, depending on their financial condition and risk profile.

That departs from one of crypto’s defining constraints, the need to warehouse capital across venues in advance of execution. For active institutional participants, capital efficiency directly affects how much flow can move, how much inventory must sit idle, and whether participation scales beyond exploratory allocations.

This is where the EDX model starts to look like an effort to import the habits of mature market structure into crypto. The firms behind the venue understand fragmented liquidity, specialized roles, and the economics of execution architecture at a very high level.

Their filing reads like a view that crypto can no longer rely on venue-centric design to sustain institutional depth. Vertically integrated exchanges may continue to command large volumes, though a federally chartered trust layer could become the preferred route for some classes of institutions that have held back or participated only through narrow channels.

A second signal sits in the way EDX handles custody itself. The application says the proposed bank would use sub-custodian banks to hold private keys. That introduces another layer of segregation and operational specialization.

It also reinforces the idea that the filing is trying to carve clear boundaries around function, liability, and control. As those boundaries harden, crypto infrastructure starts to resemble the institutional layouts that dominate traditional capital markets.

The next test is whether institutions move flow, and whether charter status becomes a durable moat

The federal charter itself will draw attention, though the more durable question is whether this model attracts real institutional migration. Regulatory approval would establish legitimacy and supervisory footing.

On its own, approval would still leave open the commercial question of whether the architecture wins flow. Institutions will need to decide whether the combination of a matching venue plus a federally supervised trust-bank layer offers a superior route for execution, custody, capital efficiency, and governance compared with incumbent crypto venues and existing bilateral arrangements.

There are reasons to think that the question is now live. The OCC’s December conditional approval for Fidelity Digital Assets’ conversion to an uninsured national trust bank showed that the federal banking perimeter is already opening to crypto-native and crypto-adjacent infrastructure.

Fidelity’s approval contemplated crypto custody and trade execution services, creating a notable benchmark within the broader shareholder ecosystem surrounding EDX. At the same time, the OCC’s current application queue suggests several firms see strategic value in securing the same kind of status.

Once multiple players pursue the same charter path, charter access starts to resemble a competitive boundary rather than a badge.

That competitive boundary could reshape the exchange landscape. If custody, settlement, and collateral functions migrate toward federally chartered trust institutions, then the economic center of gravity in crypto could shift away from venue-centric models and toward modular infrastructure.

A venue would still matter for liquidity, matching quality, market design, and access. Yet the parts of the stack that institutional allocators care about most, asset control, segregation, supervisory clarity, and settlement discipline, could move into entities built specifically for those functions. That would pressure the long-standing logic of keeping everything under one roof.

EDX also enters this phase with some scale history behind it. According to Ledger Insights, which cited company figures, EDX processed $36 billion in cumulative notional trading volume during 2024.

That number should be treated as company-reported rather than independently verified market share, though it still provides a useful reference point. It suggests EDX is filing from a position of operational experience, rather than concept alone.

The venue expanded its listed assets well beyond its initial launch lineup. The operating premise is clear. EDX wants a broader product scope paired with a structure designed to carry larger institutional participation.

The unresolved part sits in adoption. Large intermediaries and asset managers will need to decide whether a trust-bank-based structure genuinely improves the economics and controls of participation.

Market makers will need to assess whether the model supports the same depth and responsiveness they require. Institutions that already route activity through crypto-native venues will weigh operational familiarity against the appeal of federal supervision and stronger functional separation.

That comparison will determine whether this filing marks a structural pivot point or merely another incremental layer in crypto’s long regulatory buildout.

For now, the signal is still strong. EDX’s application frames crypto’s institutional bottleneck as a market-structure problem and proposes a federal trust bank as part of the solution.

That puts the next phase of competition in a different place. The market has spent years focused on products, access points, and the expansion of listed assets. The more consequential contest may now sit deeper in the stack, where custody, settlement, collateral management, and supervisory architecture determine who can intermediate the next wave of institutional flow, and on what terms.

The post Citadel and Fidelity just made their clearest move yet to rebuild crypto like Wall Street appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin miners are starting to show the strain that often appears near a market washout, but one key part of the usual reset is still missing. The biggest operators are still selling enough BTC to keep a fresh supply flowing into the market.

Bitcoin miners are moving toward a classic washout point, while the selling phase still hangs over the market

Bitcoin miners are closer to exhaustion than they were a few weeks ago, which has put a familiar bear-market milestone back on the table.

The pressure inside the mining business has been intense. In its Q1 2026 mining report, CoinShares showed hashprice sliding from roughly $63 per PH/s/day in July 2025 to around $28 to $30 by early March 2026, a brutal compression in miner revenue that pushed a large slice of the global fleet toward unprofitability.

CoinShares estimated that roughly 15% to 20% of global miners were operating at a loss at that revenue level, which gives the current cycle a clear economic trigger rather than a vague sentiment narrative.

Why this matters: miners are one of Bitcoin’s most important steady sources of supply. When they are forced to sell more of what they mine, or dip into reserves, that can keep weighing on price even when sentiment starts to improve.

That pressure has started to show up in network conditions. The Bitcoin difficulty chart from CoinWarz shows difficulty down 4.19% over the past 30 days and 6.27% over the past 90 days, with another adjustment projected for April 18, 2026.

Difficulty declines usually signal that weaker operators are getting pushed out, machines are coming offline, and the strongest miners are getting more breathing room. That kind of reset often appears near the late stages of a miner capitulation phase, which is why the current setup has drawn so much attention.

Capitulation starts with stress. The more consequential shift arrives when miners stop selling large chunks of their treasuries to fund operations, debt service, and expansion. That second step carries more weight for Bitcoin because it changes the flow of coins hitting the market every day.

A miner with stable economics can keep more of the BTC it produces. A miner under pressure sends those coins into spot supply.

The latest public miner updates show that this second step has not been widely adopted. Riot Platforms produced 1,473 BTC in the first quarter of 2026 and sold 3,778 BTC during the same period, ending the quarter with 15,680 BTC on its balance sheet.

That number captures the tension inside the market. Network stress has eased enough to fuel bottom-call chatter, while one of the sector’s largest operators is still selling far more Bitcoin than it mined during the quarter.

MARA sold 15,133 BTC between March 4 and March 25, a move tied to debt repurchases totaling roughly $1 billion. CleanSpark produced 568 BTC in February and sold 553.02 BTC, almost its entire monthly output.

The present moment calls for precise language. Miners are moving toward a historic bear market milestone because the economics are harsh enough to force weak hands out and because difficulty has started to ease.

The accumulation phase, however, has not clearly restarted. A real turn in miner behavior would show up as treasury stabilization, lower sales relative to production, and a pattern where major operators begin keeping more of the Bitcoin they mine.

That set of signals would tighten the supply side of the market in a visible way. The current data show a sector closer to the end of forced selling than it was earlier in the year, with plenty of evidence that forced selling remains active.

Related Reading

Bitcoin's hashrate continues to fall as the price spike doesn't convince miners to turn machines back on

Even amid a rally Bitcoin miners are bleeding cash as this critical profit metric hits a level that forces massive shutdowns.

Jan 16, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Balance-sheet stress is driving miner behavior, and keeping a steady stream of Bitcoin supply in circulation

The sharpest way to understand miner selling is to strip out the jargon and follow the cash demands. Mining companies face power bills, payroll, hosting expenses, equipment financing, and debt maturities in fiat terms.

They earn Bitcoin, while many of their obligations arrive in dollars. When revenue per unit of computing power collapses, treasury sales become a funding mechanism.

That dynamic turned recent miner activity into a pressure point for Bitcoin’s market structure.

Riot’s first quarter numbers made that pressure visible in a way no on-chain abstraction could match. Selling 3,778 BTC while producing 1,473 BTC says the company leaned on existing reserves rather than current output alone.

MARA’s March sale made the same point from a different angle. The company used a massive BTC sale to support debt management, a reminder that miners are part crypto businesses and part capital-intensive industrial operators.

CleanSpark’s February update showed the operating version of the same reality, with almost all monthly production sold. Those disclosures show exactly where the strain is sitting, and they frame the current market more clearly than generic references to miner stress.

The broader reserve picture also fits that interpretation. In February, CryptoSlate reported that miner-linked wallets held around 1.801 million BTC, while the dollar value of those reserves had fallen more than 20% over roughly two months to around $133 billion.

Related Reading

Crypto market bottom is closer than you think as Bitcoin miner reserves crash to historic lows

While ETFs dominate the news the internal plumbing of the network suggests a forced selling event is currently brewing.

Feb 9, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

That decline did not happen in a vacuum. Lower Bitcoin prices from the 2025 peak, weak fee income, and still-heavy competition inside the network all combined to drain the cushion miners usually rely on during tougher conditions.

For Bitcoin itself, this keeps one of the market’s most important supply channels in focus. Miners produce fresh coins every day.

During healthier phases, a portion of that output stays off the market because operators can afford to hold it. During stress phases, newly mined coins and older treasury holdings get sold to meet real obligations.

That flow can weigh on price even when sentiment improves, and other bullish narratives gather momentum.

The current price backdrop makes the setup especially sensitive. According to CryptoSlate Bitcoin price data, BTC is trading at $69,900, up 4.38% over 24 hours, 3.63% over seven days, and 2.81% over 30 days, while still sitting 44.61% below its October 6, 2025, all-time high of $126,198.

That leaves Bitcoin in an interesting position. The market has enough upward movement to revive bottoming calls and enough distance from the peak to keep miners under financial strain.

A bounce inside that kind of structure often reveals who was selling because they wanted to and who was selling because they had to.

Related Reading

New model proves miners need Bitcoin above $74k to break even on power – but other costs push it over 6 figures

It's cheaper to buy Bitcoin than mine it right now unless your power costs are under 7 cents.

Mar 8, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Difficulty relief, ETF demand, and the AI pivot will decide whether miner accumulation returns or the cycle changes shape

That distinction shapes the path ahead. If treasury depletion slows and public miners start reporting sales below production, the market would gain evidence that balance-sheet stress is finally fading.

If major operators continue to monetize reserves during periods of price strength, the relief phase can last longer and weigh on upside attempts. The next few production updates from listed miners carry real significance because they offer direct proof of whether corporate behavior is changing or whether the selling cycle still has room to run.

Three forces now sit at the center of the next move: difficulty relief, outside demand for Bitcoin, and the changing business model of large miners. Each one affects whether the sector can shift from survival mode into accumulation mode.

The first force is difficulty. Lower difficulty gives surviving miners a larger share of network rewards and eases the immediate revenue squeeze.

The projected April 18 adjustment on CoinWarz has therefore taken on extra importance. A deeper cut would offer weaker operators less room to recover than stronger, well-capitalized miners, which could further concentrate production in the hands of firms better able to choose when they sell.

That would move the market closer to a real accumulation restart. A shallow adjustment or a quick rebound in competition would keep the pressure on the margin alive.

The second force is outside demand, especially from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs. Farside ETF flow data shows positive net flows of $69.4 million on March 30 and $117.5 million on March 31, followed by a $173.7 million outflow on April 1 and a small $9 million inflow on April 2.

That pattern captures the current market mood. Demand is present, though it has not settled into a strong, uninterrupted absorption phase.

ETF buyers can offset miner selling when flows run consistently positive. Choppy flows leave the market with less protection from fresh supply.

The third force may prove the most important over a longer horizon. According to CoinShares, listed miners could derive as much as 70% of revenue from AI by the end of 2026, up from roughly 30% today, as power access and data-center infrastructure become more valuable to high-performance computing customers.

Related Reading

Bitcoin miners start funding pivot to AI with debt while selling BTC to stay liquid

CoinShares’ latest mining report suggests the biggest shift is that stressed miners are selling coins, stronger operators are pivoting into AI, and listed mining stocks are becoming less pure Bitcoin proxies than many investors assume.

Mar 26, 2026 · Gino Matos

More than $70 billion in GPU colocation and cloud-related deals were announced across 2025 and early 2026, turning mining companies into infrastructure plays tied to a much larger capital cycle. That changes incentives.

A miner with an attractive AI-hosting opportunity may choose to reduce debt, secure expansion funding, or reallocate power away from Bitcoin stockpiling.

This is where the old playbook starts to blur. Historic miner capitulation milestones still offer useful context because the business remains cyclical, and forced selling still leaves fingerprints in treasury behavior, difficulty, and reserve drawdowns.

Yet the next phase may not look like a simple return to old patterns. Some operators could stop aggressive BTC selling because mining economics improve.

Others could keep selling because their strategic focus has shifted toward AI-linked revenue. A traditional accumulation signal may arrive later than many expect, or it may appear in a narrower slice of the industry rather than across the whole miner cohort.

That leaves Bitcoin with a clear set of live markers. Watch whether major miners sell less than they mine in the coming updates.

Watch whether difficulty continues to fall enough to restore healthier margins. Watch whether ETF flows strengthen into a steadier absorption channel.

Watch whether AI infrastructure becomes the preferred use of miner capital for the largest public operators. Those signals will reveal whether the sector is finally ending its capitulation phase and rebuilding treasuries, or whether the current cycle is moving into a different shape, one where miners remain important to Bitcoin’s supply side while their business incentives extend far beyond mining itself.

Right now, the evidence supports a sharp middle ground. Bitcoin miners are moving toward a classic washout milestone because the economics have become severe enough to force exits and trigger difficulty relief.

The accumulation restart that usually gives that milestone its real power has yet to show up across the biggest names in the sector. Until treasury sales slow in a visible way, the people producing new Bitcoin are still part of the pressure on the market, even as the conditions for a deeper reset begin to take form.

The post The Bitcoin miner sell-off looks close to exhaustion marking impending reversal in market pressure appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The post G Coin appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin still has not reclaimed 2017-level public attention

Bitcoin has more institutional access than at any point in its history. Spot ETFs opened a regulated route for capital that spent years on the sidelines. Corporate treasury buyers pushed the asset deeper into boardroom discussion. Reserve language entered the political and market debate with unusual force.

Price followed that shift higher. Visibility inside finance rose with it. Public search behavior still points somewhere else.

Related Reading

Bitcoin interest hits 5-year high in the United States defying bear market price decline

Bitcoin searches are surging — but one $60k support level decides everything.

Feb 23, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Google Trends data for worldwide web search shows that interest in “bitcoin” remains well below the late-2017 peak, even after years of ETF launches, treasury accumulation, and adoption rhetoric.

That gap is the central tension. Bitcoin expanded across institutional channels, while mass curiosity still looks subdued relative to the last full retail mania.

Why this matters: Bitcoin’s latest strength is increasingly being carried through ETFs, treasuries, and professional market infrastructure rather than the kind of mass public rush that defined earlier cycle peaks. That changes how this rally should be read, who is driving it, and what still needs to happen for claims of broad adoption to look complete.

The 2017 cycle was defined by a broad social pull. Search traffic surged. First-time buyers flooded exchanges.

The asset moved from niche financial subculture into general conversation. Today’s cycle has stronger infrastructure, deeper liquidity, and more formal ownership vehicles.

Public intensity, as measured by Google Trends, captures earlier speculative waves, which still sit far below the 2017 peak.

The result is a market that looks more mature in structure and narrower in public participation. That split has been visible for months.

In May 2025, CryptoSlate reported Bitcoin closing above $106,000 without a retail frenzy (a trend that held even at the all-time high of $126,000 in October 2025).

Days later, CryptoSlate showed retail remained sidelined even as Bitcoin traded at new highs, using app-download trends and search behavior as evidence that the cycle’s participation base looked different from that at prior peaks.

Bitcoin’s institutional ownership base is deeper. Its regulatory wrapper is stronger. Its financial integration is wider.

But, on whether Bitcoin regained the same level of mass public attention that it had in 2017? On worldwide search data, the answer still appears to be no.

Search behavior still frames 2017 as the benchmark for broad public curiosity

Google Trends methodology measures relative search interest, not raw search volume and not a direct census of how many people care about a topic.

The data is sampled, normalized, and scaled from 0 to 100 within a selected place and time range. That means the series captures comparative intensity.

It shows when a term dominates search behavior within the frame. It does not provide exact search counts.

Even with that limitation, the chart remains powerful. In a worldwide comparison from 2017 through early April 2026, “bitcoin” reached its defining high in late 2017.

Subsequent surges in 2021 and later periods fall short. Recent rebounds lift interest above local lows, while none of them approach the peak intensity of that earlier retail phase.

For anyone trying to map public engagement rather than institutional product growth, that gap carries analytical weight.

That weight grows when paired with CryptoSlate’s recent analysis. In February 2025, CryptoSlate tracked the recovery of retail demand after a January low, using smaller transactions as a proxy for non-institutional participation.

That framed a market where retail had not disappeared, yet had also not returned with the kind of force that defined prior peaks.

In May 2025, the picture was sharpened, showing record price behavior without an equivalent lift in broad retail attention.

The pattern remained visible later in the cycle. In December 2025, CryptoSlate described a Bitcoin market increasingly shaped by banks, custodians, ETFs, and institutional market plumbing.

That helps explain why price can advance while search interest remains relatively muted.

A larger share of ownership and access now sits inside formal channels. The asset can gain exposure through financial advisors, brokerage accounts, treasury policies, and fund mandates without producing the same burst of search behavior that came from millions of first-time retail entrants trying to figure out how to buy Bitcoin on an exchange.

That is the structural shift. The old cycle relied on public curiosity to pull capital into the market.

The current one can function with a larger share of capital arriving through products and institutions that sit one layer removed from retail discovery. Search behavior reflects that change.

It shows a market where legitimacy expanded faster than mass fascination.

The reserve narrative deserves harder scrutiny for the same reason. Reserve language suggests a stage of adoption that extends beyond speculative enthusiasm.

ETFs suggest mainstream financial acceptance. Both developments can be true at once.

Broad public demand still remains a separate question. Search data indicates that public attention still trails the 2017 benchmark by a wide margin.

That leaves a gap between how Bitcoin is being sold rhetorically and how it is being engaged by the wider public.

Institutional adoption has grown, while retail intensity still looks restrained

The market’s center of gravity has changed. That point is difficult to dispute.

Spot ETFs normalized Bitcoin exposure for a class of investors that prefers brokerage infrastructure, regulated custody, and familiar wrappers. Treasury accumulation added a corporate balance-sheet angle that barely existed in the 2017 cycle.

Banks, custodians, and fund managers built a professional layer around the asset that altered who holds it, how it is traded, and where demand enters the system.

That institutionalization can support higher prices without producing a matching surge in public search activity.

A portfolio manager allocating through an ETF is unlikely to generate the same search trail as a first-time retail buyer trying to understand wallets, exchanges, private keys, and market cycles. A treasury desk building strategic exposure through regulated channels behaves differently from a late-cycle retail crowd chasing momentum.

Those distinctions help explain why price and attention can diverge.

CryptoSlate’s May 2025 report on record closes without retail frenzy argued that Bitcoin’s price discovery had detached from the classic signs of a public mania.

Retail remains sidelined, reinforced by app-download trends and subdued public interest.

By December 2025, bank-led market plumbing added the structural explanation. The market had become easier for professionals to own and less dependent on noisy retail onboarding at the margin.

That is why the current rhetoric can outrun the evidence. ETF adoption is often presented as proof of broad social adoption.

Those are separate ideas. Treasury accumulation is often framed as a signal of universal conviction.

That is also a different claim. Political discussion around reserves adds another layer of symbolic legitimacy, while symbolism does not automatically produce public participation.

Search behavior still functions as a useful reality check because it captures something direct, whether people are actively seeking out Bitcoin in large numbers.

Right now, that check is sobering. Worldwide public attention remains weaker than at the prior retail apex.

That does not reduce the significance of ETFs. It does not erase Bitcoin’s integration into mainstream finance.

It does narrow the interpretation. Institutionalization advanced, and mass public re-engagement remains incomplete.

There is an additional nuance here. In February 2026, CryptoSlate reported that US Bitcoin search interest had reached a five-year high even as global search interest still lagged earlier peaks.

That split suggests the asset may be regaining attention in key financial markets without recreating the same worldwide search shock seen in 2017.

Even then, the broad point holds. Global public attention has not yet returned to its previous extremes, and the worldwide frame remains the right one for any claim about mass curiosity.

The next threshold is a broader public return, not a louder institutional narrative

Bitcoin does not need a 2017 replay to remain institutionally relevant. It already has a place inside regulated portfolios.

It already sits inside treasury and ETF conversations. Those pieces are already in motion.

Can Bitcoin turn formal legitimacy into a new phase of broad public demand, or does this cycle remain defined by professional capital operating through institutional wrappers?

The question carries weight because public attention still serves as a signal of social reach. Search interest is imperfect, while it captures a form of intent.

People search when they want to learn, transact, compare, explain, or participate. In earlier cycles, that behavior exploded as Bitcoin entered mainstream public consciousness.

The current cycle has generated large financial milestones without sparking the same level of curiosity. That gap is one of the clearest signs that the market’s character has changed.

It also puts pressure on one of the most common assumptions in the current narrative. The assumption says that ETFs, reserve language, and growing financial integration should naturally pull retail behavior back toward old highs.

That outcome has not yet appeared in the worldwide search data. Public curiosity improved from the lows.

It has not broken into a new regime. The peaks remain smaller, the spikes shorter, and the overall profile more restrained than the late-2017 benchmark.

For analysts and investors, that distinction should shape how this cycle is described. Bitcoin achieved deeper financial acceptance.

It has not yet reclaimed the same degree of public obsession. Those are separate conditions, and the market keeps confirming the split.

Capital can flow through ETFs. Treasuries can accumulate. Politicians can invoke reserves.

Search behavior can still remain far below the old mania ceiling.

That leaves the next threshold in plain view. A true return of mass retail participation would likely show up across several public-facing indicators at once.

Worldwide search interest would need to break materially higher. Exchange app demand would need to accelerate.

Retail-sized activity would need to strengthen on-chain and through broker platforms. Social curiosity would need to expand beyond finance-native circles.

Until those signals arrive together, the safer reading is that Bitcoin’s current strength is being carried more by structure than by broad public re-engagement.

That is the core point the market keeps circling around. Bitcoin won more legitimacy, more infrastructure, and more access. It still has not won back the full scale of public attention that defined 2017.

Anyone arguing that adoption has already crossed into a new universal phase needs to explain that gap, because worldwide search data continues to point to a market whose institutional rise is real, and whose mass public pull remains unfinished.

The post Why global interest in Bitcoin is still way below 2017 peak even after winning over Wall Street appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Ethereum price ($ETH) has entered a period of significant sideways movement, leaving investors and traders questioning the next major directional shift. For several weeks, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap has been oscillating within a well-defined corridor between $1,800 and $2,100. This compression typically acts as a "coiling spring" for the market, where the longer the consolidation lasts, the more explosive the eventual breakout or breakdown tends to be.

Is Ethereum Coin Ready for a Breakout?

Currently, $Ethereum is facing a tug-of-war between macroeconomic headwinds and internal ecosystem growth. While the broader crypto market has seen fluctuations due to geopolitical tensions and interest rate uncertainties, Ethereum's technical structure remains remarkably resilient. The $1,800 level has established itself as a "must-hold" psychological and technical support zone, while $2,100 continues to act as a formidable ceiling.

Ethereum Price Analysis: The $1,800 - $2,100 Range: A Critical Zone

The consolidation phase isn't just about price; it’s about accumulation:

• Support Level ($1,800): This area aligns with historical demand zones. A dip below this could trigger a cascade toward $1,650.
• Resistance Level ($2,100): Repeated rejections at this level show that bulls lack the momentum to flip this into support. A daily close above $2,150 would likely invalidate the bearish thesis.

Ethereum Coin Halting at 2K

Recent crypto news highlights that the Ethereum Foundation and large "whales" have been active in staking, which reduces the circulating supply. From a technical standpoint, the Relative Strength Index (RSI) is currently hovering around the 50-neutral mark, confirming the lack of a clear trend. However, the Bollinger Bands are beginning to squeeze, a classic precursor to a high-volatility event.

"Ethereum is currently in a 'wait-and-see' mode. The transition from $1,800 support to $2,100 resistance is the most watched range in the industry right now. A decisive move outside this bracket will set the tone for the rest of Q2 2026." — Market Analysis Team, CryptoTicker.

The External Factors: ETFs and Network Upgrades

Two major catalysts are expected to break this stalemate:

• Spot Ethereum ETFs: Following the success of Bitcoin products, the market is closely watching the SEC for further developments on staking-integrated ETFs, as reported by Reuters.
• The Glamsterdam Upgrade: Scheduled for later in 2026, this upgrade aims to further lower L2 fees and improve scalability, which historically acts as a bullish narrative for the ETH price.

Bitcoin has moved back above the $70,000 level — but this breakout is not being driven by crypto fundamentals.

Instead, the move comes amid rapidly shifting geopolitical headlines. Reports of a potential 45-day ceasefire between the US and Iran triggered a sharp change in sentiment, pushing oil lower and lifting risk assets across the board. Bitcoin reacted immediately, breaking resistance and accelerating higher.

At the same time, the rally was amplified by positioning.

• Over $70M+ in short positions were liquidated within a short timeframe
• Momentum kicked in as BTC cleared key resistance levels
• Thin weekend liquidity exaggerated the move

This kind of price action reflects a market caught offside — not necessarily a confirmed trend.

What Is Really Driving Bitcoin Right Now?

The key takeaway is simple: Bitcoin is trading macro, not crypto.

Recent price movements are closely tied to external factors:

• Ceasefire expectations → easing inflation pressure → bullish for risk assets
• Oil price reactions → direct impact on global liquidity sentiment
• Geopolitical uncertainty → rapid shifts between risk-on and risk-off

In this environment, Bitcoin behaves less like a standalone asset and more like a real-time macro indicator.

The Hidden Risk Behind the $70K Breakout

While markets reacted positively to ceasefire discussions, the downside scenario remains fully in play.

Jamie Dimon recently warned that an escalation involving Iran could:

• Push inflation higher again
• Drive oil toward $120+
• Put additional pressure on global financial markets

If that scenario unfolds, the current rally could reverse quickly.

This explains why the breakout above $70K, while technically significant, still lacks strong conviction.

Two Scenarios the Market Is Watching

Right now, everything depends on how the geopolitical situation evolves:

Bullish Scenario — De-escalation confirmed

• Oil continues to drop
• Stocks and risk assets rally
• Bitcoin targets $72K–$75K

Bearish Scenario — Escalation returns

• Oil spikes toward $120
• Risk-off sentiment dominates
• Bitcoin falls back toward $65K or lower

The market is not choosing between these outcomes yet — it is reacting to each headline as it comes.

Why Monday Could Define the Next Move

Another key factor: timing.

This breakout is happening during the weekend, when liquidity is thinner and moves are easier to exaggerate. These conditions often lead to temporary price spikes rather than confirmed trends.

The real test will come when:

• Wall Street reopens
• Institutional volume returns
• Macro markets (stocks, yields, oil) react in full

If traditional markets support the move, Bitcoin could stabilize above $70K. If not, this breakout risks fading quickly.

Final Take

Bitcoin price above $70K looks strong — but the context matters.

This is a headline-driven rally, not a structural shift. As long as markets remain tied to geopolitical developments, volatility will dominate over clear direction.

For now, Bitcoin is not leading the market — it is reacting to it.

Crypto markets are about to enter one of the most decisive moments of the year.

After a quiet weekend with low volatility, real trading resumes today as Wall Street reopens — and with it comes the return of institutional capital.

Bitcoin is holding near $67,000. Ethereum remains above $2,000. Altcoins are drifting lower.

👉 But this calm is not stability — it’s compression before a major move.

Why This Monday Is Different

Weekend crypto trading often creates a false sense of direction.

• Liquidity is thin
• Institutions are inactive
• Volume is limited
• Moves lack conviction

👉 That changes today.

With traditional markets reopening:

• Institutional flows return
• ETF activity resumes
• Macro-driven positioning begins
• Correlation with equities strengthens

👉 This is when the real trend forms

A $100B Move Is Not an Exaggeration

Crypto market structure suggests that a large move is building.

When liquidity returns after a compressed weekend:

• Breakouts accelerate quickly
• Liquidations amplify momentum
• Capital rotates aggressively

👉 In past setups like this, total market cap has moved $100B+ within hours

This is exactly the type of environment we are entering now.

The Market Is Sitting on Multiple Triggers

Several major catalysts are converging at the same time:

🌍 Macro Risk

• Rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz
• Oil price pressure building
• Inflation fears returning

🏦 Institutional Momentum

• Retirement funds opening to crypto
• Major players preparing trading access
• Continued accumulation signals

⚠️ Market Structure

• Low weekend volatility
• Tight price ranges
• Decreasing momentum

👉 This combination creates a pressure cooker setup

Bullish vs Bearish — What Happens Next?

🟢 Bullish Scenario

If markets absorb macro risks:

• Bitcoin breaks resistance
• Institutional inflows push prices higher
• Momentum builds quickly

👉 Expected:

• BTC → $70K+
• ETH follows
• Altcoins rebound sharply

🔴 Bearish Scenario

If macro fear dominates:

• Risk-off hits global markets
• Liquidity pulls back
• Crypto reacts sharply

👉 Expected:

• BTC loses support
• Altcoins drop faster
• Liquidations increase

The First Hours Will Decide Everything

The most important period is not the full day — it’s the first hours after market open.

Watch closely:

• Volume expansion
• Bitcoin direction
• Stock market reaction
• Oil price continuation

👉 If volume confirms the move, it becomes a trend
👉 If not, expect more volatility and fakeouts

Final Take

Crypto is not quiet. Crypto is waiting.

👉 Waiting for liquidity
👉 Waiting for institutional flows
👉 Waiting for direction

And today…

That direction will likely be decided.

The first week of April 2026 has been a study in contrasts. While the broader financial markets grapple with macroeconomic shifts, the digital asset sector is doubling down on technical evolution. We are seeing a move away from the "meme-coin" cycles of the past toward institutional-grade infrastructure and significant protocol overhauls.

Crypto News Today: Market Highlights

The crypto market today is defined by Bitcoin’s price stability near the $67,000 mark and massive anticipation for Ethereum’s Glamsterdam upgrade. Simultaneously, a significant exploit on the Solana-based Drift Protocol has served as a stark reminder of the security risks still inherent in decentralized finance (DeFi).

Market Snapshot: Bitcoin’s Quiet Resilience

Despite a slight 0.42% dip in the last 24 hours, Bitcoin ($BTC) continues to act as a stabilizing force for the entire ecosystem. Trading at approximately $67,000, the asset has shrugged off recent geopolitical volatility.

• Institutional Inflow: Recent reports from Goldman Sachs suggest that institutional "dip-buying" is keeping the floor high.
• Price Tracking: You can monitor live movements on our Bitcoin Ticker.

Ethereum Roadmap: The Glamsterdam Era

The biggest story in the developer community is the finalized scope for Ethereum’s Glamsterdam upgrade. Scheduled for the first half of 2026, this hard fork is expected to be a "game-changer" for scalability.

What is the Glamsterdam Upgrade?

Glamsterdam is the next major evolution of the Ethereum mainnet following the Fusaka update of late 2025. Its primary goals are:

• Gas Fee Reduction: A projected 78.6% reduction in fees for smart contract calls.
• Parallel Processing: Introducing the ability to process multiple transactions simultaneously.
• Throughput: Increasing the gas limit per block from 60 million to 200 million.

This upgrade is essential for $Ethereum to remain competitive against high-speed chains like Solana.

The Solana Hack: Drift Protocol Exploit

While Ethereum builds, $Solana has hit a major speed bump. On April 1, 2026, the Drift Protocol—the network's largest perpetual futures exchange—was drained of $286 million.

"The breach was not a simple code bug, but a sophisticated six-month social engineering operation by highly resourced actors." — Drift Protocol Preliminary Report.

The attackers reportedly posed as a quantitative trading firm to gain the trust of the protocol's security council. This event has reignited discussions on the necessity of hardware wallets for all DeFi participants.

Regulatory Milestone: Coinbase Nabs OCC Approval

In a massive win for US-based crypto, Coinbase has received conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for a national trust charter.

This does not make Coinbase a traditional commercial bank, but it provides federal regulatory uniformity for its custody business. This moves Coinbase into the same regulatory conversation as legacy giants like JPMorgan, further bridging the gap between "crypto" and "finance."

In a market often dominated by volatile meme coins and complex DeFi protocols, UNUS SED LEO ($LEO) has quietly climbed the ranks to become a heavyweight in the digital asset space. Originally launched as a utility token for the iFinex ecosystem, LEO has transitioned from its initial $1 exchange offering to a valuation exceeding $10 per token.

As of April 2026, LEO has officially broken into the top 10 largest cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, boasting a valuation of approximately $9.3 billion. This article explores the unique fundamentals, the aggressive deflationary model, and the institutional backing that have fueled this 1,000% journey.

What is UNUS SED LEO?

UNUS SED LEO is the native utility token of the iFinex ecosystem, which includes the prominent Bitfinex exchange. Launched in May 2019, the token was designed to provide holders with significant fee discounts and a variety of benefits across the platform's services. Unlike many other assets, LEO is a multi-chain token, existing on both the Ethereum and EOS blockchains to maximize accessibility.

Why is it named like this?

The token's name, "Unus Sed Leo," is Latin for "One, but a lion," a motto emphasizing quality and strength over quantity. It was born out of a crisis: iFinex launched the LEO token to raise $1 billion in capital after a payment processor's funds were seized by government authorities.

While it started as a recovery mechanism, it evolved into a pillar of exchange-based utility. Its primary function is to offer:

• Trading fee reductions: Up to 25% discount for holders.
• Lending fee discounts: Significant reductions for peer-to-peer lenders.
• Withdrawal/Deposit perks: Faster and cheaper transactions on Bitfinex.

The Path from $1 to $10: Why is the Price Rising?

The rise of LEO from its $1 launch to the current $10.05 level is not merely speculative; it is driven by one of the most transparent and aggressive buyback and burn mechanisms in the industry.

1. The 27% Revenue Burn

iFinex is contractually committed to using at least 27% of its consolidated monthly revenue to buy back LEO tokens from the open market and permanently destroy them. This creates a perpetual buy-side pressure. As Bitfinex remains a top-tier exchange for professional traders, this revenue stream provides a "floor" for the token price.

2. The Bitcoin Recovery Catalyst

A major factor in the 2024–2026 rally has been the legal resolution regarding the 2016 Bitfinex hack. Following court orders, nearly 94,643 BTC were earmarked for recovery. According to the token's whitepaper, 80% of recovered funds must be used to repurchase and burn LEO tokens. With $Bitcoin prices reaching new heights, the sheer dollar value of this buyback program has caused massive supply shocks.

3. Low Volatility and Institutional Trust

Unlike highly liquid assets that fluctuate wildly, LEO often shows "resilience" during market crashes. Because so much of the supply is held by long-term investors or is being systematically burned, the circulating supply (currently around 920 million LEO) continues to shrink, making each remaining token more valuable.

How LEO Price Reached the Top 10 Cryptos

Reaching the #10 spot by market cap is a feat of endurance. LEO's ascent was accelerated by the downfall of other exchange tokens (such as FTT) and the growing demand for "safe haven" utility assets.

By maintaining a steady growth trajectory while the broader altcoin market experienced massive drawdowns, LEO became a "non-correlated" asset. This attracted portfolio managers looking for stability.

A new OpenAI blueprint urges economic changes for the AI era as reporting raises questions about Altman’s motivations.

Holders of tokenized shares in Galaxy (GLXY) will soon be able to participate in proxy voting on-chain via Broadridge.

Altcoins like Ethereum and Solana have plunged from all-time highs, but their recent resilience is a compelling sign, according to Grayscale.

A solo miner with computing power equivalent to just 0.00002% of Bitcoin's network successfully mined a block last week.

Bloomberg’s Mike McGlone argued that Bitcoin could fall as the crypto market purges market excesses that coincided with the pandemic-era boom.

XRP investors are feeling the sting of a severe market downturn as the asset's profitability plunges to its lowest level since July 2024.

Shiba Inu coin (SHIB) holds its ground at $0.000006, while 69% of top Binance traders move into long positions.

As XRP tests $1.34 resistance, a 1,237% liquidation ratio between longs and shorts signals deep market disbelief.

Ripple is set to host a major event focusing on XRP on Tuesday, April 7, in Japan, discussing its role in institutional adoption across the global space.

South Koreans prefer XRP to Bitcoin, daily Upbit crypto volume ranking signals.

TLDR

• Charles Hoskinson denied claims that Midnight’s bridge would permanently operate as a one-way channel.
• He said the tokenomics paper outlines phased development that includes a future two-way bridge.
• Bliss Pool stated that the document initially describes the bridge as one-way.
• Community members raised concerns about liquidity moving from Cardano into Midnight.
• Cardano DRep dori defended Midnight and described it as a partner chain focused on privacy.

Charles Hoskinson responded to renewed criticism over the Midnight bridge design and rejected claims that it harms Cardano. He addressed concerns raised by Stake Pool operator Bliss Pool on X and denied any plan to trap liquidity. Meanwhile, the debate resurfaced as Midnight secured a listing on the Australian exchange CoinSpot.

Midnight Bridge Design Sparks Debate

Hoskinson pushed back against claims that Midnight would permanently operate a one-way bridge. He said critics misread the tokenomics paper and misrepresented its phased bridge plan.

He stated that Midnight does not permanently block assets from returning to Cardano. He explained that the document outlines different stages, including a future two-way bridge.

Bliss Pool pointed to language in the tokenomics paper referencing a one-way bridge. The operator said it remains technically correct that the bridge begins as one-way.

Community members argued that a one-way structure could lock assets inside Midnight. They warned that such a setup could shift liquidity away from Cardano.

Hoskinson rejected claims that he and the IOG team chose to harm Cardano. He said critics framed a temporary design feature as a permanent policy.

He said, “There is no intention to harm Cardano.” He also said critics twist facts to support their narrative.

Cardano Community Responds to Midnight Rollout

The debate intensified after Cardano DRep dori defended Midnight over the weekend. Dori said Midnight does not compete with Cardano but supports it.

Dori described Midnight as a partner chain focused on privacy features. Dori said it fills a privacy gap in the blockchain sector.

He added that Hoskinson showed foresight by investing in privacy infrastructure early. He stated that other networks are only now moving toward similar solutions.

Community critics continued to question the bridge structure and liquidity flow. They stressed the need for transparency in project communication.

Hoskinson maintained that the tokenomics paper clearly explains the phased bridge model. He said the paper includes references to a later two-way bridge.

He criticized efforts to portray the early one-way phase as a fixed outcome. He insisted that the design evolves.

Midnight gained further traction after CoinSpot listed the token for Australian users. The exchange confirmed that traders can access Midnight and use its privacy features.

The listing expands Midnight’s availability in the Australian market. CoinSpot users can now trade the token directly on the platform.

The post Charles Hoskinson Defends Cardano Midnight Bridge Plan appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Several staff members overseeing financial crime monitoring and sanctions checks have left Binance, according to Bloomberg.
• Chief Compliance Officer Noah Perlman is discussing a possible departure and may leave this year or next.
• Binance said it has no set timeline for Perlman’s exit and has not selected a successor.
• The company agreed to a $4.3 billion US settlement over Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions violations.
• Binance reported a 96% reduction in illicit exposure between January 2023 and June 2025.

Binance faces renewed compliance questions as senior staff leave key monitoring teams. Chief Compliance Officer Noah Perlman is discussing a possible departure. The developments follow the company’s $4.3 billion US guilty plea.

Bloomberg reported that several employees overseeing financial crime surveillance and sanctions checks have exited Binance. The report said Perlman is weighing his own departure and may leave this year or next. Binance said it has no set timeline and has not chosen a successor.

Binance Compliance Team Changes Draw Scrutiny

Perlman joined Binance in January 2023 to lead a global compliance overhaul. He took the role after Binance admitted US law violations. The company agreed to pay $4.3 billion to resolve charges.

US authorities said Binance breached the Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions rules. The settlement included $2.5 billion in forfeiture and a $1.8 billion criminal fine. Then Attorney General Merrick Garland said the penalty “sends an unmistakable message” to the crypto industry.

Bloomberg reported that staff turnover has affected financial crime monitoring and sanctions compliance units. The report said Perlman is discussing “future departure matters” with management. It added that he may leave as soon as this year or next.

Binance responded that Perlman “remains focused on his current work” overseeing compliance. The company said it “currently has no departure timeline and has not determined a successor.” However, the report has intensified attention on its compliance framework.

Post-plea Oversight and Internal Metrics Under Focus

Binance has sought to ease US oversight tied to its plea agreement. The Wall Street Journal reported that executives have lobbied to remove an independent US monitor. Authorities installed that monitor to supervise anti-money-laundering controls.

The company has highlighted increased compliance investment since 2023. Binance said it expanded compliance staff by more than 30%. It also said it reduced direct exposure to illicit activity by 96% between January 2023 and June 2025.

In March, Perlman said a 96% reduction shows progress. He stated that “a 96% reduction in illicit exposure is a testament” to compliance systems. He added that the system “doesn’t just react to threats, it anticipates them.”

Binance reported that sanctions-related exposure fell from 0.284% in January 2024 to 0.009% in July 2025. The company described this as a 96.8% decline. It also said it processed over 71,000 law enforcement requests.

The company said it helped facilitate about $131 million in confiscations linked to illicit activity. However, a Financial Times investigation challenged these claims. The FT reported that suspicious accounts tied to terror financing remained active after the plea.

The investigation said hundreds of millions of dollars in suspect flows moved through the platform. It stated that those flows occurred despite promised monitoring upgrades. Binance has not publicly detailed specific responses to the FT findings.

US regulators have collected over $32 billion from crypto firms in recent years. Binance’s $4.3 billion settlement represents one of the largest single components. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen previously accused the exchange of allowing funds to reach terrorists and cybercriminals while it “turned a blind eye” to basic AML duties.

The post Binance crime monitoring staff exit as CCO reviews role appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• JPMorgan placed blockchain inside its core competitive and operational strategy in the April 6 shareholder letter.
• Jamie Dimon grouped blockchain-based firms with fintech competitors such as Block, Revolut, and Stripe.
• The letter described stablecoins, smart contracts, and tokenization as emerging competitive categories.
• Dimon stated that JPMorgan must roll out its own blockchain technology to stay competitive.
• The bank continues to operate its Kinexys platform for blockchain-based payment settlements.

JPMorgan released its annual shareholder letter on April 6 and outlined blockchain within its core strategy. CEO Jamie Dimon placed digital assets inside competitive planning and growth priorities. The document shows integration of blockchain across operations, payments, and investment banking.

JPMorgan Integrates Blockchain Into Competitive Planning

Dimon referenced blockchain competitors within the bank’s competitive threat framework. He wrote that “a whole new set of competitors is emerging based on blockchain.” He grouped stablecoins, smart contracts, and tokenization alongside Block, Revolut, and Stripe.

He placed these firms next to fintech companies JPMorgan has tracked for years. That grouping signals direct competition within payments and financial services. The letter avoids a standalone crypto section and embeds blockchain across strategy discussions.

Dimon stated that JPMorgan must “roll out its own blockchain technology” to remain competitive. He framed blockchain as a requirement rather than an experiment. The language reflects operational execution rather than research.

The bank already operates its Kinexys platform for blockchain-based settlements. It also developed JPMD, a tokenized deposit for institutional transactions. Both systems support faster settlement for large clients and operate at scale.

Digital Assets Named as Growth Priority in CIB

Dimon addressed blockchain again within the Commercial & Investment Bank section. He listed digital assets alongside global payments and private markets as growth areas. That placement ties blockchain to the bank’s institutional revenue engine.

The Commercial & Investment Bank handles global mandates and capital markets services. By naming digital assets there, Dimon linked blockchain to core institutional services. The letter connects custody, settlement, and tokenized instruments to expansion plans.

Dimon also addressed his personal stance on crypto assets. He stated in late 2025 that “blockchain is real, stablecoins are real, and tokenization is real.” However, he maintained reservations about Bitcoin as a speculative asset.

The letter reflects the separation between infrastructure and public cryptocurrencies. JPMorgan builds permissioned networks and tokenized deposits for institutional clients. It does not position Bitcoin within its operational strategy.

JPMorgan reported a drop in Q1 inflows while issuing the letter. The document still positioned blockchain within competitive and operational planning. It embedded digital assets across threat analysis, execution plans, and growth targets.

The shareholder letter represents the bank’s formal communication to investors. It presents blockchain as part of core business activity. The April 6 publication outlines blockchain across multiple divisions within JPMorgan.

The post JPMorgan CEO Embeds Blockchain in Core Strategy appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• On April 1, Oklo’s leadership team—including CEO Jacob DeWitte and COO Caroline Cochran—liquidated more than $21M in company shares through pre-scheduled trading arrangements.
• DeWitte’s selling spree dates back to January, with transactions executed at prices ranging from approximately $50 to $100 per share.
• CNBC’s Jim Cramer expressed skepticism about Oklo’s commercial viability, stating the company has minimal near-term revenue potential.
• The nuclear energy startup disappointed investors with a quarterly loss of $0.27 per share, significantly worse than Wall Street’s -$0.17 forecast.
• Despite remaining nominally bullish, Wall Street analysts have trimmed their price objectives, with the current consensus target at $84.30.

Oklo’s executive leadership executed substantial stock sales totaling north of $21 million on April 1, 2026, all conducted through previously established Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements.

Oklo Inc., OKLO

Chief Executive Jacob DeWitte liquidated shares at average prices spanning $48.41 to $51.20, generating proceeds of $10,069,852. Following these transactions, DeWitte maintains direct ownership of 691,533 Class A shares while controlling over 20 million additional shares through indirect holdings.

Co-founder and Chief Operating Officer Caroline Cochran executed similar transactions, also totaling $10,069,852, with sale prices fluctuating between approximately $47.99 and $51.79 per share. Her remaining direct stake stands at 658,039 shares.

Chief Financial Officer Richard Bealmear participated as well, selling 16,342 shares at $51.08 each for total proceeds of $834,749. His current direct holdings amount to 386,008 Class A shares.

While all three executives utilized 10b5-1 trading plans—designed to demonstrate predetermined selling schedules rather than opportunistic timing—the transactions raise eyebrows given their magnitude and timing.

DeWitte’s selling activity extends well beyond the April 1 transactions. Since January, the CEO has consistently offloaded shares at various price points, including sales near $112, $75, and $63. These cumulative transactions have generated tens of millions in personal proceeds during recent months.

The April 1 sale specifically involved 200,000 shares executed across two separate transactions, shrinking DeWitte’s direct ownership stake by 17.58%.

Cramer Questions Commercial Prospects

The executive stock sales coincide with harsh criticism from CNBC’s Jim Cramer. During a recent broadcast, Cramer delivered a blunt assessment: “Oklo, while not a science project, has very little prospects for making any money any time in the future that we think is important for a stock.”

This wasn’t Cramer’s first critique of the nuclear startup. Back in January, he characterized Oklo as lacking true commercial operations, suggesting that established players like GE Vernova represent superior investment opportunities in the nuclear sector despite Oklo’s technological promise.

Financial Performance Falls Short

The company’s operational results haven’t helped its case. Oklo disclosed a quarterly loss of $0.27 per share in its latest earnings report, substantially missing analyst expectations of a -$0.17 loss—a negative variance of $0.10 per share.

Despite this disappointment, Wall Street analysts haven’t abandoned the stock entirely, though enthusiasm has clearly cooled. UBS slashed its price target from $95 down to $60 while adopting a neutral stance. Needham made an even steeper cut from $135 to $73, and Canaccord reduced its target from $175 to $125. Cantor Fitzgerald maintained an overweight recommendation with a $122 price objective.

The analyst community’s average price target currently registers at $84.30, accompanied by a “Moderate Buy” consensus rating. The breakdown includes two Strong Buy recommendations, nine Buy ratings, six Hold positions, and two Sell ratings.

Oklo’s shares have experienced significant volatility over the past year, trading within a 12-month range of $17.42 to $193.84. The stock’s 50-day moving average currently sits at $64.62, well below its 200-day moving average of $93.16.

The post Oklo (OKLO) Stock: Top Execs Dump $21M in Shares Amid Cramer Criticism and Earnings Disappointment appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• First-quarter earnings from UnitedHealth (UNH) scheduled for April 21, 2026
• Consensus estimates point to $6.69 EPS, reflecting an 8% year-over-year drop, alongside $109.58 billion in revenue
• Raymond James raised its rating to Outperform, establishing a $330 target price
• Shares climbed approximately 1.2% in response to the analyst action
• Derivatives markets suggest a potential ~9% swing following the earnings announcement

UnitedHealth Group prepares to unveil its first-quarter financial performance on April 21, with market participants paying close attention following a challenging beginning to 2026.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UNH

Shares have tumbled approximately 17% year-to-date, weighed down by disappointing forward guidance and persistent challenges within its Medicare Advantage segment. This selloff has pushed the stock beneath the entry point established by Berkshire Hathaway, igniting discussion about potential value at current levels.

The Street anticipates adjusted earnings per share of $6.69 for the quarter, representing an 8% decline compared to the prior-year period. Revenue projections stand at $109.58 billion, essentially unchanged from last year’s figure.

Options activity suggests traders are bracing for approximately 9% volatility in either direction once results are published — indicating heightened uncertainty surrounding the upcoming release.

On April 1, Raymond James elevated UNH from Market Perform to Outperform, assigning a $330 price objective. Analyst John Ransom contended that the market is overlooking the company’s earnings capacity, especially regarding operational efficiency gains.

The rating change propelled shares higher by roughly 1.2% during the April 2 session, with the stock touching $279.04 before closing at $277.30.

Ransom highlighted administrative expense optimization as a crucial catalyst. His analysis suggests that each 100-basis-point reduction in general and administrative costs could contribute approximately $3.80 to per-share earnings.

Optum Health Under the Microscope

Raymond James noted enhanced transparency around Optum Health’s margin profile. While current-year margins may appear stable, the firm believes the underlying trajectory is favorable as UnitedHealth divests from loss-making assets.

The healthcare giant has already shuttered or divested multiple unprofitable clinic locations. This rationalization effort should alleviate margin compression moving forward.

Optum’s fee-for-service operations, generating approximately $33 billion annually, currently operate at single-digit profitability. Analysts identify substantial improvement potential through enhanced operational discipline.

The collective Wall Street sentiment toward UNH skews positive. According to TipRanks analytics compiled April 1, the stock carries a “Strong Buy” rating based on 17 Buy recommendations, 3 Hold ratings, and no Sell calls.

The consensus 12-month price objective stands at $366.47, suggesting approximately 35% appreciation potential from current trading levels. The most optimistic forecast envisions UNH at $440, while the most conservative projection sits at $311.

Potential Headwinds Persist

Some analysts maintain caution. Leerink identified Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits — Medicare Advantage payment reconciliations — as a significant challenge.

An upcoming Ninth Circuit Court decision regarding UnitedHealth’s preemption argument could broaden legal exposure should the ruling prove unfavorable.

Institutional investors control approximately 87.9% of outstanding shares. Major stakeholders include Norges Bank, Capital Research Global Investors, Berkshire Hathaway, and Dodge & Cox, which substantially increased its holdings in the previous year.

Notwithstanding the 2026 downturn, UNH recently secured a position among the top 10 holdings within the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF. The corporation distributes an annual dividend of $8.84 per share, currently yielding about 3.2%.

The most recent quarterly report showed a modest earnings beat — $2.11 EPS against the $2.09 Street estimate — accompanied by $113.73 billion in revenue, reflecting 12.3% year-over-year growth.

First-quarter financial results will be released prior to the market opening on April 21.

The post Raymond James Boosts UnitedHealth (UNH) Rating Before Q1 Results appeared first on Blockonomi.

Ethereum open interest has climbed close to the all-time high of 7.8 million ETH set in July 2025.

At the same time, the ratio of spot trading to futures trading on Binance has dropped to its lowest annual level ever.

Price Action Driven By Leverage

The above data was shared by on-chain analyst Darkfost in an April 6 post on X. Per the post, Ethereum’s open interest, which had dropped to around 5 million ETH in October last year, has since gone up by nearly 3 million to 7.8 million ETH. About 36% of that activity is concentrated on Binance, translating to roughly 2.3 million ETH.

But the spot-to-futures volume ratio was the more telling data, as it now sits at 0.13 on Binance, the lowest figure ever recorded.

“In practical terms, this means that futures volumes are now about seven times larger than spot volumes,” the analyst explained. “In other words, for every $1 traded on the spot market, roughly $7 flows through futures contracts.”

The current situation is “difficult to interpret,” according to Darkfost. That, he says, is rarely a good sign. While geopolitical and economic uncertainties stemming from the ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Israel on one side and Iran on the other have made investors more cautious, the high activity on Ethereum’s derivatives markets means that speculative participants aren’t holding back.

ETH is back above $2,100, having gained nearly 5% in the last 7 days and slightly more than that in the last 24 hours per CoinGecko data. But the market watcher insisted that most of this recent uptick had been driven by speculation rather than organic demand. However, he cautioned that the extensive use of leverage made for a weak structural foundation, which can amplify volatility in case traders adjust their positions or get hit by a liquidation event.

Key Price Level to Shape Long-Term Outlook

While Darkfost worried about Ethereum’s spot and futures trading, their effect on the cryptocurrency’s price could potentially play out within a scenario described by fellow analyst Ali Martinez.

The chartist outlined several price zones that traders are watching closely, describing the $1,800 level as a critical support area within a possible ascending triangle structure. This level matches up with the 0.80 MVRV band near $1,880, which reflects periods when many holders are at a loss and selling pressure tends to ease.

If the current structure moves into a wider channel, he said, it could drop to $1,550 and $1,070. On-chain data shows that there were clusters of buying activity at $1,584, $1,238, and $1,089, which would act as support if prices drop.

On the upside, the $2,500 level remains a key threshold. According to Martinez, a sustained move above that point would signal that the average holder is back in profit and could open the door for a larger upward move.

The post ETH Open Interest Nears ATH as Spot-to-Futures Ratio Hits Record Low appeared first on CryptoPotato.

[PRESS RELEASE – Ontario, Canada, April 6th, 2026]

CoinRabbit Cuts Crypto Lending Rates

• CoinRabbit has lowered crypto lending rates, which now start at 11.95%.
• The platform offers a range of liquidation LTV options, from a standard market setup at 80% to a more conservative risk management approach at 90–95%.
• This is one of the most competitive offers in the CeFi lending space, in terms of interest rates and loan terms.

What Reduced Crypto Lending Rates Actually Mean

CoinRabbit announces a reduction in crypto lending rates across XRP loans and more than 300 other assets, showing its dedication to offering practical tools for capital preservation. With prices fluctuating sharply, selling holdings can lock in losses and reduce future upside, while borrowing against crypto allows users to maintain portfolio exposure and access liquidity at the same time.

Historically, CoinRabbit APR reflected prevailing market conditions, ranging from 17%. Today, rates start at 11.95%, with participants in CoinRabbit’s Private Program able to access lower custom rates tailored to borrowing needs. Final rates are determined by the LTV ratio (50–90%) and loan terms, with options for both fixed-term and open-ended loans.

“Reducing rates is part of refining the financial model to make lending more efficient for diverse portfolios. In today’s dynamic market, the goal is to provide a capital preservation tool that offers liquidity while keeping assets invested,” said Walter Barrett, Chief Strategy & Growth Officer at CoinRabbit.

Liquidation LTV in Crypto Loan Management

A key aspect of risk management in lending is the liquidation LTV: the ratio of the loan amount to the collateral value at which a loan is liquidated. On the market, the standard liquidation LTV ranges from 78% to 83%, meaning positions are liquidated once the collateral drops to that level.

CoinRabbit provides two options: a standard 80% liquidation LTV, and a 90–95% liquidation LTV for users seeking additional flexibility, as liquidation occurs later, giving a larger buffer for price drops. Let’s take a closer look at both options.

For example, an investor pledges $10,000 worth of XRP as collateral with the 90–95% liquidation LTV option. If they borrow $5,000 (loan amount), the initial loan-to-value (LTV) ratio is 50%. The position could be liquidated if the collateral value falls to $5,500, corresponding to a liquidation LTV of 90%. Instant alerts are sent as the collateral approaches this threshold, giving borrowers time to adjust their positions.

For users with some experience in crypto lending, the 80% liquidation LTV option represents the standard across most platforms. Using the same example, if an investor pledges $10,000 worth of XRP and borrows $5,000, the position would be at risk of liquidation once the collateral value falls to $6,250. Alerts are similarly sent as the collateral approaches this level, allowing borrowers to manage positions.

The choice ultimately depends on the user’s experience and preference for following the standard path (liquidation LTV 80%) or opting for a more conservative risk approach (liquidation LTV 90–95%).

How Lowered Crypto Lending Rates Work on CoinRabbit

• Choosing collateral. Users can use XRP, BTC and 300+ more assets.
• Choosing loan terms. LTV ratio ranging from 50 to 90%, with options for short-term or open-ended loans. The lowered rate is displayed directly in the calculator.
• Sending the collateral to the provided wallet address and receive funds. CoinRabbit loans are issued within 10 minutes.
• Monitoring the loan. If the collateral’s value approaches the liquidation LTV, the system sends an alert. Users can then adjust their position to keep the LTV within a safe range.

About CoinRabbit

CoinRabbit is a crypto asset management platform designed for long-term capital preservation. It enables flexible liquidity management through instant payments, lending, yield, trading products, and the Private Program — all within a single ecosystem. Since 2020, CoinRabbit has issued over $1.45B in loans, maintaining a 100% capital reserve to keep clients’ funds secure and never reused.

Services provided in Canada are offered by 1001285225 ONTARIO INC. For more information, users can visit the CoinRabbit website.

For media inquiries, users can contact: marketing@coinrabbit.io

The post CoinRabbit Reduces Crypto Lending Rates for XRP Loans and 300+ Assets appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The number 1 crypto exchange by total users, trading volume, and many other metrics will conduct two wallet maintenance sessions later this week.

The process will disrupt some important operations, though it is expected to conclude swiftly.

The Upcoming Interruptions

Binance revealed that it will perform wallet maintenance for the Ethereum network on April 7, and that deposits and withdrawals on that network will be temporarily suspended during the procedure. The maintenance is set to last about one hour, after which all services will resume.

“Deposits and withdrawals for token(s) on the aforementioned network will be reopened once the upgraded network is deemed to be stable. No further announcement will be posted,” the announcement reads.

The company also clarified that token trading on the Ethereum network will not be affected and promised to handle all technical requirements for affected users.

Binance will also support the upcoming TON Network (TON) Catchain 2.0 upgrade on the same date, an effort projected to increase block production speed and overall transaction performance. To guarantee a smooth transition, the exchange will briefly pause deposits and withdrawals “if adjustments are required.”

In line with the aforementioned disclosure, the company stated it will take care of all technical procedures and that token trading on the TON network will continue uninterrupted.

Those are standard operations that Binance has carried out multiple times over the years. Last month, it also temporarily paused deposits and withdrawals on the Ethereum network to support a certain upgrade. Prior to that, it implemented similar measures to facilitate improvements across different ecosystems, including BNB Smart Chain, Cardano, and others.

Other Binance Updates

The company has been quite active lately and has added more trading options for its clients. Last week, it listed APT/U, ENA/U, FET/U, NIGHT/U, TRUMP/U, WLD/U, and TRUMP/USD1 to its Cross Margin program: an initiative once again focused on the stablecoin United Stables (U).

At the same time, it said the trading pairs ALT/BNB, ARB/TUSD, BNB/ARS, GALA/ETH, INJ/BNB, SOLV/FDUSD, and XRP/TUSD are no longer available because they don’t comply with the necessary criteria.

Perhaps the most important development is Binance’s plan to introduce a prediction market feature by aggregating platforms from third-party providers. The upcoming product will allow users to place bets on outcomes across a wide range of categories, such as sports, economics, global events, crypto, and more. To access the new feature, clients will need to update the Binance app to the latest version.

Prediction markets have surged in popularity recently, and some of the exchange’s main competitors, including Coinbase and Crypto.com, have already joined the trend.

The post Binance Will Temporarily Pause Transfers on the Ethereum Network This Week: What’s Happening? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

BitMine Immersion Technologies, the former bitcoin mining giant turned ETH treasury company, has continued to accumulate more units of the world’s largest altcoin, according to its latest market update.

It reads that the company has added 71,252 ETH for over $152 million in the past week, and its total holdings have increased to 4,803,334 ETH.

Given the asset’s price increase over the past 12 hours to $2,150 as of press time, this puts BitMine’s stash at over $10 billion.

In addition, it owns 198 BTC, a $200 million stake in Mr Beast’s Beast Industries, and a $92 million stake in EightCo Holdings for its ‘moonshots’ portfolio. The company also has cash reserves of $864 million, putting its total holding across all assets over $11.4 billion at current prices.

1/
BitMine provided its latest holdings update for April 6, 2026:

$11.4 billion in total crypto + “moonshots”:
– 4,803,334 ETH at $2,123 per ETH (@coinbase)
– 198 Bitcoin (BTC)
– $200 million stake in Beast Industries @MrBeast
– $92 million stake…

— Bitmine (NYSE-BMNR) $ETH (@BitMNR) April 6, 2026

Separately, BitMine announced that it has been approved for uplisting to the New York Stock Exchange, meaning that its common stock will stop trading on the NYSE American after the closing bell on April 8 and will start trading on the NYSE at the opening on April 9.

The company’s Chairman, Tom Lee, weighed in on the latest news and ETH accumulation, saying that the asset has beaten gold by 1,840bp, which demonstrates that it is the “wartime store of value.”

“The Iran war enters its 6th week, and this war remains the most important driver of global markets. ETH remains the second-best-performing asset since the start of the war, with a 6.8% gain and outperforming the S&P 500 by 1,130bp.

“Ethereum continues to benefit from the dual tailwinds of Wall Street tokenizing on the blockchain and from agentic AI systems increasingly needing public and neutral blockchains,” he added.

The post BitMine’s Ethereum Fortune Surpasses 4.8M ETH After Latest Acquisition appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The primary cryptocurrency has finally staged a strong rebound, with its price briefly climbing above $70,000.

However, numerous analysts warn that the bears remain in charge, predicting that a renewed pullback may quickly replace the daily green candle.

Bulls Shouldn’t Celebrate?

The recent developments in the US-Iran military conflict have heightened volatility in the cryptocurrency market today after a calm weekend. First, the American president Donald Trump warned that the Asian country has until today (April 6) to open the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise “all hell will reign down on them” before he extended the deadline by a day. On Easter, he threatened to turn Tuesday (April 7) into “Power Plant Day and Bridge Day” should the Iranian officials keep the important corridor closed.

While Tehran seemed unfazed by the emerging danger and vowed to respond with crushing attacks on the United States and Israel, some reports indicated that a potential ceasefire could be on the horizon. According to The Kobeissi Letter, the two sides may shake hands on a 45-day truce, which could then be followed by a permanent end to the war.

This speculation appears to be the main catalyst behind Bitcoin’s price rise over the past 24 hours. Several hours ago, it exceeded $70,000 for the first time since late March, while currently it trades at around $69,500 (per CoinGecko’s data).

Some popular market observers, though, have alerted that this green wave might be short-lived. X user Aralez noted that the resurgence began on Sunday, pointing out that rallies on that day have typically been followed by short-term corrections. Crypto Analyst echoed the warning, arguing:

“Bull trap BTC. Don’t trust Sunday pump. Big dump incoming.”

X user Ted also chipped in, suggesting that the leading digital asset is currently positioned in the $69,000-$70,000 resistance zone. He believes that a rejection here could result in a drop below $66K, while surpassing that level may lead to a jump to as high as $74,000.

Several days ago, the popular analyst Ali Martinez outlined that BTC’s 50-day and 200-day Simple Moving Averages (SMAs) have crossed on the 3-day chart. He reminded that on previous occasions, this setup has been a precursor to a major double-digit price drop, predicting that such a final capitulation may lead to a washout of roughly $30,000 in the current cycle.

How About Further Gains?

Despite the broadly bearish outlook, some analysts think the asset retains short-term upside potential. X user Trader Tardigrade argued that BTC has entered “the choppy and euphoric phase” and forecasted that “the next move could be explosive.”

Some on-chain metrics, including the asset’s exchange reserve, also give bulls some reasons for optimism. The amount of units stored on centralized platforms fell to a seven-year low towards the end of March, and as of this writing, it is quite close to that mark. This indicates that many investors have moved their holdings toward self-custody, thereby reducing immediate selling pressure.

The post Don’t Trust Bitcoin’s (BTC) Pump: Analysts Warn the Price May Plunge Soon appeared first on CryptoPotato.