AI's transformative impact on careers demands adaptability, while mobile coding reshapes engineering work habits.

The post Keith Rabois: Product managers are evolving into strategic CEOs, AI will transform career paths across industries, and mobile coding is reshaping tech work habits | Lenny’s Podcast appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The blockade heightens geopolitical tensions, potentially destabilizing global markets and impacting energy security and cryptocurrency values.

The post Trump announces Strait of Hormuz blockade as Iran nuclear talks collapse, Bitcoin extends losses appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The allegations highlight potential risks in DeFi projects, emphasizing the need for transparency and robust governance to maintain trust.

The post Justin Sun accuses Trump-backed World Liberty of hidden backdoor control appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Online gambling's rapid growth raises ethical concerns about exploitation and the industry's impact on society.

The post Nick Pell: Gambling should be legal but critically examined, the ethical dilemmas of online betting, and the historical context of sports gambling laws | Jordan Harbinger appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Hayes' investment strategy could influence market dynamics, potentially driving increased interest and volatility in the crypto sector.

The post Arthur Hayes doubles down on HYPE as he eyes $150 target by August appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Relics of a Revolution, Part II: False Profits and Freedom

Revolutions leave behind artifacts — not always weapons or flags, but the quieter objects that carried a message before anyone knew how far it would travel. A wheat-pasted broadside on a Los Angeles overpass. A hand-lettered cardboard sign held up in the snow outside a Tokyo office building. A newspaper headline, pulled from the front page of The Times of London and encoded permanently into a piece of software that would go on to challenge the architecture of global finance.

The works gathered in Relics of a Revolution at the Bitcoin 2026 Conference in Las Vegas trace a specific lineage of dissent — one that connects street-level protest to the birth of Bitcoin itself. Mear One (b. 1971, Santa Cruz, CA) has spent nearly four decades using the walls of Los Angeles as a medium for political and economic confrontation. He pioneered the Melrose graffiti art movement in the late 1980s, was the first graffiti artist to exhibit at the 01 Gallery on Melrose and at 33 1/3 Gallery in Silverlake — where Banksy would later debut his first North American show — and in 2004 joined Shepard Fairey and Robbie Conal on the Be the Revolution tour, a nationwide series of anti-war street art interventions during the Bush administration. His work was part of the landmark Art in the Streets exhibition at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art in 2011 and resides in the permanent collections of the Laguna Art Museum among others. From anti-Gulf War broadsides in the early 1990s through the Occupy Wall Street encampments of 2011, Mear One has been making work that insists the root problem is the system itself — not the politicians or the policies, but the underlying architecture of money and power.

I sat down with Mear One ahead of his panel at Bitcoin 2026 to talk about protest, art, broken systems, and why the revolution is not over, or how to exit a loop.

BMAG: Mear One, you started writing on walls in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s, at a moment when graffiti was still broadly criminalized and the idea of it entering museum collections would have seemed far-off. By the early 1990s, you were making large-scale political work — anti-Gulf War broadsides, pieces confronting economic power structures head-on. What was driving you to use the street as a political medium at that point, and who were you trying to reach?

Mear One: Graffiti is the voice of the dissatisfied soul, and back then it was a vehicle to reach the masses before the internet took off & social media ever existed. When you illegally spray paint your ideas in the public realm it resonates with the urbanite caught in traffic, angers the city officials whose dilapidated walls we scribe like a big middle finger to their failed policies. Conscious art speaks to conscious people, and the act of vandalism carries with it an energy that helped instigate a movement which was lacking. The streets were our meeting ground, and getting away with it kept us all anonymous, permissionless.

BMAG: There’s a phrase that circulates in bitcoin culture — “all wars are banker’s wars.” The Genesis Block itself contains a newspaper headline about a bank bailout. When you look back at the work you were making during the Gulf War era and later during Occupy Wall Street, how much of it feels like it was pointing toward the same structural critique that bitcoin would eventually encode into its protocol?

Mear One: Quite honestly, when I discovered bitcoin it immediately reminded me of the graffiti, hip hop, and punk rock culture I grew up in, it mirrored the revolutionary necessities I was communicating through my art. I think we all desire an ideology or movement that speaks to and offers a solution to the endless new world order slave trap that so many have become accustomed to. And it turns out the architects who created this current economic matrix are the same builders of our prison schools, creators of our bankers’ wars. Satoshi knew this. Humans don’t really have world war issues with one another, these issues stem from economic and political power struggles outside of our fundamental human desires like freedom, love, a spiritual connection to a higher purpose. My goal as an artist is to always experience freedom, to set myself free from the system, this is the basis of my art, philosophy and resistance.

BMAG: In 2004, you joined Shepard Fairey and Robbie Conal on the Be the Revolution tour — taking anti-war, anti-corporate street art across the country during the Bush administration. That was four years before the financial collapse, and three years after 9/11 had already been used to justify unprecedented expansions of surveillance, military spending, and executive power. What did that experience teach you about using art as a tool for economic and political resistance, and how did it shape your thinking when the crash actually arrived?

Mear One: Be the Revolution with Robbie and Shepard was more so an outlet to express my angst and dismay of American politics at the time. Fighting wars for foreign resources to sell for profit exacerbating this hierarchy of haves and have nots still weighs heavy on my philosophical heart. 

But when the financial crash hit in 2008 my revolutionary lens shifted drastically, and for the first time in my life I became interested in learning how the system of money actually operates, what money is, and seeking to articulate through my art a more accurate definition of the new world order culminating in my most controversial work to date False Profits.

“You cannot dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools.” Subversive art, subliminal art, illegal art, art that punches you in the gut with facts and satire using a spray can, paint brush, wheat pastes, music, comedy, film, whatever tools are in your creative kit, art is the most effective way to create change. I think great art stands the test of time for its quality of being somewhat psychic, narrating the cause before the effect is widely understood by the masses, before it’s too late.

BMAG: Street art is ephemeral by nature — it gets buffed, painted over, torn down, rained on. Some of your protest works from the Occupy era and earlier have survived. What does it mean to you that objects made in that spirit of urgency — work created to be temporary — are now being shown in a gallery context as historical artifacts?

Mear One: They’re still relevant, ironically, because nothing’s changed! Same circumstance, different puppets. These works point out a condition that is ongoing within our human story, and it’s important as Bitcoiners to pay memory to our past struggles and the remedies which we choose to solve them. In this spirit of urgency these Relics of Revolution are calling out for exactly that – the time for change is always now!

BMAG: You were making anti-war street art during the first Gulf War. Now, more than thirty years later, we’re watching another military escalation in the Middle East — this time with Iran. The machinery looks different, the justifications sound different, but the economic architecture underneath it is remarkably similar. For a generation that came of age watching 9/11 become the justification for two decades of war and then watched the 2008 crash reveal that the financial system underwriting it all was itself a fraud — when you see this cycle repeating, does it feel like confirmation of something you’ve been saying on walls for decades, or does it feel like failure — that the message didn’t land?

Mear One: Like you said, all wars are bankers wars. And for hundreds of years we’ve been fed a false narrative about who our enemy is. There’s a lot of truths I’ve tried to point out through my art and it has made my life much harder for it. I’ve been criticized, censored, nearly cancelled, had my life threatened, labelled all sorts of heinous things. But I resisted, I was unapologetic, and I continue to do my work unfazed. Sometimes it feels like I’m standing on the street corner pointing up in the sky, screaming at the top of my lungs about the chemtrails, and everyone just thinks I’m crazy – it’s always like that in the beginning – but people are waking up. It’s not easy to do art that points out what’s wrong with the system. But it’s also not easy to be honest with yourself and accept the mediocre mundane pointless reality that is the social norm. The reward in doing this is to see a movement like bitcoin spawning and like-minded people sharing the joy and vigor for revolution.

BMAG: There’s an argument — and it runs deep in Bitcoin thinking — that wars are not really fought over ideology or territory but over monetary control. That every major conflict is ultimately about protecting or resetting an economic order that benefits the people waging it. Your work has been making that case visually since the 1990s. How do you articulate that connection between war and money to someone who hasn’t thought about it that way?

Mear One: I create an allegory that consists of the main factors, I am challenged to present it in its most digestible form; yet this is complicated subject matter so this challenge causes me to include subliminal psychedelic mythological archetypes and symbolism all coming together to assist in this complicated narrative, not only to create something visually compelling, but to give the subject matter a focus and a place to become a discussion amongst people. Through narrative art you can introduce ideas that people struggle with in the abstract.

BMAG: The 2008 crash, the bailouts, Occupy, and now what looks like another cycle of inflation, debt, and military spending — do you see Bitcoin as the first real exit from that loop, or just the latest attempt to build something outside a system that keeps absorbing its opposition?

Mear One: I’m a non-dogmatic being by nature. Bitcoin to me is the first wave in new technology that might steer us away from the fiat slave system. But I’m not convinced that it is the be-all and end-all for our current predicament. As we observe Wall Street attempting to hijack bitcoin all the while in-fighting amongst internal ideologues rages on, all that noise obscures bitcoin’s original ethos. These are its problems that are being worked out. I’m much more a believer in innovation and I welcome many more new inventions to enter our realm. I think that the monetary reality needs to run its course though, and what eventually follows I hope is a spiritual revolution. I see bitcoin as a crowbar in an emergency break the glass situation where it is necessary for the next iteration of where we’re heading into the 2030s. I do believe that is towards a state of ultimate freedom where the concept of money itself will become obsolete as we migrate closer to rebuilding a new world.

BMAG: How did you first encounter Bitcoin, and was there a specific moment where it clicked for you as connected to the same values and frustrations that had driven your street practice for decades?

Mear One: Back in 2009 I ran into a mathematician at a coffee shop in my neighborhood, we struck up conversation over my art and he hipped me to bitcoin for the first time. I never saw myself as one who would invest money into money, so it was just an interesting idea in the back of my mind. As I deepened my education into what money is through Occupy and to the creation/fallout of my London mural in 2012, my path eventually led my lady and I to our first bitcoin conference down in Mexico at Anarchapulco. We were introduced to a tribe of anarchists who shared similar sentiments on politics and lifestyle. I had millions of questions, everyone had answers, and like a sponge I absorbed this knowledge. I rocked two live art pieces for the community, which I auctioned off. Those collectors helped me set up my first wallet (shout out EDGE) as well as the transactions in exchange for my proof-of-work. That’s when it clicked for me, when I earned my first coins.

BMAG: Your work is in a show called Relics of a Revolution. Do you think the revolution it’s referencing is over, still happening, or something that hasn’t fully begun yet?

Mear One: Revolution is a daily occurrence, it is one of the inevitable aspects of life that you either take part in or it’s gonna take a part of you. Revolution literally means a cycle that we experience in different seasons across different cultures, time and space. There’s a variety of revolutions currently taking place. What’s great about bitcoin is it somehow is able to connect and bridge to them all at once because ultimately it seeks what we all desire – freedom from the system.

BMAG: This exhibition is called Relics of a Revolution, and it includes your protest works alongside an original copy of The Times from January 3, 2009 — the newspaper whose headline Satoshi embedded in the Genesis Block. That newspaper is the moment a diagnosis became a protocol — the moment the frustration that Mear One had been painting on walls and that Kolin would later carry on a sign in Tokyo was encoded into something that could not be buffed, censored, or bailed out. When you see your work displayed alongside that artifact, what do you want someone walking through this exhibition to take away — someone who may know Bitcoin as a price ticker but doesn’t know the history of why it exists?

Mear One: Collect these works of art! And I don’t mean that facetiously. Every great art movement had their Medicis, those whose power and influence defined the style & ideas of a generation. All the works you see here in the gallery is art denominated in bitcoin, created by artists whose works are inspired by the philosophical principles underlying the greatest bitcoin artwork of them all, the Genesis Block. Like bitcoin, art is the greatest store of value. But cultural preservation of these fine art assets of freedom by accomplished artists requires the patronage of those with passion for these aesthetic visions. Currently we face WW3, economic destruction, trade & agriculture collapse. Bitcoin cuts that circuit of suffering & punishment. Our ultimate fight is with the controllers of money and their bullshit fiat institutions, rendering their scheme obsolete and irrelevant.

This is Part II of a three-part interview series accompanying the Relics of a Revolution exhibition. Part I features Kolin Burges. Part III, featuring Afroman, is forthcoming.

Fix the money. Fix the world.

Mear One will be painting live in the BMAG art gallery throughout Bitcoin 2026, April 27–29, at The Venetian Resort, Las Vegas, and will appear on a speaking panel moderated by Dennis Koch titled “Looking at Bitcoin Art Through a Protest Lens.” A unique print by Mear One entitled The Magician is available exclusively through BMAG. Preview Mear One’s historic protest works included in the Relics of a Revolution exhibition in the BMAG B26 auction HERE. 

The Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) is the curatorial and cultural programming division of BTC Inc and the Bitcoin Conference. Since 2019, the BMAG conference art gallery has facilitated more than 120 BTC in art and collectible sales. Learn more about BMAG at museum.b.tc. Follow BMAG on twitter @BMAG_HQ. Bundle your Bitcoin 2026 pass with a stay at The Venetian and get your fourth night free. Use code AFTERS for a free After Hours Pass, or get your pass alone here.

This post Relics of a Revolution, Part II: False Profits and Freedom first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Dennis Koch.

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gavin Andresen Era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mara van der Laan Era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Contributor Consensus Era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13] https://mempool.space/block/0 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[79] https://www.twitch.tv/achow101/ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin’s decentralized structure is a challenge 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan Stanley launches a bitcoin ETF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

Nakamoto receives a buy rating

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

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

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

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

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

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

TD Cowen’s stress on this policy cycle

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

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

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

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

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

Is Coinbase too big to fail? It has to be now ETFs rely on it daily

Wall Street spent two years selling investors on a clean vision of Bitcoin: a regulated exchange-traded fund, cleared and settled through the same institutional machinery that handles equities and bonds, scrubbed of the Wild West baggage that haunted crypto's earlier chapters.

The pitch worked spectacularly well, pulling tens of billions of dollars into an asset class wrapper that felt familiar to advisors and compliance departments alike.

But what the industry never seems to talk about is the degree to which that entire apparatus routes through a single company.

Morgan Stanley launched the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (NYSE Arca: MSBT) on Apr. 8, becoming the first US bank-affiliated asset manager to offer a cryptocurrency ETP. The fund debuted with roughly $34 million in first-day trading volume, a 14-basis-point fee that undercuts BlackRock's dominant iShares Bitcoin Trust by 11 basis points, and Coinbase and BNY as its custody providers.

The competitive angle here is obvious, but it's the structural one that's much more revealing: yet another blue-chip institution plugging itself into the same custody backbone that already underpins the overwhelming majority of the US bitcoin ETF market.

As of Apr. 8, the US bitcoin ETF complex tracked by Bitbo held $91.71 billion in total assets under management (AUM). Funds whose launch documents name Coinbase as custodian or primary custodian account for approximately $77.10 billion of that total, or 84.1 percent of the entire market.

That upper-bound figure spans the largest and most liquid names in the space: BlackRock's IBIT at $55.70 billion, Grayscale's ETFs at $14.67 billion, Bitwise's BITB at $2.67 billion, ARK's ARKB at $2.59 billion, and several smaller funds, including BRRR, EZBC, BTCO, and BTCW.

A stricter methodology that excludes funds with multi-custodian arrangements or undisclosed allocation splits still yields about $74.06 billion, or 80.8 percent. Either way, the concentration is extraordinary.

The caveats deserve careful treatment, because the difference between a dominant choke point and a literal monopoly is the difference between a serious structural concern and a misleading headline.
BlackRock's IBIT prospectus names Coinbase as its Bitcoin custodian but also discloses Anchorage as an additional available custodian, noting that it has no current plans to move assets there. ARK 21Shares' ARKB filings list Coinbase alongside BitGo and Anchorage. CoinShares Valkyrie's BRRR names Coinbase, BitGo, and Komainu but doesn't disclose the allocation among them. Fidelity self-custodies through its own digital asset subsidiary, and VanEck uses Gemini.

The market has its exceptions, and they're worth noting, but the weight of the complex still tilts overwhelmingly toward one provider.

How the path of least resistance became the only path

So many issuers, each with access to sophisticated legal and operational teams, keep arriving at the same vendor for a compounding set of structural reasons.

Coinbase is a regulated qualified custodian under New York trust rules, which gives it a compliance profile that satisfies the most conservative institutional gatekeepers. It already had the operational infrastructure that ETF issuers needed when the SEC approved spot bitcoin ETFs in January 2024, making it the easiest option during a compressed launch timeline when multiple issuers were racing to market within days of one another.

That first-mover advantage in ETF custody then became self-reinforcing: once the largest issuers selected Coinbase, the authorized participants, market makers, legal counsel, and boards evaluating subsequent launches grew comfortable repeating the same template rather than introducing a new variable into a novel product structure.

Coinbase's conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for a national trust charter, announced on Apr. 2, will cement its position in the market.

A finalized charter would allow the firm to operate as a federally regulated digital asset custodian under a single OCC supervisor, replacing the patchwork of state licenses that currently governs its operations.

Greg Tusar, Vice President of Institutional Product at Coinbase, noted that the company already custodies more than 80% of the world's crypto ETFs. The OCC approval, if completed, would cement Coinbase as the default crypto back-office infrastructure for institutions that require federal-grade regulatory comfort before deploying capital, and further widen the gap between it and every competitor still assembling state-by-state licenses.

Whether this concentration reflects genuine market choice or a scarce-capacity market where alternatives were too limited, too new, or too politically complicated during the critical ETF launch window is a question the industry hasn't answered honestly.

A handful of issuers have begun disclosing backup custodians, which suggests at least some awareness of the problem, even if those disclosures have yet to translate into meaningful redistribution of actual BTC holdings.

$77 billion of correlated vulnerability in Coinbase

ETF structures are designed so that fund assets are segregated from the sponsor's balance sheet, and custody agreements impose fiduciary duties and segregation requirements.

Morgan Stanley's own filing describes segregation protocols and insurance coverage for custodied assets. Those protections are important and ensure that concentration risk in this market looks very different from the commingling catastrophes that defined the crypto blowups we're all too familiar with.

The danger here is subtler and in some ways harder to address, because it runs through the operational layer.

If the dominant custodian suffers a technology outage, a settlement bottleneck, or a regulatory shock, the effects can ripple across multiple ETF issuers simultaneously, affecting creation and redemption processes for funds that collectively hold the vast majority of the market's assets. ETF disclosure documents themselves repeatedly note the importance of the custodian to fund operations and the consequences if a custodian resigns or can no longer serve.

A single enforcement action or licensing dispute at Coinbase could easily become a market-wide event because so many funds share the same dependency. The blast radius of any disruption scales with the assets Coinbase touches, and those assets now exceed $74 billion under even the most conservative tally.

There's also a confidence dimension worth considering. The institutional credibility narrative that the ETF industry has built around Bitcoin depends on these products functioning as smoothly and predictably as any other listed fund. A custody disruption at the firm that underpins more than four-fifths of the market would test that promise in ways that could take years to repair, regardless of whether investor assets were ultimately made whole.

Fidelity's decision to self-custody, VanEck's use of Gemini, and BlackRock's disclosure of Anchorage as an available alternative all suggest that the tools for diversification exist.

But will the industry use them before a crisis forces its hand?

The post Over 80% of Bitcoin ETF assets hit Coinbase custody choke point with $74B at risk appeared first on CryptoSlate.

In November 2024, the SEC celebrated 583 enforcement actions and a record $8.2 billion in remedies, saying crypto was proof it could keep pace with emerging threats. This week, the same agency published a 2025 review calling that approach a mistake.

The new report said prior resources were misapplied, criticized the pursuit of “media headlines,” and described the past year as a “necessary course correction” that included dismissing seven crypto registration-related cases.

While this is a clear sign that the SEC is easing up on crypto, the report also carries a silent admission. We see now that it's publicly disowning the enforcement strategy it was bragging about just over a year ago.

What the SEC was selling in 2024 and what changed in 2025

The fiscal 2024 review was triumphant by design.

The SEC reported 583 total enforcement actions and said the $8.2 billion in monetary remedies it gathered that year was the highest in the agency's history. It said its enforcement division was keeping pace with emerging threats and listed crypto prominently among them. The Terraform Labs and Do Kwon case, which alone accounted for roughly 56% of the year's total remedies, was treated as a signature achievement and as proof that the SEC could take on complex, high-profile defendants and win.

None of that language was even slightly subdued. The 2024 report presented volume and dollar totals as evidence of institutional vigor, positioning large case counts and massive dollar figures as the metrics that defended its relevance.

Crypto enforcement wasn't a side project the SEC worked on alongside other industries; it was the flagship. That context is essential to understanding what happened next, because every one of those metrics is now being used against it.

The fiscal 2025 review looks like a document written by a different agency.

The SEC reported 456 enforcement actions, a decline of more than 20% from the prior year. The headline monetary relief figure is $17.9 billion, but that number is misleading in ways the agency itself acknowledged. It's inflated by long-running Stanford litigation and by money credited against other judgments rather than collected fresh. Strip those items out, and the real fiscal 2025 total lands at about $2.7 billion: $1.4 billion in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, plus $1.3 billion in civil penalties.

What makes the report bigger than a set of smaller numbers is the words framing them.
The SEC presented the decline as a deliberate correction, arguing that prior enforcement leadership spent too much time on cases designed to generate volume and attract media attention rather than cases tied to direct, measurable investor harm.

That's a foundational critique that treats the old approach as conceptually wrong rather than just less productive. The current SEC is effectively arguing that its predecessor's favorite metrics overstated real enforcement value, which makes this one of the most important institutional claims we've seen in a while.

The crypto piece is the clearest illustration of that shift, even if it isn't the whole of it.

The fiscal 2025 report said seven crypto registration-related cases were dismissed and grouped them alongside off-channel communications cases and certain “dealer” enforcement actions as examples of a regime that prioritized case volume over direct investor protection. The language is pointed: these cases are described as part of a broader misallocation of resources, not deprioritized matters that were allowed to wind down.

That framing aligns with a string of high-profile retreats over the past year.

The SEC dismissed its civil enforcement action against Coinbase in early 2025, voluntarily dropped its lawsuit against Binance a few months later, and closed its investigation into Robinhood's crypto arm with no action at all. A new crypto task force was also created to shift the agency's stance from punishing firms for failing to register toward clarifying what registration actually requires.

Taken individually, each of those developments could be read as a routine change in enforcement appetite. Taken together, and now ratified in the agency's own annual report, they represent something considerably more ambitious. The SEC, which once used crypto to signal toughness, is now using it to signal restraint.

A reset with consequences

The enforcement shift we're now seeing from the SEC doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The enforcement division has been contending with significant leadership churn and staffing losses, including the resignation of its enforcement director and an 18% drop in division staff during fiscal 2025. While some of that is normal transition-year friction, enforcement experts quoted by Reuters saw the decline as evidence of a deeper strategic reset reflecting the current administration's broader skepticism of regulation-by-enforcement across multiple agencies.

The report's release was followed by the appointment of David Woodcock, a Gibson Dunn partner and former SEC regional office director, as the new head of enforcement. Woodcock replaces Margaret Ryan, who, according to Reuters, lasted just six months in the role before resigning over clashes with agency leadership about the program's direction, showing the course correction hasn't been frictionless even within the SEC's own ranks.

That context connects the SEC's self-criticism to a wider argument playing out in Washington, one about whether the entire model of using enforcement actions as a first-resort regulatory tool, filing cases to establish legal precedent rather than waiting for Congress or rulemaking to clarify the rules, was ever really appropriate. The current SEC is betting that it wasn't, and it's willing to say so in writing.

There's an irony worth sitting with. In November 2024, high case counts and massive remedies totals were the metrics the SEC chose to prove it was doing its job well. By April 2026, lower case counts and smaller dollar figures serve the same purpose.

The agency changed the definition of success and applied that new definition retroactively to discredit the work it was celebrating less than two years ago.

Whether the reframing is justified will play out over the coming years as the effects of lighter enforcement become measurable. But the document itself is remarkable: a federal regulator using its own annual report to argue against the logic of its own recent past.

The post SEC admits crypto crackdown went too far ‘headlines’ as it dismisses 7 cases appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The US-Iran ceasefire made oil retreat, European equities posted their largest single-day gain in more than four years, and crypto joined the relief wave alongside everything else.

During the relief, traders rotated sharply into privacy-adjacent names, pushing Zcash up roughly 59.6% over seven days and Dash up about 47.3% over the same window.

CryptoSlate's privacy coin category climbed 10.2% over 24 hours as of press time, while the broader privacy cohort averaged 21.5% gains, comfortably outpacing Bitcoin.

Top Privacy Crypto Assets by Market Cap

#	Coin	Price	24h %	MCap	24h Vol
1	Monero XMR	$339.81	+0.4%	$6.27B	$84.26M
2	Zcash ZEC	$365.45	-3.07%	$6.08B	$488.81M
3	Canton Network CC	$0.15	+0.23%	$5.57B	$5.99M
4	Midnight NIGHT	$0.04	-5.51%	$640.08M	$157.39M
5	Decred DCR	$21.68	-5.48%	$376.58M	$3.33M

The move is split unevenly across the category, providing information beyond the headline numbers.

Two forces unevenly applied

Two distinct forces drove the outperformance, and the first was straightforward: when risk appetite recovers sharply, traders reach for smaller, more volatile assets that carry more upside in a rising tide.

The second force was selective, favoring names with a legible narrative beyond macro relief.

Monero supplies the clearest evidence against the simple “geopolitics made people want privacy” reading. Over the same seven days, Zcash gained 46.6% against Bitcoin and Dash gained roughly 40.4%, while XMR/BTC fell by about 2.3%.

Given technical complexity and market cap, a uniform ideological bid for financial anonymity would have put Monero in the move.

The uneven movement points to traders choosing names based on squeeze potential and narrative legibility, treating privacy as a trading cluster.

For Zcash, that second narrative was already in place well before the ceasefire.

Grayscale filed an amended S-3/A on Apr. 2 describing a path to list the Grayscale Zcash Trust on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH. This concrete institutional access signal keeps regulated capital's options open.

Foundry announced in March a plan to launch an institutional-grade Zcash mining pool in April 2026, explicitly framing Zcash as an asset that had matured beyond retail-only infrastructure.

The Zcash Open Development Lab disclosed raising more than $25 million from Paradigm, a16z crypto, Coinbase Ventures, and Winklevoss Capital, alongside more than 400% growth in shielded pools and more than $600 million in ZEC swaps since October 2025.

The Zcash Foundation added in January that the SEC had concluded its review without recommending enforcement action.

Each of those catalysts predated this week's rally, making the ceasefire a macro entry point into a thesis already accumulating institutional weight.

Dash as a high-beta proxy

Dash carried genuine narrative momentum going into the week.

AEON Pay processed 994,000 transactions and $29 million in transaction volume across more than 50 million offline merchants, Dash announced shielded transaction capabilities for its Evolution platform using Zcash's Orchard technology, and March brought an integration with NEAR Intents for swap access.

Dash's rally rests on thinner fundamental ground than Zcash's, as no single same-window catalyst arrived with the same compressive force as Zcash's institutional stack.

Dash's own compliance framing complicates any clean categorization, since the project has maintained since 2020 that its transactions are transparent by default and that it operates as a payments cryptocurrency with optional privacy.

CryptoSlate's privacy coin category currently includes Monero and Zcash, with Dash absent. Nevertheless, once Zcash broke higher, traders reached for the nearest thinner name with any proximity to the privacy cluster, and Dash was familiar, liquid enough to trade in size, and small enough to move quickly.

CoinGlass figures show elevated derivatives intensity in Dash, with 24-hour futures volume roughly $669 million against a market cap of about $561 million, turnover running at approximately 119% of market cap, and open interest at about 15.15% of market cap.

Zcash also showed elevated readings, with futures volume around 63.45% of market cap and open interest around 12.61%. Both sets of ratios are consistent with narrative-driven, squeeze-amplified moves, and Dash's figures looked more stretched, painting the setup where spillover momentum can overshoot.

The Grayscale vehicle adds a structural layer that separates Zcash from every other name in the privacy trade.

The S-3/A filing noted that the trust has historically traded at discounts as wide as 55% and premiums as high as 240%, but sat at just a 0.3% premium to NAV as of Mar. 31.

Traders are pricing the optionality of Zcash becoming easier for regulated capital to access, a future-access bet, given that the trust carried almost no arbitrage gap as of the filing date.

That optionality fits a broader 2026 backdrop already in motion before this week. Grayscale's fourth-quarter 2025 report named privacy the dominant crypto theme of the quarter.

Coinbase's January 2026 market note described privacy tokens as among 2025's best performers and said the narrative could remain consequential through 2026, with regulation flagged as the primary risk.

What could extend or end the trade

In the bull case, oil stays off its highs, equities hold risk-on positioning, and at least one of Zcash's institutional catalysts firms up.

In that world, Zcash keeps most of its relative outperformance because the institutional access narrative stands independent of the ceasefire, and Dash can overshoot again because its market structure is thin enough to amplify any continuation of inflows.

In the bear case, the ceasefire proves fragile, leading to an oil rebound and reversing the macro relief. Because Zcash and Dash are both smaller and more leveraged to trader positioning than Bitcoin, they tend to retrace more.

Dash goes first, given its thinner liquidity and the absence of a durable institutional narrative to slow the exit. Zcash holds better if its institutional access story retains credibility, though the margin depends on whether Foundry and Grayscale deliver on their stated timelines.

The Grayscale filing describes a conversion path pending regulatory approval, while Foundry's pool carries a planned April 2026 launch date awaiting confirmation. If either narrative disappoints, the institutionalization thesis loses its near-term anchor.

Coinbase's January note identified regulatory action and exchange delistings as asymmetric risks for privacy tokens with narrower liquidity bases than Bitcoin, a category that Zcash and Dash both occupy.

Zcash and Dash beat Bitcoin this week because a macro relief rally lifted risk appetite across asset classes, and a concentrated institutional narrative that gave traders a second reason to buy one specific privacy coin over the others converged.

The post Zcash beats Bitcoin by 46% as privacy coins decouple during Iran War appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin kept part of the ceasefire bounce, but the chain still has not confirmed the move

Bitcoin is still holding around $71,000 after the weekend’s ceasefire-driven risk bounce, even as the macro story behind that move has already started to fray. That leaves the market in an awkward middle ground. Price kept part of the upside. The chain still has not confirmed that the move reflects broad underlying demand.

That gap is the real story right now. The first reaction came from geopolitics and cross-market repricing, not from obvious on-chain urgency.

Since then, the ceasefire narrative has weakened, ETF flows have steadied, and Bitcoin has held enough ground to keep the bullish case alive. What remains unresolved is whether this is the start of a more durable demand cycle or simply a macro reflex that outran conviction.

Related Reading

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

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

Apr 8, 2026 · Gino Matos

After just a few days, the first move is already old news. On April 8, U.S. crude settled at $94.41, Brent at $94.75, the S&P 500 was up 2.5%, and the Dow was higher by 1,325 points after President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran.

By the next session, the reset was already wobbling. April 9 showed stocks recovering from early losses to finish modestly higher, while oil stayed elevated after its rebound, and the ceasefire already looked fragile.

As of Sunday, April 12, the macro backdrop looks even less settled. AP reported today that U.S.-Iran talks in Islamabad ended without an agreement, with both sides blaming each other, and the two-week truce still under strain. That pushes the market one step further away from the easy version of the bullish case that treated the ceasefire as a stable reset in risk appetite.

Bitcoin still held part of the move. CryptoSlate data shows Bitcoin price at $71,568.66 as of April 12, down 1.83% over 24 hours, up 6.81% over seven days, and down 0.65% over 30 days. The asset is still trading far above the panic low near $67,000 that framed the earlier bounce, even after the macro backdrop lost coherence.

That sequence leaves the market asking, “What happens when a geopolitical catalyst hits first, then starts to fade before the chain ever shows signs of urgent confirmation?”

So far, the evidence still points to a confirmation gap. YCharts shows Bitcoin’s average transaction fee at $0.3162 on April 11, down from $0.4525 the day before and 79.79% lower than a year earlier. Even after the ceasefire shock, the base layer still looks cheap to use.

Glassnode’s April 8 note, “Bouncing in a Bear,” described Bitcoin’s rebound from $67,000 to $72,000 as a recovery that still lacked strong conviction because spot demand remained weak and futures activity had softened. That frame still holds up today. Price moved quickly. The chain still looks restrained.

The market, therefore, has three facts sitting together at once. The initial macro impulse was real. The impulse weakened quickly. Bitcoin kept part of the move anyway. The chain has not yet repriced to signal broad settlement urgency. That combination is more useful than a simple bullish or bearish label.

Related Reading

Bitcoin enters the war as Iran wants ships to pay in BTC to get through Hormuz

The move would push Bitcoin into a live trade chokepoint where sanctions, shipping delays, and market risk collide.

Apr 8, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Macro moved first, then the ceasefire started losing coherence

Day one brought the sharp relief move, with oil plunging below $95 and the Dow surging 1,325 points. Day two brought the first visible stress, with stocks dipping early, oil rebounding, and the session finishing with a much smaller gain.

By April 12, the truce looks shakier still. The failed Islamabad talks make clear that the ceasefire did not mature into a durable political settlement over the weekend. It remained a pause under pressure.

That changes the way Bitcoin should be framed. The move cannot be treated as a stable relief rally that simply needs on-chain confirmation to catch up. It looks more like a fast macro impulse that outran conviction, then lost part of its outside support before the chain ever started behaving like a fresh demand cycle was underway.

Bitcoin’s price action still deserves respect inside that sequence. The asset is holding the low-$70,000 area even after the easiest macro tailwind weakened. A full retrace would have sent a different signal. Holding part of the move keeps the setup alive.

The distinction is that “alive” and “confirmed” are not the same thing. A market can absorb a geopolitical shock, keep part of the rebound, and still fail to show broad internal urgency. That is exactly the gap now visible between Bitcoin’s price and the condition of its fee market.

YCharts shows 558,574 Bitcoin transactions for April 8, up 3.64% from the prior day and 53.47% above a year earlier. That says the network is active in absolute terms. It does not say users are competing aggressively for scarce block space.

The fee data makes that distinction clearer. Average fees of $0.3162 on April 11 indicate a network processing transactions without the kind of squeeze usually associated with speculative urgency. Bitcoin is expensive again. Using Bitcoin is still unusually cheap.

That leaves the on-chain frame as a test rather than the whole thesis. The main driver sat outside crypto first. The chain’s job now is to show whether broader participation is actually building behind the move. Until that happens, price is carrying more of the argument than network conditions are.

Glassnode’s April 1 note, “No Catalyst, No Range Break,” describes the market before the ceasefire shock arrived. Bitcoin was rangebound between $60,000 and $70,000, spot demand showed early absorption, and conviction was still too soft for a sustained breakout. The macro shock changed the price first. It did not automatically change the deeper structure.

Related Reading

The Bitcoin network is currently a ghost town as price is being controlled elsewhere

Fees, mempool pressure, and on-chain demand are telling a different story beneath the price recovery.

Apr 9, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Fees stayed subdued even as ETF flows turned back up

The confirmation gap becomes more revealing when the chain is placed next to the wrapper channels. Farside’s full Bitcoin ETF flow table shows how quickly ETF demand swung around the ceasefire sequence. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $471.4 million on April 6, then saw $159.1 million of net outflows on April 7 and $93.9 million of net outflows on April 8.

That looked unstable at first. It looks more balanced now. Farside’s table then shows flows snapping back to $358.1 million of net inflows on April 9 and another $240.4 million on April 10.

Those figures matter for the interpretation of price. They show a demand channel large enough to support Bitcoin even while the base layer remains quiet. They also show why a price rebound can arrive faster than a fee repricing on the chain itself.

If ETF and broker rails are doing more of the lifting than the base layer, then Bitcoin can hold part of a macro move without showing broad congestion. The asset can look resilient while still carrying an open confirmation question.

The two sets of data, therefore, need to be read together. Average fees remain subdued. ETF flows have improved after a sharp wobble. Weak spot demand and softer futures activity continue. That mix says price support exists, although the support still looks more flow-driven than settlement-driven.

The chain is active. ETF demand has turned positive again after the early-week wobble. Bitcoin kept part of the move even as the truce looked less stable.

Those are constructive features. They still stop short of broad confirmation.

A fee market near $0.32 per transaction does not describe users urgently repricing block space. A market holding above $71,000 while external talks fail and ETF flows rebound does describe an asset with some resilience. Bitcoin held up better than the macro sequence alone might have implied, while the chain still has not joined price in a decisive way.

ETF flows can respond within hours. Spot and futures positioning can react just as quickly. Base-layer demand often takes longer to show up in a cleaner way, especially when the first catalyst comes from war-risk repricing rather than from a crypto-native event.

The first catalyst has already weakened. The flow picture improved. The chain still looks cheap. Bitcoin is holding enough of the bounce to keep the question open.

The next test is whether price can keep holding while the chain stays quiet

The tactical framework for the next session or two remains fairly tight. One path is that Bitcoin continues to hold a meaningful share of the ceasefire bounce, even as the macro backdrop remains unstable and the chain remains cheap to use. In that case, the move looks more like a liquid risk-asset reflex with support from ETF and exchange channels than the start of a broad new settlement-demand cycle.

The other path is that support starts to broaden. That would show up through steadier ETF inflows, calmer cross-market conditions, firmer spot participation, and some rise in fees as block-space demand begins to catch up. That sequence would give the price a stronger internal foundation.

Today’s failed U.S.-Iran talks make that test more immediate because they remove any lingering assumption that the ceasefire itself solved the market’s macro problem. It did not. The truce stayed fragile, the diplomacy broke down, and Bitcoin is now trading in the aftermath of that failed handoff.

Glassnode’s view that the rebound still lacks strong conviction, therefore, remains current. Average fees at $0.3162 on April 11 still describe a network operating without broad fee pressure. ETF inflows on April 9 and April 10 still indicate a large, improving support channel. Bitcoin at $71,568 today still shows the asset holding part of the move.

Taken together, those datapoints describe a market that absorbed a fading macro impulse better than expected, but still fell short of full validation.

If Bitcoin holds gains while fees remain subdued and the ceasefire framework continues to weaken, the move will continue to look more like a macro- and wrapper-driven reflex than a fresh demand cycle on the chain.

If flows remain firm and fees begin to rise, the rebound looks more durable.

The post Bitcoin sits on a knife edge but holds $71k as “no Iran deal” spooks market over the weekend appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The following is a guest post and opinion from Laura Estefania, Founder and CEO of Conquista PR.

From Automation to Orchestration

Bots are creating a new economy. And for the first time, it is not about replacing humans, but organizing them.

The rise of AI agents has moved quietly from novelty to structure. What we are witnessing is no longer automation in the traditional sense, but orchestration: systems that do not merely execute tasks, but coordinate actors across digital and physical domains, including humans themselves. Among the most striking expressions of this shift are what might be called “clawbot” agents, systems designed to extend their reach beyond software and into the real world through human intermediaries.

“Clawbot” is not a technical category so much as a useful metaphor. Let’s imagine an intelligence with invisible limbs, reaching outward through APIs, marketplaces, and coordination layers to act upon reality. These agents cannot pick up a package, verify an identity, or attend a site visit. But they can delegate. And at scale, delegation becomes a form of leverage.

The central thesis is as simple as it is transformative: AI is evolving from tool to “smooth” operator. Rather than replacing humans outright, it is beginning to organize them. This marks a transition from automation economies to coordination economies, where human labor is modularized, abstracted, and embedded into machine-directed workflows.

As Satya Nadella recently noted, “AI agents will become the primary way we interact with computers in the future. They will be able to understand our needs and preferences, and proactively help us with tasks and decision-making.”

Humans as Callable Infrastructure

A recent analysis by Ron Schmelzer in Forbes captures this inflection point through the case of Rentahuman.ai: The platform enables autonomous AI agents to “hire” humans for tasks they cannot physically perform, from in-person verifications and document signings to site walkthroughs and logistics. What distinguishes this model is not outsourcing itself, but its level of abstraction. Humans are no longer workers in the traditional sense. They become endpoints, callable functions within a broader system.

Schmelzer frames this as a conceptual inversion of earlier paradigms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk. Where humans once helped train algorithms, they now help them act. The implication is profound: the physical world is becoming programmable, not directly by machines, but through a hybrid interface in which human agency becomes part of a broader computational layer.

The Opportunity and the Tension

This is where the ethical tension emerges, but also where the opportunity begins.

On one hand, this model can be read as empowering. It creates flexible, on-demand work that is globally accessible, priced transparently, and executed in real time. For individuals in emerging economies, it could unlock entirely new income streams, decoupled from geography and traditional employment structures. It also opens the door to a more fluid conception of work itself, one where individuals can participate in global systems without intermediaries, contracts, or rigid institutional barriers.

On the other hand, it challenges long-standing assumptions about labor, identity, and value. When human effort becomes modular and invocable, the question is no longer just “what job do you have?” but “what capabilities can you expose to the network?” This shift may ultimately redefine professional identity from static roles to dynamic participation in distributed systems.

If designed thoughtfully, this paradigm could enable new forms of economic inclusion. Imagine a world where individuals anywhere can plug into global demand in real time, contributing to logistics, verification, data collection, or localized intelligence. Ideal matchmaking: Entirely new markets could emerge around physical task execution, reputation systems, and specialized human capabilities that complement machine intelligence.

Designing Guardrails for Agent Economies

To reach that future, however, guardrails cannot be optional. They must be foundational.

Transparency is essential. Individuals must know who or what they are working for. Fair compensation must be protected, ensuring that global accessibility does not devolve into global exploitation. Accountability frameworks must clearly define responsibility when machine-coordinated actions produce real-world consequences. And consent must remain central, with clear boundaries on what can and cannot be delegated.

Technically, this requires embedding policy engines, identity layers, reputation systems, and auditability directly into agent architectures. Done right, these systems could create not only efficiency, but trust, a prerequisite for any scalable economic model.

Crypto as the Coordination Layer

The crypto layer adds another dimension, accelerating both coordination and possibility.

Crypto is emerging as the native infrastructure for this model, enabling instant, borderless payments and programmable coordination. AI agents can hold wallets, execute transactions, and interact with smart contracts autonomously, hiring and compensating human labor without reliance on traditional financial systems.

More importantly, crypto allows these agents to function as independent economic actors. They can manage treasuries, allocate capital, and interact with decentralized financial systems. Human labor becomes a service that can be accessed permissionlessly, but also verified, priced, and governed in new ways.

This creates a powerful bridge between agent economies and Web3. Tasks can be issued as on-chain bounties, completed with verifiable proofs, and tied to portable reputation systems. DAOs or agent-controlled systems could continuously coordinate human activity at scale, funding and directing real-world execution in real time.

The New Labor Architecture

In such a system, humans do not disappear. They evolve into a distributed network of physical interfaces, connecting digital intelligence with real-world action.

The challenge, of course, is that technology tends to scale faster than governance. Permissionless systems do not inherently encode ethics. Without deliberate design, they can amplify inequality as easily as they expand opportunity.

Yet the trajectory is clear. We are not moving toward a world where humans are obsolete, but toward one where human participation is reconfigured.

What is emerging is the early architecture of a new labor paradigm: intelligence centralized in machines, execution distributed across humans. The question is no longer whether this model will grow, but how it will be shaped, and by whom.

If clawbot agents become the invisible hands of this economy, then design becomes destiny. Without guardrails, they will optimise for speed and cost. With them, they can optimise for agency, inclusion and human potential. The task ahead is not to resist this shift, but to shape it before the architecture hardens and the rules become implicit.

The post Rent a human: The day bots started hiring us appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Tron (TRX) Records 13.5% YTD Gains Amidst Crypto Consolidation

While the broader digital asset market struggles to find its footing in 2026, Tron (TRX) has emerged as a beacon of resilience. Currently trading at $0.32, TRX has secured a 13.5% Year-to-Date (YTD) increase. This performance is particularly striking when compared to the total crypto market cap, which has retracted by an average of 22% in the same period.

As investors look for stability during high-volatility cycles, the $TRX price has decoupled from the downward trend of $Bitcoin and major altcoins. This article analyzes the fundamental drivers behind Tron’s growth and its role as a portfolio stabilizer.

What is Tron (TRX)? A Foundation for the Decentralized Web

Tron is a high-performance blockchain platform focused on decentralizing the internet through high throughput and low-cost transactions. Originally launched as an "Ethereum competitor," Tron has carved out a massive niche in the stablecoin and payment settlement sectors.

Core Features of the Tron Network:

• High Scalability: Capable of handling 2,000+ transactions per second (TPS).
• Unique Fee Model: Users "freeze" TRX to gain Energy and Bandwidth, allowing for feeless transactions.
• Stablecoin Dominance: Tron hosts a significant portion of the global USDT (Tether) supply, often surpassing Ethereum in daily active addresses.

Why is TRX Outperforming the 22% Market Crash?

The primary reason for Tron’s 13.5% YTD gain lies in its utility-driven demand. During market downturns, traders often rotate out of volatile speculative assets and into stablecoins. Because the Tron ecosystem is the primary highway for TRC-20 USDT transfers, the demand for TRX (to power these transactions) remains constant even when prices for other coins fall.

Furthermore, institutional adoption has seen a steady rise. Data from CoinMarketCap suggests that Tron’s deflationary mechanism—where a portion of TRX is burned daily to cover transaction costs—is putting upward pressure on the price as the circulating supply shrinks.

Low Volatility: Is TRX the New Crypto "Safe Haven"?

Volatility is often the biggest deterrent for traditional investors entering the crypto space. However, TRX has demonstrated a significantly lower beta compared to the rest of the market.

Why TRX Stability Matters:

• Staking Lock-ups: A large percentage of TRX is staked for governance and network resources, reducing the "liquid" supply available for panic selling on exchanges.
• Predictable Ecosystem: Unlike many DeFi-heavy chains that suffer during liquidations, Tron’s primary use case—payments—is evergreen.
• Risk Mitigation: Adding a low-volatility asset like TRX can lower the overall Sharpe ratio of a crypto portfolio, providing a buffer during 20%+ market drawdowns.

Saudi Arabia has officially announced the full restoration of its East-West pipeline. By successfully bypassing the volatile Strait of Hormuz, the Kingdom is now pumping approximately 7,000,000 barrels per day (bpd) toward Red Sea terminals. While the immediate reaction in the financial markets has been focused on crude prices, the implications for the digital asset space are profound.

This restoration isn't just an infrastructure win; it represents a major shift toward regional stability and lower energy-driven inflation. For investors watching the latest crypto news, this development serves as a foundational pillar for a medium-term bullish environment in the cryptocurrency market.

How Does Oil Affect Crypto?

The primary question investors ask is: Does cheaper oil mean higher crypto prices? The answer is a qualified yes, but with a delay. Historically, lower energy costs reduce global inflation expectations. When inflation cools, central banks—including the US Federal Reserve—often pivot toward a more dovish monetary policy.

As interest rate hikes pause or reverse, global liquidity increases. Since Bitcoin and Ethereum are highly sensitive to liquidity cycles, the stabilization of oil supplies through the East-West pipeline creates the exact macro conditions needed for a sustained crypto uptrend.

The Strategic Importance of the East-West Pipeline

The East-West pipeline, spanning 746 miles from the Eastern Province to the port of Yanbu, allows Saudi Arabia to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint often subject to geopolitical tensions.

Key Data Points of the Restoration:

• Total Capacity: 7 million barrels per day.
• Strategic Shift: Quadrupling shipments via the Red Sea to mitigate Persian Gulf risks.
• Operational Resilience: Restoration follows the rehabilitation of pumping stations previously impacted by regional conflict.

By securing this "lifeline," Saudi Arabia reduces the "risk premium" typically priced into global commodities. According to reports from Bloomberg, this bypass is a primary reason why oil prices have avoided crisis-level spikes despite ongoing regional uncertainties.

Will Crypto Prices go UP?

While the news is fundamentally positive, the Bitcoin price might not jump overnight. The transmission from oil stability to crypto growth follows a specific "medium-term" logic:

• Energy Prices Drop: Increased supply via the Red Sea stabilizes Brent crude.
• Inflation Cools: Lower transport and manufacturing costs lead to lower CPI readings.
• Monetary Policy Eases: Central banks stop "draining the swamp" of liquidity.
• Risk-On Sentiment Returns: Investors move capital from "safe havens" like gold back into growth assets like Bitcoin and Altcoins.

Crypto and Pil Future: Institutional Confidence and Vision 2030

Saudi Arabia isn't just stabilizing oil; it’s aggressively diversifying. Under Vision 2030, the Kingdom has shown increasing interest in blockchain and digital finance. Recent collaborations involving the Saudi Central Bank in projects like mBridge—a cross-border CBDC platform—highlight a shift toward a digitized financial future.

As the Kingdom secures its oil revenue through smarter infrastructure, its ability to invest in emerging technologies increases. This "petro-liquidity" often finds its way into global venture capital, eventually trickling down into the crypto ecosystem.

The global financial landscape shifted early Sunday morning as marathon diplomatic sessions between the United States and Iran failed to produce a lasting peace agreement. After 21 hours of intense negotiations in Islamabad, Pakistan, the temporary optimism that had recently pushed the $Bitcoin price toward yearly highs has evaporated.

Why Did Crypto Prices Crash?

Crypto prices decreased primarily due to the breakdown of high-stakes negotiations between US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian officials. This failure ended the brief "ceasefire rally" that had seen Bitcoin surge past $73,000 earlier this week. As the "Risk-Off" sentiment returned to global markets, Bitcoin retraced from its peak of $73,000 down to approximately $71,500 within hours of the official announcement.

Geopolitical Tension and Market Volatility

Geopolitical instability has historically acted as a double-edged sword for digital assets. While Bitcoin is often touted as "digital gold," its current price action reflects its status as a high-beta risk asset. The failure in Islamabad has led to:

• A reversal of the "Peace Premium": Market participants who bought into the ceasefire news are now liquidating positions.
• Rising Oil Prices: As reported by MarketWatch, oil futures surged as the prospect of a reopened Strait of Hormuz faded.
• Liquidity Exodus: Traders are moving capital toward traditional safe havens, momentarily cooling the crypto news cycle’s bullish momentum.

The "Ceasefire Retracement"

A retracement in this context refers to a temporary reversal in the direction of Bitcoin's price. Following the news of the initial two-week ceasefire on April 7, BTC gained over 5%. However, the inability to turn that ceasefire into a permanent deal caused a "bull trap," where the price hit $73,000 before falling back to the $71,500 support zone.

Impact on Major Altcoins

The ripple effect was felt across all major trading pairs. As Bitcoin slipped, other assets followed:

• Ethereum (ETH): Struggling to maintain the $2,200 level.
• Solana (SOL): Saw a sharp rejection after testing the $85 mark.
• Market Sentiment: The "Fear and Greed Index," which had briefly recovered, is once again trending toward "Extreme Fear" as uncertainty regarding the Strait of Hormuz persists.

Key Data Points

Is Magic Eden Really Closing?

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

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

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

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

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

Why did Magic Eden Shut Down its Services?

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

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

How This Fits Into the Global Crypto Market

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

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

Important Deadlines for Users

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

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

Steps You Should Take Right Now

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

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

What’s Next for Magic Eden?

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

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

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

Ethereum Price Analysis: Important Levels to Consider

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

Key Support Levels

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

Resistance Zones

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

Why is Ethereum Price Up?

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

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

Is Ethereum a Good Investment?

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

A Bullish Outlook with Caution

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

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

A developer distilled Claude Opus 4.6's reasoning into a local Qwen model anyone can run. The result is Qwopus—and it's surprisingly close to the real thing.

A new proposal suggests Bitcoin users could defend against future quantum attacks using a transaction design that works within the network’s existing rules.

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

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

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

The Shiba Inu coin has come close to dropping out of the top 30 for the first time in five years as the $3.4 billion support weakens. Discover how key opinion leaders failed the SHIB Army.

Michael Saylor has brought back Strategy's "orange dot" chart, a signal historically tied to Bitcoin purchases, as the company now controls 3.6% of the total Bitcoin supply.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson challenges 14 million ADA treasury spending, proposing a shift from "parties" to global infrastructure hubs to support ADA's price in the long term.

BNB Chain has alerted node operators of a mandatory update ahead of the Osaka/Mendel hard fork.

A clear divergence is seen between Shiba Inu's price and its fundamentals, with markets now watching intently.

TLDR:

• Aave Will Win proposal directs application revenue from Aave Pro, Aave App, and Horizon directly to the DAO treasury.

• Aave’s protocol revenue reached $140 million in 2025, with 2026 tracking similarly despite market weakness.

• Swaps on Aave.com and Aave Pro are generating $10–20 million in new revenue on top of existing protocol income.

• Aave Labs commits to zero-bureaucracy governance, requiring measurable SP goals and full financial transparency.

Aave has passed what its community calls the most important proposal in the protocol’s history. The Aave Will Win (AWW) proposal secured a landslide governance vote, reshaping how the protocol generates revenue.

The new framework positions the AAVE token as the central asset across all products and brand assets. It also introduces new application revenue streams beyond the core protocol. These earnings are directed entirely to the DAO treasury for the first time.

Aave Moves Toward a Full-Stack Revenue Model

The AWW proposal creates a new revenue layer on top of existing Aave Protocol earnings. Application and product revenue from Aave Pro, Aave.com, Aave App, Horizon, and Aave Kit will now flow to the DAO.

This represents a clear expansion beyond the protocol-only revenue model that has existed since the project launched.

According to Aave Labs founder Stani Kulechov, the DAO accumulated $140 million in protocol revenue in 2025. Revenue for 2026 is tracking at a similar level despite broader market weakness.

That growth was achieved through protocol-only income alone, making the addition of application revenue a notable shift.

Kulechov noted on X that swaps on Aave.com and Aave Pro are already generating between $10 million and $20 million.

This revenue is additive, sitting on top of what the protocol already generates. Together, the two streams begin building the full-stack revenue model the proposal envisions.

Aave V4’s reinvestment feature allows idle capital in pools to generate additional yield for the protocol. New V4 Spokes will also unlock further collateral and address the demand side of the DeFi liquidity market. These technical upgrades work in tandem with the revenue changes introduced under AWW.

Aave Labs has committed to working exclusively on the protocol’s own products going forward. This means AAVE token holders now own the protocol’s brand, users, and integrations through one unified asset.

Owning the full vertical stack is increasingly important as protocol competition intensifies across the DeFi space.

Governance Rules Tighten as Risk Management Expands

The governance model under AWW is shifting to a zero-bureaucracy structure focused on execution. Service providers will now be held to real, measurable goals rather than process-heavy deliverables.

The change reflects the DAO’s intent to compete with well-funded and efficient organizations in the broader financial sector.

Kulechov stated plainly on X: “Payments for posting governance proposals are over.” The DAO has already consolidated service providers to direct resources more effectively.

Going forward, SPs who align with token holder interests will receive budget support, provided their requests remain reasonable.

Under the new rules, full transparency from all service providers is a firm requirement. Relationship gating and value leakage away from the protocol will not be tolerated. Everything built with the DAO’s funds must benefit the protocol and remain owned by it.

On the risk side, Aave will maintain a dual-layer approach covering both economic and technical risk assessment. External managers such as Llama Risk and Token Logic will continue operating in their current roles. Their work will be supported and coordinated by a new internal team at Aave Labs.

Aave Labs will build a permanent internal risk management function to sit alongside external managers. This combined structure makes the overall risk framework more resilient.

Better coordination between layers is expected to strengthen the protocol’s response to market and technical risks ahead.

The post Aave Will Win Proposal Passes: AAVE Token Now Controls Protocol Revenue, Brand, and Full Product Stack appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Average ROI across 2026 token launches sits at -54%, with RNBW losing nearly 90% from its ICO price.

• Attention and liquidity both peak at TGE and consistently fail to recover, trapping retail buyers at the top.

• Projects like MegaETH and Polymarket are now delaying TGEs until real usage milestones and traction are confirmed.

• Tokens with proven product-market fit like Pendle and Hyperliquid continue holding narrative ground above newer launches.

Token launches in 2026 are delivering deeply negative returns for early participants, according to recent on-chain data.

Average ROI across this year’s launches sits at approximately -54%, raising serious questions about the current fundraising model.

Projects like RNBW, ZAMA, and AZTEC have each lost between 43% and nearly 90% of their value after their token generation events.

Market analysts now point to structural flaws in how new tokens reach the market. The pattern is consistent, and it is hitting retail investors hardest.

The Data Behind the Decline

Recent figures paint a troubling picture for anyone entering early-stage token sales. RNBW dropped 89.87% from its ICO price, while ZAMA fell 43% after its TGE. AZTEC declined nearly 50% shortly after going live on exchanges.

These are not isolated cases. The -54% average ROI across 2026 launches points to a recurring structural problem with token distribution and pricing at launch.

Crypto researcher Nick Research flagged this pattern publicly, noting that both attention and liquidity peak at TGE and then never recover. That observation lines up with what data consistently shows across multiple project launches this cycle.

The core issue is the low float, high fully diluted valuation model combined with heavy venture capital allocations. This structure creates what analysts describe as an exit liquidity machine, where early backers offload holdings onto retail buyers at peak hype.

A Market Pivoting Toward Usage and Revenue

Despite weak performance data, token launches are not disappearing entirely. However, the model is clearly evolving in response to consistent losses by retail participants.

MegaETH has chosen to delay its TGE until specific key performance milestones are met. Polymarket and OpenSea have also withheld firm launch dates, a move that signals growing caution among project teams about launching before real traction exists.

This shift reflects a broader recalibration in how investors assess new projects. The speculation-first approach that defined earlier cycles is giving way to a usage-first standard that the market now rewards more visibly.

Tokens with genuine product-market fit continue to hold narrative ground. Assets such as Pendle and Hyperliquid retain attention in ways newer launches simply cannot match.

BTC, ETH, SOL, TAO, and HYPE still dominate market conversation, crowding out newer entrants almost entirely within days of any new launch.

New experiments in attention markets and cashback incentive models are also emerging as alternative frameworks. These designs attempt to align token value with real platform usage rather than speculative demand.

For now, the market is sending a clear message: proof of traction before TGE is no longer optional for any project seeking long-term viability.

The post Token Launches in 2026 Face Systemic Value Destruction, Data Shows appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Michael Saylor posted “Think ₿igger” on X, widely read as a signal of Strategy’s next Bitcoin purchase.
• Bitcoin dropped to $71,500 after US-Iran peace talks in Islamabad collapsed without an agreement. 
• Strategy holds 766,970 BTC worth $54.47B, buying at 2.2x the rate of newly mined supply in 2025. 
• With $2.25B in reserves and a $42B ATM facility, Strategy has the firepower for continued buying. 

Bitcoin watchers are on high alert. Michael Saylor, The Strategy executive chairman dropped two words on X — “Think ₿igger”.

With 766,970 BTC already on the books and geopolitical fires burning from the Strait of Hormuz to Islamabad, Saylor’s latest post is making markets wonder what comes next and how large the next purchase will be.

Saylor’s “Think ₿igger” Post Stops the Crypto World in Its Tracks

Two words. That is all it took. Michael Saylor posted “Think ₿igger” on X on April 12, attaching the Orange Dots chart that has become one of the most anticipated visuals in institutional crypto circles. 

Each orange dot marks a Bitcoin purchase by Strategy. More dots have always followed.

The post landed at a moment when Bitcoin was already bleeding, sliding toward $71,500 as news broke that high-stakes US-Iran peace talks in Islamabad had collapsed without a deal. 

The negotiations, the most direct diplomatic exchange between Washington and Tehran in decades, fell apart over nuclear commitments and control of the Strait of Hormuz. Markets did not take it well.

The Strait of Hormuz is no small flashpoint. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply moves through that narrow waterway daily.

When the US Navy began minesweeping operations in the region, risk sentiment cracked across equities, commodities, and crypto alike. 

Bitcoin dropped approximately 2.5%, caught in the crossfire of a geopolitical standoff with no clear resolution in sight. Yet there was Saylor, unfazed, pointing toward something larger. 

Last week, Strategy confirmed a $330 million Bitcoin purchase shortly after a similar Orange Dots post appeared. The pattern is well-established at this point. When Saylor posts the chart, a buy announcement tends to follow within days.

Strategy’s War Chest Positions the Firm for Another Major BTC Move

Strategy is not operating on hope. The numbers behind the firm’s Bitcoin ambitions are striking. The company currently holds 766,970 BTC, valued at approximately $54.47 billion, accumulated at a pace running 2.2 times faster than the newly mined supply entering the market. 

That kind of buying velocity does not happen without serious financial infrastructure behind it. The balance sheet backs up the aggression. 

Strategy carries $2.25 billion in USD reserves against $8.25 billion in total debt, with net leverage holding at a disciplined 11%. Enterprise value has climbed to $60.9 billion, comfortably ahead of its $44.6 billion market capitalization. 

These are not the numbers of a firm about to slow down. The capital pipeline tells the same story. 

A $42 billion at-the-market equity facility remains available, with additional runway coming through ongoing STRC fundraising. Strategy paused a 13-week consecutive buying streak in late March, but that pause now looks brief. 

With Saylor’s post circulating and the financial machinery still running at full capacity, another major Bitcoin acquisition may already be in motion.

The post Michael Saylor Hints at Buying More Bitcoin as BTC Slides to $71,500 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin’s OTC share reached 82.26%, placing settlement activity firmly inside the Institutional Alert Zone.

• Coinbase captured 58.21% of CEX flows, reflecting its custody role for eight U.S. Bitcoin ETFs.

• Long-term holders deposited just 94.68 BTC to exchanges against 706,000 BTC moved on-chain in 24 hours.

• Analysts warn futures traders against short positions as public sell-side liquidity hits critical lows.

Bitcoin institutional dominance hit a macro alert level in the past 24 hours. On-chain analyst GugaOnChain reported OTC trading captured 82.26% of total BTC settlement volume. 

Coinbase led centralized exchange flows at 58.21% of residual CEX activity. With BTC at $73,337, up 9.02% over seven days, settlement reached 706,000 BTC, worth $51.5 billion. These figures point to coordinated institutional accumulation on a large scale.

OTC Markets Signal Structural Accumulation

Bitcoin’s OTC share crossing 80% places it inside what analysts call the Institutional Alert Zone. This range, between 80% and 90%, marks periods when public liquidity contracts sharply. 

As a result, only 17.14% of total settlement activity reached centralized exchanges in this window. Open order books were, therefore, left with minimal sell-side depth.

When OTC activity reaches this level, smart money moves large BTC volumes off-exchange. GugaOnChain noted this pattern has been intensifying over recent weeks. 

Institutional buyers are consistently opting for private transactions over exchange-based order flow. This behavior gradually removes available supply from retail-accessible trading venues.

GugaOnChain posted a direct warning to futures traders on social media. The analyst wrote that 82% off-exchange settlement leaves the spot market sell side near empty. 

Any demand spike, the post stated, would trigger a supply shock. Violent upward repricing of Bitcoin, the analyst warned, would follow closely.

The broader takeaway for active traders centers on managing directional risk. GugaOnChain explicitly cautioned against short positions in the current market environment.

 With minimal sell-side liquidity in public markets, any demand spike faces no resistance. This structural setup makes short positions particularly vulnerable to sudden, sharp reversals.

Coinbase Leads CEX Flows While Long-Term Holders Stay Inactive

Within the 17.14% of flow transacted on centralized exchanges, capital concentration was notable. Coinbase dominated at 58.21%, reflecting its role as custodian for eight of eleven U.S. Bitcoin ETFs. 

Binance followed at 22.13%, functioning primarily as a retail entry point rather than an institutional hub. Kraken accounted for 6.44%, drawing compliance-focused institutional capital.

To confirm the accumulation thesis, GugaOnChain cross-referenced OTC data with exchange inflow metrics. The analyst applied the “Bitcoin: Exchange Inflow – Spent Output Age Bands” indicator across all major exchanges. 

Coins older than six months deposited to exchanges totaled just 94.68 BTC in 24 hours. Against 706,000 BTC moved on-chain that day, this confirms near-total dormancy among long-term holders.

This data shows veteran holders are not distributing into the current price rise. Old coins stay locked away while fresh institutional accumulation continues off-exchange. 

Low long-term holder selling combined with high OTC absorption tightens the available supply structure. These converging factors build a case for continued upward price movement in Bitcoin.

The supply picture, taken together, favors sustained buying pressure. Liquidity drains privately while public order books remain thin and underpopulated. 

Any fresh wave of spot demand will encounter very little sell-side resistance. The data consistently supports the setup for a continued Bitcoin price advance.

The post Bitcoin Institutional Dominance Hits 82% Amid Surging OTC Activity appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• JD Vance confirmed US-Iran nuclear talks failed, triggering a 3% Bitcoin price drop overnight.

• Bitcoin’s decline extended its drawdown to nearly 42% from its most recent all-time peak price.

• Nearly $1 billion in sell volume hit Binance derivatives within one hour of the failed talk news.

• Binance funding rates fell to -0.0065%, confirming short positions now dominate the derivatives market.

Bitcoin faced sharp selling pressure after US-Iran nuclear talks collapsed over the weekend. JD Vance confirmed no agreement was reached, sending BTC down 3% and back toward the $70,000 range.

Bitcoin Slides 3% After Diplomatic Breakdown

Bitcoin entered the weekend with cautious optimism, supported by improving geopolitical signals from the prior week. Traders had been watching the US-Iran negotiations closely for any sign of progress.

Instead, JD Vance announced overnight that talks had failed entirely. Disagreements over nuclear issues were cited as the main barrier to any deal.

The price quickly reflected the news, with Bitcoin dropping around 3%. That decline brought BTC back to the $70,000 area, a zone that had acted as support in recent sessions.

The move also extended Bitcoin’s drawdown to nearly 42% from its most recent peak. Despite the sustained decline, market participants continued to lean short.

Geopolitical tension has often added uncertainty to crypto markets, and this case was no different. The breakdown removed a layer of optimism that had been building throughout the week.

When that support gave way, the sell-off followed quickly and without hesitation. Bearish momentum took hold almost immediately after the announcement.

Trading volumes responded sharply as the news circulated. BTC price action was decisive, with sellers taking control during the session.

The broader crypto market also reflected the risk-off shift. Bitcoin, as the market’s lead asset, absorbed the brunt of the pressure.

Short Sellers Take Control of Binance Derivatives

Within one hour of the news breaking, nearly $1 billion in sell volume flooded Binance derivatives. Crypto analyst Darkfost noted in a post that this level of activity in such a short window pointed to heavy, coordinated short positioning.

The volume surge reinforced the already declining price trajectory. It was a clear signal that traders were reacting swiftly to the geopolitical news.

Funding rates on Binance moved further into negative territory, settling around -0.0065%. Binance incorporates an implicit interest rate of 0.01% into its funding rate calculations.

When the rate falls below that level, it confirms that short positions are already dominating. That threshold has now been crossed, placing control firmly with the bears.

This kind of short-side consensus has historically preceded counter-moves in the market. When most participants align on one side, price often moves in the opposite direction.

However, this dynamic tends to carry less force during bear market conditions. Any potential reaction is likely to remain limited in both scale and duration.

Traders watching this setup should remain measured in their expectations. The broader trend continues to favor the downside, even with crowded short positioning.

A reactive bounce is possible but not guaranteed under current conditions. BTC’s next move will likely depend on any fresh geopolitical or macro developments.

The post Bitcoin Drops 3% as Failed US-Iran Nuclear Talks Trigger Heavy Short Pressure appeared first on Blockonomi.

The popular cross-border token managed to do what many feared was impossible in 2025 and broke its 2018 all-time high in July by setting a new one at $3.65. This meant that it had soared by approximately 500% since its cycle’s starting point at $0.60 before the US presidential elections in late 2024.

However, the subsequent retracement has been quite painful, with the asset dumping by over 60% and currently fighting to stay above $1.30. Many market observers, though, remain optimistic about its future price performance, and one of the more conservative analysts outlined a highly bullish outlook for the asset.

XRP’s Next Bull Run

Ali Martinez, a well-known analyst with roughly 165,000 followers on X, is not known for making bold and unsupported claims. That’s why his latest XRP chart raised some eyebrows. He focused on the asset’s long-term performance, indicating that it currently trades inside a “giant 9-year ascending triangle on the monthly chart.”

The script has mostly remained the same within this timeframe, as XRP hits the upper resistance in the chart, gets rejected, and drops to the bottom at the rising trendline. Consequently, Martinez is looking for another decline to the current trendline support at around $0.75-$0.80.

This would be the “ultimate buy the dip opportunity” before the cross-border altcoin finally reaches its apex – “When a 9-year consolidation finally breaks, the move is usually historic.” As seen in the chart below, Martinez’s projection for XRP sees the token rocketing to $8.50 by 2028.

The next $XRP bull market will be huge!

XRP is currently trading inside a giant 9-year ascending triangle on the monthly chart. Since 2017, the script has remained the same: XRP hits the upper resistance (X-axis), gets rejected, and retraces to find its floor at the rising… pic.twitter.com/bMJ7q582Id

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) April 12, 2026

$6.8 or Over $10?

Interestingly, another popular analyst, EGRAG CRYPTO, also suggested that there’s a 60%-70% probability that XRP will drop to the $0.70-$0.80 level, which could lead to an immediate reversal. Their analysis is rather similar, as it shows a massive resurgence and a rally to $6.80, $10.30, or even $31.60.

CryptoPotato recently asked ChatGPT to dissect this analysis, and even though the AI platform dismissed the biggest target, it noted that reaching $6.80 or even $10.30 is not impossible under the right market conditions. In another similarly bullish analysis, EGRAG had also forecast a dip to around $0.80, followed by a sharp reversal and a notable run into double-digit price territory.

The post The Next Ripple (XRP) Bull Run Will Be Huge: Analyst Makes Big Price Call appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin is trading around $71k as global markets enter a cautious holding pattern. Investors are closely watching whether the recently announced US-Iran ceasefire will hold and how its resolution might affect broader risk sentiment.

Until there is greater geopolitical clarity, crypto markets appear content to consolidate rather than commit to a directional move.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

The daily chart continues to show a long-term downtrend. BTC is trading inside a descending channel and below both the 100-day MA (~$75k) and 200-day MA (~$87k). The $75k–$80k resistance band remains the primary ceiling as it has rejected every recovery attempt since the February crash. Both moving averages are declining as well, which is a sign that the broader trend has not yet turned.

That said, the RSI has been trending higher since the February lows and is now hovering above 50. This indicates that the momentum is still dominated by buyers, but only marginally. The support area at $60k continues to be the most important level buyers need to defend, as a breakdown could push the price toward the $55k area. On the other hand, a push above $75k-$80k on strong volume would be the first meaningful signal that the trend is shifting.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The short-term rising channel that has been forming since the February lows remains the dominant structure on the 4-hour chart, with the asset currently at $71k. The $74-$76k area has recently rejected lower, and the market is at risk of a revisit to the lower boundary of the pattern, currently around $67k.

The RSI on this timeframe, however, has dropped significantly lower and is now below 50. While still not deeply into bearish territory, this suggests a potential short-term shift in momentum to bearish.

A confirmed close above $75k would invalidate the bearish scenario and lead to the price making a run toward the $80k level. On the other hand, a deeper drop and breakdown below the lower trendline would be more concerning, and could shift focus back to the $60k daily support zone.

On-Chain Analysis

The Adjusted SOPR (aSOPR) is currently printing values below 1.00 — a level that indicates coins are, on aggregate, being spent at a loss. What makes the current reading particularly striking is that the aSOPR’s 30-day EMA has declined to levels last seen when Bitcoin was trading around $25k during the final stages of the previous bear market.

In other words, the on-chain realized loss behavior at current prices is mirroring the capitulation intensity seen at cycle lows nearly three years ago at a fraction of the price.

Historically, sustained aSOPR readings below 1.00, particularly when the EMA confirms the trend, have marked late-stage capitulation phases rather than the beginning of new downtrends. However, considering the overall geopolitical and economic environment, this does not guarantee a reversal is imminent, but it does suggest that sellers may be exhausting themselves at these levels, which is what analysts want to see to call a bottom forming.

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: How Low Will BTC Fall After Latest Rejection at $73K? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XRP is trading around $1.33 as the altcoin continues to drift lower with no meaningful catalyst in sight. While broader markets are in a wait-and-see mode around the US-Iran ceasefire developments, XRP has found no relief from the pressure. It is sliding further toward the critical support zone that has served as the last line of defense since February.

Ripple Price Analysis: The USDT Pair

The structure on the USDT pair remains firmly bearish. XRP is trading inside a descending channel with both the 100-day MA (~$1.60) and 200-day MA (~$1.90) declining well overhead. The asset has been grinding lower in a slow bleed that has now brought it uncomfortably close to the $1.20 support zone.

That level held during the February capitulation wick but has not been tested on a sustained closing basis.  Therefore, a retest appears increasingly likely at the current trajectory.

The RSI is also hovering in the low-to-mid 40s, reflecting weak but not yet oversold conditions. This suggests there is still room to the downside before any mean-reversion bounce becomes probable. Buyers need to see a reclaim of at least $1.60 — the descending channel’s upper boundary and the convergence zone of the 100-day MA — before any recovery thesis holds water.

Below $1.20, the next meaningful support sits at $1.00, with little structural backing between those two levels.

The BTC Pair

The XRP/BTC pair has deteriorated much more sharply than its USDT pair counterpart. The pair is now trading at approximately 1,864 sats, which is well below the 2,000 sats level that had offered some support through February and March. The breakdown is significant and confirms that XRP is not just falling in dollar terms, but actively losing ground against Bitcoin at an accelerating pace.

Both the 100-day MA (~2,100 sats) and 200-day MA (~2,200 sats) remain well overhead and declining, and the descending channel structure has been intact since the August 2025 peak near 3,000 sats. The RSI has dropped to the low-to-mid 20s (deeply oversold territory), which could spark a short-term technical bounce, but oversold readings alone are not sufficient to reverse a trend this entrenched.

The next support levels sit at the previous wick low of 1,800 sats, and the key 1,600 sats demand zone. On the other hand, a reclaim of the 2,000 sats resistance level is the minimum needed before the bearish outlook on this pair begins to soften.

The post Ripple Price Prediction: Will XRP’s Next Big Move Drive it Below $1? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s price slipped once again in the past few hours as US President Donald Trump made his first comments on the tension in the Middle East after the failure of the peace talks.

In a post on his social media platform, the POTUS said the meeting “went well” as most points were “agreed to,” besides the most important one: nuclear. He also warned that the US Navy will “begin the process of blockading any and all ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”

“I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas. We will also begin destroying the mines the Iranians laid in the Straits. Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!”

In a separate post, he blamed Iran for failing to reopen the Strait despite promising to do so, which “caused anxiety, dislocation, and pain to many people and countries throughout the world.”

Separately, Trump warned China and other countries that might be aiding Iran with weapons that the US will impose a 50% tariff if proven so.

Bitcoin’s price had already felt the consequences of the failed peace talks that took place on Saturday. As reported earlier, the asset fell by over two grand in minutes after US Vice President JD Vance announced that both parties didn’t reach an agreement.

After Trump’s social media posts went viral, the cryptocurrency fell further, dipping to a multi-day low of under $71,000. More volatility is expected later tonight when the legacy futures markets open, especially those that focus on oil.

The post BTC Dips Further as Trump Reacts to Failed Peace Talks With 50% Tariff Threat Against China appeared first on CryptoPotato.

[PRESS RELEASE – London, United Kingdom, April 12th, 2026]

Tok-Edge has publicly unveiled the Redemption Token, a novel cryptoasset category pioneered by the firm and to be first used with the launch of its new fund. The company also confirmed its latest valuation at $15 million.

Tok-Edge, a digital assets firm founded by veterans of traditional finance and crypto markets, recently emerged from stealth ahead of its fund launch. During that period, the firm raised approximately $1.5 million at a $15 million valuation from Marcus Meijer, an experienced GP investor and founder of a $10 billion AUM fund.

Meijer, together with a syndicate of investors, is expected to anchor the fund with up to $10 million as Tok-Edge begins raising from institutional allocators, including family offices, venture investors and crypto-native funds. The firm’s leadership team draws experience from Tier-1 institutions across TradFi and crypto (collectively over $950 billion in AUM), including CVC Capital, Bain Capital, KKR, BCG, Tufa and GoCoin.

The Redemption Token sits at the center of Tok-Edge’s model, a new cryptoasset designed to combine permissionless transferability with a defined function. Tokens are issued to fund investors and required for redemption of fund shares at net asset value. Ownership and economic rights remain embedded in the fund shares, while the Redemption Token can circulate independently on public blockchains, including Ethereum.

This structure allows the tokens to trade on exchanges and to be used in decentralized finance protocols, unlocking new opportunities and use cases for holders and builders, while preserving redemption mechanics within the regulated fund framework.

The fund to be launched by Tok-Edge is the first product to implement the Redemption Token model, deploying an actively managed strategy across liquid crypto assets and decentralized finance. Returns are expected from directional exposure to digital assets and yield generated through strategies such as staking and liquidity provision.

 “Tok-Edge was founded to bring institutional-grade products to crypto markets, built around the openness and technological advantages of blockchain networks,” said Raees Chowdhury, CIO of Tok-Edge. “The Redemption Token is a new cryptoasset that acts as a key for fund investors to redeem their capital and can be traded freely in the secondary market for price discovery.”

Eric Benz, former CEO of Changelly, early investor and Board Advisor to Tok-Edge, added, “The Redemption Token model introduces an architecture that separates the tradable asset from the legal instrument that represents ownership. We are pleased to support Tok-Edge as it develops a structure that could broaden the institutional market for digital asset products.”

Tok-Edge is capping its fund at $21 million at launch, coinciding with its token generation event. Each dollar committed to the fund at launch is mirrored by the issuance of one Redemption Token. Investor allocations for launch are expected to be finalized in the coming months as the fund targets a $100 million first close later in 2026.

About Tok-Edge

Tok-Edge is a digital asset financial services firm building an institutional-grade hedge fund focused on liquid crypto assets and decentralized finance strategies. The company combines traditional finance practices with blockchain infrastructure and has created the Redemption Token, a new category of cryptoasset.

The post Tok-Edge Debuts Redemption Token and Confirms $15M Valuation appeared first on CryptoPotato.