Heightened military tensions may hinder peace prospects and diplomatic engagements, impacting regional stability and international relations.

The post Israel declares part of Lebanon a combat zone amid tensions with Hezbollah appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Persistent inflation challenges the traditional stock-bond portfolio balance, potentially increasing borrowing costs and economic volatility.

The post Inflation pressures US Treasuries’ role in traditional portfolios appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Lender hesitation over AI's impact on cybersecurity highlights broader market concerns about technological disruption and investment risk.

The post Thoma Bravo’s $2.5B refinancing for Sophos faces lender hesitation over AI fears appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Argentina's crypto restrictions could set a precedent, increasing compliance costs and influencing global regulatory trends in digital finance.

The post Argentina government proposes bill to restrict crypto payments for illegal gambling appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The unprecedented semiconductor rally highlights AI's transformative impact on tech markets, but raises concerns over valuation and concentration risks.

The post PHLX Semiconductor Index posts best start to year on record, adding $5.7 trillion in market cap appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

UTXO Enters Bitcoin Staking on Stacks, Targets BTC Yield

Bitcoin-native asset management company UTXO Management has become one of the first institutional participants in Bitcoin Staking on the Stacks network, marking a notable shift in how corporate Bitcoin holdings may be used.

The initiative introduces a structure that allows institutions to earn bitcoin-denominated yield without transferring custody or moving assets off the Bitcoin base layer. 

For treasury managers holding large BTC reserves, the model presents a new option that preserves core Bitcoin properties while addressing rising pressure to generate returns.

Bitcoin Staking on Stacks requires participants to lock BTC in a Bitcoin timelock alongside a smaller allocation of STX, the Stacks network’s native token, in what the protocol defines as a “protocol bond.” 

The BTC remains under the participant’s control throughout the process, while the STX component determines the scale of participation in the system. The initial bonding period is set at six months.

The yield target for the protocol is near 3% annual percentage yield, paid in bitcoin. Unlike lending-based models, the return does not rely on counterparty borrowing. Instead, it is derived from Stacks’ Proof-of-Transfer consensus mechanism. 

Under this model, miners bid BTC to secure the right to produce blocks on the Stacks network, and that BTC is distributed to eligible participants, including those engaged in Bitcoin Staking.

Proof-of-Transfer has operated for several years and has distributed more than 4,200 BTC since 2021. Bitcoin Staking builds on this framework, extending its reward structure to a broader class of participants.

The protocol is expected to reach mainnet later this summer, following an initial bootstrapping phase managed by the Stacks Endowment.

Staking tradeoffs as bitcoin gains traction

The model introduces trade-offs that institutions must evaluate. Participants must hold STX equal to about 5% of the BTC position, which creates exposure to a second asset. The bonded BTC remains illiquid during the lockup period, though an early exit option exists for the BTC portion. Yield levels depend on network dynamics, including miner demand and STX market conditions, which introduces variability.

Despite these factors, UTXO’s participation signals growing institutional interest in productive Bitcoin strategies that maintain self-custody. 

The structure avoids lending desks and synthetic wrappers, both of which require relinquishing some control or altering the nature of the underlying asset.

Corporate Bitcoin treasuries have expanded in recent years. The top 100 companies now hold more than 1.2 million BTC, representing about 5% of total supply. 

Executives see Bitcoin Staking as a response to that scrutiny. Tyler Evans, Chief Investment Officer of Nakamoto and UTXO, described the model as a way to generate yield while preserving Bitcoin’s settlement and custody features. 

Stacks founder Muneeb Ali framed the development as a step toward transforming idle Bitcoin into productive capital within a secure framework.

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

This post UTXO Enters Bitcoin Staking on Stacks, Targets BTC Yield first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

No – Digital Credit Cannot Be Replicated With Bitcoin and Treasuries

The scale up of STRC and SATA has drawn in many detractors. 

Recently Onramp published a paper highlighting some issues of Digital Credit. There were some errors and the paper was clearly AI-generated in most places. My favorite error actually had little to do with Digital Credit, and it appeared in the preface of the report (imagine you haven’t even started reading the actual paper and you already see a factual error, this is the level of AI we are dealing with). 

Onramp writes on Page 3: “Strategy has released AI-generated advertising featuring a young, attractive model in a tropical setting” 

But a quick viewing of the 30-second ad they are referencing shows that the woman worked “hard as an engineer”, not a model. This is literally 10 seconds into the ad, which is about the same amount of time it took me to spot the error in Onramp’s preface. 

I just thought this anecdote was funny. Onto my main point. 

Their core argument was that Digital Credit could be better replicated by combining U.S. treasury securities with BTC. (This is what Onramp calls “the simpler trade” but I also fail to see how this is simpler considering that buying digital credit involves just one single ticker while “the simpler trade” involves a dynamic re-laddering of maturing treasury bonds combined with BTC held on a separate venue.) 

This conclusion is wrong. It is trivial to show that it is wrong empirically (one just has to look at the daily returns time series of Digital Credit instruments vs a portfolio of IBIT and SGOV or IEF). But this missive will present multiple economic arguments for why we can know a priori that the claim is incorrect. 

Reason 1: Collateral 

Digital Credit is overcollateralized by corporate bitcoin holdings. This cannot be replicated with one’s own equity because there is no committed external capital in the case of owning BTC and treasuries—it is all your own money and no one else is on the hook. Credit is different. Even though the principal is yours, there is external capital in the form of the issuer’s assets that are committed to ensuring you are made whole. This capital is “external” because it existed before you ever put your principal in and it remains well after you sell your position. 

To be precise, an unencumbered bitcoin balance sheet isn’t collateral in the strict sense, but it serves as collateral in a flexible sense. For instance, a BTC-backed loan with margin call is collateralized in a strict sense because the collateral is set apart for the debt. Digital Credit gives the issuer more flexibility with collateral management, but it also gives the investor more flexibility because the security is fungible and liquid. This is an understanding that both parties agree to. 

The presence of the collateral is protection for the investor. This coverage is expressed in the BTC Rating metric, which is the ratio of Bitcoin NAV to the sum of the notional value of a particular credit series and all more senior series. 

A portfolio of BTC and treasuries has no external capital. This fact alone makes it impossible to economically replicate what is going on in Digital Credit with BTC and treasuries. 

Before I move on, I should address treasuries. It is true these are backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government, and this might be considered a type of collateral. Some might even call this infinite collateral coverage. However this implicitly assumes that the U.S. will not default on its debt. Onramp mentions that because the government can print money and it is constitutionally illegal to not pay the debt, the treasuries position is therefore a sure thing. 

This does not account for a case where the government revises its policy and defaults on some debts but not others. Such a move should not be deemed impossible considering the growing influence of modern monetary theory, which posits that sovereign debt is a mere construct constrained only by inflation. MMT sees debt as a reallocation of society’s resources across time to generate the highest social benefit in the present. This line of thought is really the final destination of fiat finance where everything is relative and based on high time preference decision-making. 

But under this logic, a move to “delete” the debt owed to some parties while honoring the debt owed to others would, assuming the parties are selected correctly, constitute a partial debt jubilee that would still allow currency stability to persist. Is the treasuries risk worth taking? Everyone must decide for themselves. If this does happen, then STRC will be fine (since the dollar would be fine, because we already said that currency stability persists) but the treasuries and BTC portfolio could see some heavy losses. 

Combining BTC with treasuries therefore introduces that avenue for risk which Digital Credit, being a fully structured overcollateralized bitcoin position, does not have. 

In other words, the real difference between Digital Credit and a synthetic replication is the type of risk that the investor endures. Keep this point in mind, because it is a recurring theme. 

Reason 2: Correlation 

Markowitz portfolio theory shows diversification as the only free lunch in finance. When multiple uncorrelated things are stacked together, they can create higher risk adjusted returns. 

Digital Credit is rather uncorrelated to bitcoin and other assets. STRC is at 0.63 correlation to BTC and 0.33 correlation to SPY and a 0.33 correlation to the S&P preferred stock index. 

Like everything else, it is true that it can be positively correlated during times of high stress. But the lower correlation most of the time means that Digital Credit can improve the diversification of portfolios. 

In contrast, it is easy to show that bitcoin and treasuries cannot do this because it is simply a watered-down bitcoin position: bitcoin levered by some number between 0 and 1. For example, 20% BTC and 80% treasuries is really just 0.2x levered BTC. 0.2x levered BTC still has a 1.0 correlation with BTC, so it offers zero diversification benefits to a larger portfolio that already holds BTC. In finance jargon, we might say that this has a 0.2 beta but a 1.0 correlation. 

The reason Digital Credit can generate lower correlation is precisely because of the capital structure behind it. The company has many different options that are unavailable to the investor that holds only BTC and treasuries. These options create idiosyncratic factors that are independent from and therefore uncorrelated with BTC.

And just to reiterate the earlier point, these idiosyncratic factors are also different risks that the Digital Credit investor accepts. 

Reason 3: Tax 

This is probably the biggest error from Onramp. Return of Capital is a tax benefit in the case of STRC and SATA. Onramp argues that it isn’t a benefit because the company has no earnings and so the capital really is return of principal and therefore economically similar to the return of principal in their laddered treasuries model. While this is true for many cases of ROC, it is not the case for Digital Credit. 

First, understand that the ROC tax rule for negative taxable earnings and profits was designed with the assumption that companies would make their money via fiat-denominated cash flows rather than taking advantage of the fiat’s debasement to accumulate appreciating assets. 

For just a moment, I want you to seriously consider why a distribution from a company without earnings would be a reduction of cost basis. Why is this rule fair and why did it come about? 

The answer is that a company that doesn’t have income but pays a distribution is economically liquidating itself, which means the principal (cost basis) of all equity investors should be reduced to reflect this partial liquidation. In most cases of ROC, the entity gets smaller as the distributions occur, because the distribution was literally part of the entity. You can see this for yourself in covered call ETFs that go through brutal NAV erosion while paying out ROC distributions. 

But again, this whole dynamic assumes as a premise that companies only make money with cash flows and not by investing in appreciating assets. If in fact there existed a company that could make money by investing in appreciating assets, then it could easily take advantage of the ROC tax rule by making it look like it was partially liquidating while in reality growing larger and larger. 

And if you look closely, this is exactly what Strategy is doing. Its enterprise value gets larger as it pays out more ROC distributions. This is completely the opposite of what one would expect to see with ROC when thinking from first principles, or what one actually sees in other ROC cases. When BTC starts to rally, this difference gets even clearer. 

This distinction alone should make it clear that Digital Credit offers something very unique. It has ROC, which we may think of as an accounting treatment of principal erosion, without the economic reality of principal erosion being reflected by a lower share price. This is, in short, a structural arbitrage made possible by an oversight in the tax code (the oversight being that C-Corps do not make money by holding appreciating assets). This is unique to Digital Credit and cannot be replicated by BTC and treasuries. 

But just like Digital Credit today benefits from this tax rule, it could also stop benefiting should the rule change. We should expect a reprice of Digital Credit in that kind of event. This is a risk that Digital Credit investors accept, and it is a risk that the BTC and treasuries portfolio does not have. 

Reason 4: Value Investing 

Value investing is about buying undervalued assets. Assets are undervalued when the market does not assess the risk correctly. It is possible that the risk associated with the corporate structure is not priced correctly, and therefore the Digital Credit investor earns a higher risk premium than what is justified. This could explain the double digit yields on Digital Credit instruments. 

Therefore, getting a potential bargain is another benefit. It is of course true that treasuries might be a bargain. And it is of course true that BTC is a bargain. But it is also undeniable that neither can ever express the unique bargain of a misunderstood capital structure, which is what Digital Credit offers. 

Conclusion

Finally, it is fair for an investor to believe that the risks of Digital Credit are not worth it. However, this would not be the point of the article, which is to demonstrate that Digital Credit offers at least four unique benefits that a BTC and treasuries portfolio cannot replicate. 

The claim that such a portfolio can better replicate digital credit is false because such a portfolio does not at all replicate the underlying economics of Digital Credit.

The benefits of Digital Credit derive from a different set of risks inherent to the unique capital structure of a Bitcoin treasury company. Therefore the economic facts prove that Digital Credit cannot be replicated without a similar capital structure. 

This post No – Digital Credit Cannot Be Replicated With Bitcoin and Treasuries first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Allard Peng.

Bitcoin Magazine

The 2036 Issue: What Choices Will You Make On The Way To A Multipolar World?

As I write this in 2026, the world is becoming more multipolar, and I expect that trend to continue over the next decade through 2036.

In reality, it was this recent unipolar period that was historically anomalous. Starting from the end of World War II in 1945 and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has existed as the world’s sole hyperpower. For the first time in history, telecommunications and industry connected the whole world, enabling a truly global reach.

Prior to that point, multipolarity was the norm. Even during the height of the Roman Empire nearly two millennia ago, there were other similarly powerful regions of the world, including the Han Dynasty and other Asian kingdoms and empires. That was at a time when distance truly mattered, and great powers could exist simultaneously with only limited contact.

The other side of this multipolar aspect of power was the multipolar nature of money. For thousands of years, it was gold and silver, along with lesser commodities, that served as money. There was no sovereign ledger big enough to serve the whole world, and so only nature’s decentralized ledger could suffice.

But in the age of telecommunications, as commerce and money began to flow at the speed of light in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, even gold wasn’t good enough. The United States dollar became the primary currency for cross-border lending and contract pricing, while the United States treasury bond became the primary reserve asset for central banks. People often point to the existence of prior reserve currencies, such as the British pound sterling or the Dutch gilder, but they weren’t the same thing as the dollar. They were proxies for metal, and gold itself was the real reserve currency in those eras. But during this unipolar hyperpower era, the free-floating dollar and its bond market surpassed the known market capitalization of gold and became by far the largest holding in sovereign reserves.

Many people viewed this unipolar era as the end of history, even though of course history never does end. China and India gradually recovered their economic might from the depths of colonialism and war that defined their 19^th and 20^th centuries, with China in particular becoming the world’s largest steel producer, electricity generator, and manufacturer now in the early 21^st century. The United States, meanwhile, suffered from the Triffin dilemma: in order to maintain the world’s reserve currency, the nation must supply the world with units of its currency, which they do by running deficits. Those deficits, and the associated hollowing-out of industry that they contribute to, is what eventually weakens the trust in that currency.

Now, many of those in power in the United States no longer want the costs of issuing the reserve currency, though few would say it out loud. The imbalances have become too great. Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn’t want their assets to be devalued or frozen, or their liabilities hardened, at the whim of Washington DC. There are no other sovereign entities willing and able to serve as the world’s ledger either, with all the trust that’s required and all the burdens it entails.

And so, here it is that we witness the gradual trend shift back toward multipolarity of money. Gold is the obvious first choice; it’s the only other liquid and divisible store of value that’s big enough. It’s still not fast enough, but nations see that they didn’t have to go as all-in on the dollar as they did. They can hold gold in lieu of treasuries for a bigger chunk of their savings than they have been doing in recent decades. It may have its flaws, but gold can’t be hacked, can’t be unliterally debased or frozen, and lasts forever.

The second choice is a boring but obvious one: diversification. In a world where there are a handful of major economic powers, nations can diversify their fiat currency exposures. They can hold a plurality of currencies and bonds at roughly equal proportion to the size of their trading partners and capital providers. That spreads out risk, both in terms of debasement and in terms of confiscation. The problem here is about network effects: liquidity begets more liquidity, and entities don’t want assets and liabilities denominated in different units, and so money naturally trends toward one wherever possible. A patchwork combination of gold and two or three major fiat currencies collectively serving as the world’s ledger is a workable one, but not an ideal one.

The third potential choice, still in its relative infancy, is Bitcoin. Nature provided slow but decentralized ledgers, sovereigns provided fast but centralized ledgers, and this third method now provides a ledger that is both decentralized and fast. The hyperpower unipolar world occurred at a time when transaction speeds could move at the speed of light, but final settlement could not. Fast global transactions (i.e. IOUs) only require Morse code over telegraph connections, which are very simple and of low bandwidth, while fast global settlements (i.e. irreversible transfers) require much higher bandwidth communications and hard encryption. Now that fast settlement exists at scale, the reliance on central intermediaries to bridge the gap between fast transactions and slow settlements can be reduced.

However, the challenge from this point on is twofold: security and network effects.

Bitcoin’s ultimate security has been questioned from its inception. Will its economic incentives keep it permissionless and decentralized indefinitely, or will it eventually gravitate toward centralized capture? Will its cryptographic assumptions continue to hold? And related to both of those questions: will it be able to gradually update over time despite its decentralization, so that it can remain functional and secure as the world’s computer infrastructure evolves underneath it? At only seventeen years of age, these questions are still unanswered, but those of us who invest in the asset and participate in development either directly or through the financing of development believe that Bitcoin is the best shot we have, and so we try to create the reality we want to see.

Bitcoin’s network effects are strong, but are still limited. These network effects, along with its simple and robust design, have been sufficient to keep it as the largest cryptocurrency for seventeen straight years since inception, with no true competitors anywhere in sight. However, when looking more broadly, it’s still a minnow in an ocean of sharks. The direct user base is in the low millions, in a world of billions. The market cap is in the low trillions of dollars in a global world of assets that has reached roughly a quadrillion dollars. And speaking of dollars, people use the largest and most liquid money as their unit of account, and that remains the dollar globally and other fiat currencies locally. It’s what people’s paychecks are denominated in, it’s what their business contracts refer to, and it’s what fulfills their liabilities.

In order to grow very large, Bitcoin by definition requires upward volatility. With upward volatility comes euphoria and leverage, which create the conditions for periods of downward volatility. This volatile adoption period, which inevitably takes decades as it chips into the existing network effects of the dollar and other large monies, limits its attractiveness both as a unit of account and as a near-term savings device. It serves as an investable asset, as long-term savings, and as the most unstoppable payment and settlement method for products and services that are otherwise denominated in more stable incumbent monies. Bitcoin’s fate during this adoption period rests on the vision of early adopters whose plans are measured in decades. The larger it becomes, the more stable it can be and the more it can function as an accounting unit and near-term savings, but getting there is a long journey.

To the extent that Bitcoin continues to remain strong in the face of security threats, and continues to chip into the incumbent monetary networks, the more attractive it becomes to individuals, corporations, and sovereigns. In 2036, I believe gold will still be desired, as there is a natural tendency to want to own physical, immortal things. And I believe the largest fiat currencies, troubled as they may be, will still be in widespread use: those trains have quite a while to run yet. If it’s successful, Bitcoin in 2036 would be larger than any stock, and would rival the largest currencies and metals in market size.

The biggest challenge to Bitcoin is not governments, not quantum computers, not rogue developers, and not other digital assets. Instead, the biggest challenge, the biggest risk, is us. The people. All people.

In 2036, war, corruption, and tyranny will still exist. However, it’s a question of ratios and numbers. People imagine that governments impose all of these things on us, when in reality that’s only partially true. The way it works in practice is that people ask for it.

There is a perceived balance between liberty and security. War and tyranny, and the centralized ledgers that fuel them, come not just out of human evil, but also from human fear. When people are afraid of invaders, plagues, technology, and competition over scarce resources, they turn to their leaders for protection. They give up some of their liberty as long as they perceive that they’re under the collective security umbrella, and that the power of the state will be directed at others rather than themselves. This can work for a time, but it breeds corruption. Power begets power, and eventually turns inward. State failures, when they inevitably occur, must be covered up. Critics of the state, whether from without or from within, must be silenced. When liberty is gone, that system which promised security eventually and ironically becomes the biggest threat to it.

People who criticize ubiquitous surveillance and bureaucratic overreach when wielded by their political opponents often turn around to embrace those tools as soon as their political allies are in power. It’s a short-sighted strategy, relying either on staying in power forever, or in the lack of foresight about how those tools will be given back to their opponents at some point, stronger than ever and ready to be used against them yet again.

If Bitcoin fails to catch on by 2036, I think it will be because humanity didn’t want it, or wasn’t ready for it. The technology itself is robust. Proof of work helps keep the network secure. Tight limits on bandwidth and storage help keep the network decentralized. Layers built on top of it help provide scaling and privacy. There is more work to do, but the foundation is already strong, open for business, and being used at scale. To the extent that major challenges arise, the network is upgradable whenever sufficient consensus is achieved.

In this latest bull/bear cycle, Bitcoin further separated itself from other cryptocurrencies, but failed to attract many new users. AI services caught on with the public far more quickly, leapfrogging Bitcoin in adoption, because people and businesses could see AI’s immediate benefits to them, while Bitcoin’s benefits were unclear to many who haven’t gone down a rabbit hole of research.

There are many stores of value to choose from, and volatility is painful. In order for Bitcoin to truly catch on, it will need to be because people value financial sovereignty. It will need to be because hundreds of millions of people, not just several million as we have now, appreciate the importance of self-custodied savings, permissionless payments, and financial privacy. Those collectively are the attributes that Bitcoin uniquely provides at scale.

Prior to Bitcoin, during this century of fast transactions but without fast settlements, governments could impose their control over the financial system in the background. By regulating the banks, they could surveil and contain activities to a significant degree without restricting almost any end-user directly. Thus, most people didn’t see any direct threats to their financial liberty. After Bitcoin, people can run open-source code, can transact without permission, and can hold liquid savings in their own custody. To the extent that governments are threatened by this, they can’t just impose restrictions on thousands of banks anymore; they have to impose restrictions on millions of end-users and developers.

The question is, now that technology has pulled the mask off, will enough people resist and push forward through frictions, or will they comply without protest and move backward?

We have the tools now, but will we use them? That’s the main question to answer for 2036.

Don’t miss your chance to own The 2036 Issue — featuring articles written by many influential figures in the space pondering the challenges of the next decade!

This piece is featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The 2036 Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

This post The 2036 Issue: What Choices Will You Make On The Way To A Multipolar World? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Lyn Alden.

Bitcoin Magazine

Cathie Wood Doubles Down: ARK Invest Sets Bitcoin Base Case at $750,000 by 2030

ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood reaffirmed her firm’s long-term bullish outlook for Bitcoin, projecting a base case of approximately $750,000 and a bull case of $1,250,000 within the next five years, even as critics question the asset’s performance amid volatility and geopolitical tensions.

In a recent interview with Fox Business, Wood addressed Bitcoin’s role as a maturing asset class, pushing back against skepticism that it has failed to serve as an effective hedge during periods of global uncertainty.

“Our base case is closer to $750,000. But the bull case involves a substitution for gold,” Wood said. “So as generational wealth transfer takes place, we think that younger people are more prone to adopting a digital store of value. So that would be Bitcoin.” Most of the world’s wealth is expected to be passed from the baby boomer generation to their children and younger heirs in the coming decades.

She outlined three primary drivers behind ARK’s forecasts: generational shifts toward digital assets, Bitcoin’s utility as an insurance policy in emerging markets, and accelerating institutional adoption.

“The second is Bitcoin is an insurance policy, particularly in emerging markets against fiscal and monetary neglect at best or corruption at worst,” Wood explained. “And so as wealth increases around the world, we think that individuals will shift from stablecoins… to Bitcoin, which has much more appreciation potential.”

“But the biggest reason is institutional adoption,” she added, “This is a new asset class. It has very low correlation to other asset classes in terms of risks and returns. And so every asset allocator has a responsibility to examine it because it will increase risk-adjusted returns over time.

Wood’s comments come as Bitcoin faces criticism, including from figures like Mark Cuban, who has suggested the asset has “lost the plot” and underperformed as a hedge amid recent geopolitical and economic turbulence. In events such as market stress tied to international conflicts, Bitcoin has at times decoupled from expectations, with gold outperforming in certain episodes.

Wood acknowledged short-term dynamics but pointed to longer-term structural advantages. She highlighted Bitcoin’s fixed supply schedule as a key differentiator.

“21 million units, we’re up to 20 million that have been minted. Only one more million to go. So the scarcity value is there,” Wood said. “Bitcoin is mathematically metered. There will be no supply response. It’s just mathematically metered. And right now it’s increasing at 0.9% roughly per year, the supply is, which is lower than gold’s long-term, and in the next two years, we’ll be down to 0.45% increase per year. So there’s real scarcity value evolving now.”

On the Bitcoin-gold relationship, Wood noted low historical correlation since institutional interest began in earnest around 2019. “You’ll find a very low correlation between gold and Bitcoin, digital gold — very low correlation, it’s 0.14,” she said. “So almost no correlation.” She observed recent shifts where Bitcoin has shown momentum while gold has retreated, partly tied to a strengthening U.S. dollar.

Recent developments in global finance further illustrate Bitcoin’s growing role as neutral money. Reports indicate Iran has implemented mechanisms to accept Bitcoin payments for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, including structured toll processes for shipping, highlighting the asset’s utility in sanctions-prone environments and cross-border transactions where traditional systems face friction. The corridor saw over 20% of global oil pass through it, before the war. 

On the national front, Wood emphasized that regulatory clarity will accelerate institutional participation. She pointed to pending U.S. legislation, such as the Clarity Act, as a catalyst.

“I think the Genius Act and soon, hopefully, the Clarity Act, will set the stage appropriately for this space to flourish and for institutions,” Wood said. “I think once we do, because the odds have gone up recently that it will be passed, that we will see much more of an institutional swoosh into the space.”

Wood also addressed the coexistence of Bitcoin with the U.S. dollar, noting stablecoins’ role in extending dollar influence globally while Bitcoin captures appreciation potential.

Despite near-term volatility, Wood maintained that Bitcoin’s characteristics position it for continued adoption across demographics, with younger users particularly drawn to its properties as both a store of value and transactional medium.

The ARK CEO’s outlook aligns with her firm’s updated models, which continue to center digital gold substitution and institutional flows as core drivers for Bitcoin’s trajectory through 2030.

This post Cathie Wood Doubles Down: ARK Invest Sets Bitcoin Base Case at $750,000 by 2030 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strive’s SATA Tops Estimated 490 Bitcoin in a Single Day — More Than the Entire Daily Mining Supply

Strive, Inc. crossed a notable threshold on Wednesday, with its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock (Nasdaq: SATA) estimated to have acquired around 490 bitcoin through the company’s at-the-market program — a figure that exceeds the roughly 450 BTC the Bitcoin network produces in an average day.

The milestone places Strive in rare company. With miners currently earning 3.125 BTC per block and roughly 144 blocks produced each day, the global Bitcoin network adds approximately 450 new coins to circulation every 24 hours at baseline — a rate set at the April 2024 halving and unchanged until the next halving, expected in 2028.

On Wednesday, Strive’s SATA program absorbed more than that entire daily issuance through a single equity instrument in a single session.

Wednesday’s Bitcoin for Corporation’s SATA Tracker dashboard showed roughly $66.9 million in total volume, a 13% yield, and 95% of volume above the $100 par threshold — the floor below which Strive’s board has directed management not to issue shares. At a 58% estimated capture rate, ATM proceeds reached approximately $35.3 million, with bitcoin spot at $74,956.

In the week ending May 24, SATA posted a weekly record of approximately 794 BTC acquired. Wednesday’s revised 475 BTC estimate now stands as the instrument’s second confirmed daily supply absorption event in eight days.

The broader 8-K confirmed data visible in the dashboard showed that between May 18 and May 26, SATA generated $50 million in total proceeds and added roughly 650 BTC to Strive’s treasury at a 48% capture rate for that filing window. 

Strive’s most recent SEC filing confirmed the purchase of 1,109 bitcoin between May 19 and May 22 at an average cost of approximately $76,989 per coin, bringing total holdings to 16,500 BTC.

Strive is becoming a bitcoin company 

Strive is a Dallas based corporate treasury and structured finance company that uses preferred equity to accumulate bitcoin at scale. The firm issues Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock, branded SATA, which will soon pay cash dividends on each business day at a 13 percent stated annual rate that compounds through frequent distributions.

Strive eliminates traditional debt and leans on preferred stock instead, seeking long duration funding that matches bitcoin’s long duration profile. Proceeds from SATA offerings fund large bitcoin purchases, retirement of convertible notes from its Semler Scientific acquisition, and repayment of a Coinbase Credit loan, which leaves the company’s bitcoin stack unencumbered.

Founder Vivek Ramaswamy established Strive as a vehicle for “digital credit” strategies, and CEO Matthew Cole leads the current treasury design and capital markets playbook.

This post Strive’s SATA Tops Estimated 490 Bitcoin in a Single Day — More Than the Entire Daily Mining Supply first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin fell toward the $72,000 level after a new wave of reported US military strikes on Iran pushed oil higher and sent another shock through risk assets.

The largest cryptocurrency fell as much as 3.6% over a 24-hour window, touching an intraday low of $72,792, according to CryptoSlate's data. It has slightly recovered to $73,274 as of press time.

BTC's slide coincided with a sudden spike in energy prices after the US military launched a fresh wave of airstrikes against Iranian targets. This disrupted an already fragile geopolitical landscape and soured investor appetite for risk-bearing assets worldwide.

The downside momentum quickly spilled into the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. Ethereum, the second-largest digital asset, dropped roughly 5%, sliding below the $2,000 mark.

Even recent market darlings were caught in the crossfire: Hyperliquid (HYPE), which had carved out an aggressive multi-week rally to an all-time high above $64, reversed sharply, plunging more than 9% to near $55.

Other major tokens, including Solana, BNB, XRP, Cardano, and Dogecoin, logged uniform losses as selling pressure broadened across both centralized and decentralized platforms.

Geopolitical shocks hit energy and risk assets

The catalyst for the cross-asset de-risking event began in the Middle East, where the US Military reportedly deployed F/A-18 fighter jets to strike an Iranian drone-ground control unit at a major port city situated along the Strait of Hormuz.

According to US defense officials cited by the Wall Street Journal, the action followed reports that Iranian forces had launched unmanned aerial vehicles targeting commercial vessels and US assets in the region.

The situation deteriorated further when Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly issued a formal statement confirming it had retaliated by striking a US airbase in Kuwait, warning that “aggression will not go unanswered.”

The military exchange immediately put pressure on traditional commodity markets. Brent crude futures surged nearly 5%, climbing past $96 per barrel as energy traders priced in a substantial risk premium.

The renewed fighting effectively extinguished hopes for a near-term diplomatic resolution that would secure the Strait of Hormuz. This is a vital maritime artery that handles between 25% of the world’s total oil shipments.

Speaking on this market situation, Rachael Lucas, a crypto analyst at BTC Markets, said:

“It has been a highly challenging 24 hours for digital asset markets as macroeconomic and geopolitical headwinds simultaneously weighed on investor sentiment.”

She stated that Bitcoin dipped directly in response to the escalating US-Iran tensions and the resulting logistical uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz.

According to her, risk assets globally felt the squeeze, though Bitcoin exhibited a degree of relative resilience compared with the structural damage seen in traditional equity and derivatives markets.

Leveraged longs face $930 million cascades

As spot prices pierced psychological support levels, the downward move triggered a severe liquidation event across cryptocurrency derivatives markets.

Crypto traders who had utilized high leverage to back bullish wagers found themselves caught in a margin-call squeeze. This forced automated platforms to systematically close out under-collateralized positions.

Data from Coinglass revealed that $930 million in derivative positions were forcibly liquidated within a 24-hour period. The volatility impacted more than 166,130 individual retail and institutional accounts.

The financial damage was overwhelmingly borne by bullish market participants. Long positions, which are bets that digital asset prices would continue to appreciate, accounted for approximately $870 million of the total wipeout.

In contrast, short sellers experienced modest losses, with just $60 million in short positions liquidated during the choppy trading session.

Bitcoin-linked contracts bore the brunt of the liquidations, enduring more than $366 million in forced closures. Ethereum derivatives traders were similarly punished, suffering roughly $240 million in wiped-out positions.

The single largest individual liquidation occurred on the Hyperliquid DEX platform, where a single Bitcoin swap contract valued at $15.34 million was automatically terminated.

Institutional retreat: ETF outflows accelerate

The market duress was mirrored in institutional capital flows, as US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) registered their second-largest outflows this year.

Data from SosoValue shows that the total net outflows across the eleven listed US products reached $733.4 million.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led the retreat, shedding an unprecedented $527.82 million in a single session. The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) continued its structural bleeding with a $104.76 million withdrawal, while Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) recorded a $60.30 million reduction.

Additional outflows were observed at Bitwise (BITB) and Ark Invest (ARKB), which lost $17.48 million and $17.39 million, respectively.

Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Trust (MSBT) stood as the lone bright spot, posting a modest net inflow of $4.29 million, while providers like Invesco, Franklin Templeton, Valkyrie, and VanEck reported flat flows.

The single-day exodus extended the continuous capital flight from spot Bitcoin products to eight consecutive trading days, with cumulative losses now reaching $2.6 billion.

The prolonged redemption streak has dragged total assets under management for US spot ETFs below the $100 billion milestone, to roughly $97 billion at press time.

On-chain data signals ‘double risk-off' regime

Underneath the price action, underlying blockchain data indicates a fundamental shift in market architecture.

According to Axel Adler, an on-chain analyst at CryptoQuant, more than 103,000 BTC returned to centralized exchanges over a 30-day trailing period. This marks the most aggressive influx of tokens to trading platforms since the spring of 2025.

Concurrently, stablecoin liquidity is departing centralized exchanges at a clip of $153 million per day.

“Two foundational flow metrics are simultaneously flashing warning signs,” Adler observed. “Coins are returning to exchanges, which elevates the immediate liquid supply available for sale. Meanwhile, stablecoins are exiting platforms, stripping the order books of ready buying power. This is the textbook definition of a double risk-off market setup.”

The shift marks a complete structural reversal from the accumulation regime observed between March and April, when net exchange flows reached a cycle low of -300,000 BTC, signaling that investors were aggressively moving assets into offline cold storage.

The trend inverted on May 18, when net flows turned positive, eventually peaking on May 26 and leaving an elevated supply overhang that has complicated Bitcoin's defense of the $73,000 level.

Darkfost, an on-chain analyst at CryptoQuant, also pointed out that BTC is currently at a structural zone where its spot demand is contracting rapidly.

Per the analyst:

“Total monthly demand growth is currently averaging a -139,000 BTC, pulling the asset back into its medium-term bearish corridor.”

Technical correction or structural shift?

Despite the severe deleveraging, some research firms caution against interpreting the drop as a permanent macroeconomic breakdown.

Analysts note that geopolitical shocks traditionally generate rapid, front-loaded price dislocations that tend to normalize once localized uncertainties clear.

“The US strikes on Iranian positions have introduced an undeniable geopolitical risk premium across the entire risk-asset spectrum,” said Nicolai Sondergaard, a research analyst at Nansen. “Bitcoin has absorbed roughly 5.5% of that premium over the last three days, correcting from near $77,100 to the current $72,900 range. This dynamic is consistent with historical patterns we have monitored during previous military escalations in the Middle East.”

Sondergaard added that the critical metric to monitor is whether the conflict remains geographically contained or broadens into a wider regional war. He told CryptoSlate:

“Exchange flows have shifted toward net inflows today, proving that distribution pressure remains active. However, history demonstrates that when geopolitical events act as the primary catalyst—rather than a structural macroeconomic breakdown—the resulting price dip is usually absorbed once the immediate logistical and political uncertainty settles.”

Moreover, indications of institutional contrarian accumulation also emerged amid the broader rout.

Ethereum treasury firm Bitmine executed a notable block purchase of 111,942 ETH, representing a capital commitment of $238 million.

Market observers view the size of the transaction as a significant counter-signal to the daily ETF redemptions, suggesting that long-term institutional conviction remains intact beneath the immediate, derivatives-driven panic.

The post Bitcoin’s drop toward $72,000 shows how US-Iran tensions are again hitting ETFs, leverage, and flows appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Stablecoins were built on the premise that removing intermediaries between sender and recipient would erode the relevance of legacy payment networks, but the fastest-growing consumer stablecoin product depends entirely on one.

Data reported by The Kobeissi Letter shows crypto-card spending reached roughly $600 million per month, with $7.2 billion in cumulative on-chain card volume across 24 million transactions and 1.36 million wallets.

Approximately 90% of those transactions were processed through Visa, with USDT accounting for 62.5% of settled volume. Jupiter Global, whose USDC-backed card runs on Visa rails, grew 660% month-over-month in the same dataset.

Jupiter Card is a Visa debit card backed by a user's USDC balance, accepted wherever Visa is accepted. Users deposit USDC, which converts into US dollars behind the card, and merchants receive ordinary fiat, with the blockchain never touching the point of sale.

Bridge-enabled stablecoin-linked Visa cards went live in 18 countries in March, with planned expansion to more than 100 countries by year-end, covering 175 million Visa merchant locations. Phantom and MetaMask are among the crypto platforms already distributing cards of this type.

Visa's stablecoin settlement pilot separately hit a $7 billion annualized run rate as of Apr. 29, up 50% quarter-over-quarter and now operating across nine blockchains, still a rounding error against Visa's FY2025 volume of $14.2 trillion, but moving fast enough to show direction.

Why Visa wins the consumer layer

Stablecoins expand the pool of balances that can fund the card network at checkout, leaving the acceptance layer untouched.

Visa's durable assets include merchant acceptance across over 175 million locations, embedded compliance relationships, fraud tooling, chargeback infrastructure, and consumer behavior trained over decades.

What Visa lacked was a way to tap into crypto-native wallet balances without forcing users out of their familiar UX or merchants to accept new payment methods, and crypto cards solve that problem cleanly for Visa.

For the original pitch that stablecoins would route consumers around card rails, as crypto did with correspondent banks for cross-border transfers, this outcome is the uncomfortable version.

Holding USDC and tapping Visa converts stablecoin balances into spendable money at scale, but Visa still sits between the user's dollar-denominated wallet and the merchant, capturing interchange, data, and the consumer relationship at every transaction.

McKinsey estimates B2B stablecoin payments at around $226 billion annually, roughly 60% of global stablecoin payment volume, while stablecoin-linked card spending reached $4.5 billion in 2025, up 673% from 2024.

A Colombian supplier pays in USDC, settling entirely on-chain, while a consumer buying coffee routes through a Visa terminal. Stablecoins damage bank prefunding, FX intermediaries, and correspondent banking far more directly.

What scale looks like

The current $7.2 billion in cumulative on-chain crypto-card volume accounts for roughly 2.2% of the $322.6 billion stablecoin market cap, with USDT at $189.2 billion and USDC at $76.6 billion, per DeFiLlama.

Standard Chartered forecasts that stablecoin supply will reach $2 trillion by the end of 2028, while JPMorgan's more conservative view puts the figure at around $500 billion.

If card spending continues at its current 2.2% share of stablecoin supply, Standard Chartered's bull case implies roughly $45 billion in annual crypto-card volume. If penetration doubles as rewards programs scale and global card access expands through Bridge's 100-country rollout, that approaches $90 billion.

JPMorgan's bear case still implies $11 billion in annual revenue at current penetration. Even the bull scenario sits below 1% of Visa's current annual payment volume, a ratio that forecloses the displacement argument and reinforces Visa's consumer front end as stablecoin balances compound.

Compounding either way

In the bear case, growth in crypto-card spending slows to around 25% annually as rewards normalize, compliance requirements tighten, and frictions in converting on-chain balances to card-usable fiat prove sticky, leaving annual crypto-card volume at roughly $9 billion.

Visa's share of that volume would pull toward 75% as Mastercard's stablecoin infrastructure matures, since the network announced plans to acquire BVNK for up to $1.8 billion and said consumers can already spend stablecoins across over 150 million Mastercard merchant locations.

Stablecoin cards stay a real product, serving crypto-native users who would have held stablecoins regardless, but one that stays peripheral to consumer payments at large.

In the bull case, Jupiter-style programs scale across more blockchains, Bridge's 100-country expansion delivers genuine volume from emerging markets where dollar-denominated wallets address real FX pain, and user growth compounds off today's small base, pushing annual crypto-card spend toward $18 billion.

Visa's 90% share holds or strengthens, implying roughly $16 billion in Visa-routed stablecoin card volume and representing a structural addition to its card-ready balance sourcing, with the acceptance layer wholly intact.

Mastercard's BVNK acquisition fits the same logic, as both networks compete to become the dominant consumer front end for on-chain balances before those balances outgrow their current niche.

The GENIUS Act disadvantages the anonymous direct-payment model proposed by the original crypto thesis and favors card networks as the natural compliance interface between on-chain balances and consumer commerce.

The real contest

Bank deposits, cross-border prefunding, FX corridors, and correspondent banking face direct competition from on-chain dollar balances.

ECB officials cited risks of less stable deposits, reduced bank lending capacity, and complications for interest-rate transmission.

Euro stablecoins account for only 0.3% of the total stablecoin supply, a figure that makes the dollarization risk embedded in global stablecoin adoption. Visa's position is the checkout terminal, and that is exactly where stablecoin cards hand control back to it.

The actual prize Visa captures is the consumer interface to stablecoin balances as those balances grow from $322 billion toward the $2 trillion projection.

Every dollar of stablecoin supply that routes through a Visa-linked card is a dollar that could have funded a competing payment rail and instead chose the one already embedded in 175 million merchant terminals.

Stablecoins are rewriting cross-border finance while extending Visa's reach at the point of sale.

The post Stablecoins were supposed to bypass credit cards, but now Visa is winning crypto card payments appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Automated yield protocols built DeFi's most persuasive retail pitch that depositing into a vault was all a user needed to do, with the protocol handling everything else.

For users wanting exposure to Curve's boosted yields without manually managing CRV locks, vote power, wrappers, gauges, and incentives, Stake DAO offered a product that packaged the full stack behind a simple interface and, in doing so, also packaged what could break.

According to Blockaid, an attacker minted over 5.4 trillion vsdCRV on Arbitrum through a suspected compromise of a deployer key and began swapping tokens for ETH.

The attacker altered LayerZero-related peer configuration to forge a cross-chain message before minting 5,446,744,073,709 vsdCRV, converting a portion into roughly 43.78 ETH, with liquidity constraining realized extraction far below the nominal mint.

Stake DAO told users not to interact with vsdCRV while the situation was active. The incident spread to Curve, which warned users in an affected Arbitrum LlamaLend market, and Beefy Finance paused a connected vault with exposure to Curve and Convex.

Stake DAO's Liquid Lockers let users deposit governance tokens like CRV, receive liquid sdTokens, and access boosted yield and governance exposure without managing the Curve-locking stack directly.

The vault interface hides all of that and, in doing so, also hides the deployer keys, cross-chain messaging trust, wrapper-token accounting, and oracle dependencies that the exploit traveled through.

Automated yield moves DeFi complexity out of sight, a relocation that only becomes visible when something in the hidden layer breaks.

Ido Ben-Natan, co-founder and CEO of Blockaid, framed the security disconnect in a note:

“Wherever there is value on-chain, there will be attackers trying to exploit it, and that's true regardless of how simple or complex a protocol's strategy is. Two things matter here. First, whether protocols have the right governance infrastructure in place to ensure there is no easy point of failure to exploit. Second, having a real-time on-chain security tooling that validates every transaction before execution.”

The broader reckoning

April 2026 was DeFi's worst month for exploits, with roughly $635 million extracted across 28 incidents, driven by social engineering, bridge spoofing, and AI-assisted reconnaissance.

Manuel Aráoz, who co-founded OpenZeppelin and served as its CTO until 2019, wrote that he now considers “all” of DeFi unsafe because AI coding agents have become “superhuman” at finding vulnerabilities, while defenders must fix every bug and attackers need only one.

OpenZeppelin publicly rejected that claim, stating that Aráoz's posts do not reflect the company's position. The asymmetry he describes, though, has drawn serious attention beyond the attribution dispute.

Ben-Natan puts the defensive advantage in real-time tooling and adaptive threat detection:

“Hackers are increasingly leveraging AI to move faster and find new attack vectors. However, on-chain cybersecurity providers like Blockaid have deep experience using AI to stay well ahead. We continuously analyze and adapt to new threat patterns in real time, using AI agents for investigations, simulations, and malicious pattern matching.”

That real-time capability makes transaction validation a viable countermeasure to the speed edge attackers are gaining, and for automated yield protocols, governance controls, and monitoring have become the actual security layer that the vault interface depends on.

The next vault

In the bear case, more key compromises, bridge incidents, oracle contagion, and vault pauses drive an abstraction discount into automated yield products.

Users demand higher returns to compensate for hidden stack risk, making it harder to sustain the one-click yield pitch without explicit risk disclosure, and smaller vaults lose TVL as integrations become risk-gated.

The incident pattern that defined April extends through the rest of the year, and each new incident reinforces the perception that yield automation bundles risks that users cannot independently evaluate.

In the bull case, protocols adopt the architecture Ben-Natan describes, consisting of governance controls that eliminate easy points of failure, real-time transaction validation, and continuous threat-pattern monitoring, and automated yield survives in a more standardized form.

Formal verification, multisig controls, and runtime monitoring become the default infrastructure, and the products that retain retail trust are those that disclose and manage the dependency stack.

Security vendors and risk dashboards are embedded in the vault interface itself, and the competitive edge moves from hiding complexity to proving which parts of it are under control.

The retail promise of automated yield was always about relocating complexity, and for years, the protocol absorbed that burden invisibly. The Stake DAO exploit shows what happens when the invisible layer breaks, and April's record shows it breaking with increasing frequency.

The next automated yield product to win retail trust will earn it by showing users which parts of the stack are monitored, controlled, and isolated, and what the protocol does when any one part fails.

The post DeFi’s automated yield protocols were built for retail, now they just add another layer of risk appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin slipped below $75,000 for the second time in May, touching an intraday low near $74,200 as the market's recovery from spring lows lost momentum again.

The first break came on May 23, when spot ETF outflows and forced liquidations pulled BTC to below $75,000. Then, amid a sell-off in Asian markets, Bitcoin has dipped to $73,600 as of press time, with a low of $72,600.

Glassnode's May 27 report frames both moves as symptoms of Bitcoin stabilizing above its deeper-cycle support, but the market's $75,000-$78,000 band has become a bottleneck, with spot demand, ETF flows, and options positioning all retreating too far to drive a convincing recovery.

That band sits directly beneath the Short-Term Holder Cost Basis and the True Market Mean, both converging near $78,000, and the two on-chain metrics Glassnode identifies as critical for the next leg.

Trading below that cluster leaves the market's most price-sensitive cohort, which are recent buyers clustered close to spot, at breakeven or underwater, extending their exposure without rewarding it and converting them from a support base into a source of potential selling.

Glassnode says dealers have concentrated their positioning around the $75,000-$76,000 strikes for May monthly expiry, with more than $8 billion of negative gamma near $75,000.

That exposure forces dealers to sell into falling prices and buy into rising prices, compressing the range and making spot unusually reactive to small order flows near the strike.

Price had already stalled at the $78,000 wall before the expiry overhang built, pointing to demand failure rather than mechanical hedging as the primary driver of the range.

What the on-chain data shows

Glassnode's Spot Volume Delta rolled back toward sell-side dominance in recent sessions, erasing a brief recovery from earlier in May as BTC pulled away from the low-$80,000 region.

ETF flows drove the earlier rally and have now reversed it, with US spot Bitcoin ETFs shedding roughly $2.26 billion over two weeks through late May, with Farside Investors' daily data showing outflows of $648.6 million on May 18, $331.1 million on May 19, $105.2 million on May 22, and $333.6 million on May 26.

Glassnode cites constrained liquidity, elevated yields, oil price volatility, a firm dollar, and unresolved Iran-related geopolitical uncertainty as forces keeping Bitcoin correlated with global risk appetite.

US equity funds recorded over $12 billion in outflows in the week ending May 20 as long-term borrowing costs climbed, and BTC closely tracked that deterioration.

Glassnode's on-chain data places Bitcoin in a partial recovery, lacking the capital flow strength to confirm a bull transition.

The Realized Profit/Loss Ratio stands at 1.56, confirming net positive flows since the $60,000 floor, but it sits below the 2-5 range the firm associates with early, persistent bull markets.

Short-term holder net realized P&L has recovered from -0.44% in February to around -0.02%, showing that recent buyers have climbed out of deep capitulation without accumulating the capital-flow momentum needed to drive expansion above the True Market Mean.

What $78,000 decides

In the bear case, Bitcoin fails to reclaim $78,000 once May options expiry clears, ETF outflows persist, and Spot Volume Delta stays sell-side.

The negative gamma overhang near $75,000 clears with expiry, but without renewed spot buying or ETF demand, price drifts below $75,000 on a structural basis.

That outcome forecloses the pre-bull transition Glassnode identifies as plausible and moves the conversation back toward the $60,000 floor.

The on-chain structure holds, since the Realized P/L Ratio has been net positive since spring, but a recovery thesis built on fading inflows and retreating spot demand runs out of runway.

In the bull case, expiry clears the negative gamma overhang, and BTC reclaims $78,000 with spot-led buying rather than a mechanical squeeze.

Glassnode says that the threshold, consisting of the convergence of the Short-Term Holder Cost Basis and the True Market Mean near $78,000-$78,300, is the level needed to validate a pre-bull transition.

ETF flows stabilizing or turning positive would give that move structural credibility, and a recovery driven by expiry mechanics alone would leave the same demand gap in place a week later.

The macro picture also needs to be supported by softer yields, a weaker dollar, or reduced geopolitical uncertainty to provide the external tailwind the internal data cannot supply on its own.

Below $78,000, the cohort of recent buyers positioned between $75,000 and $80,000 since April is a liability, close enough to spot that any sustained sell-side session can push them into loss-averse selling.

The post Bitcoin slips below $74k for the first time since April as on-chain data shows momentum stalling appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Hut 8 is pushing even further into AI infrastructure than most other Bitcoin miners are. Its latest disclosures show a company using power access, data center leases, project debt, and BTC-backed liquidity to build the financing stack for that move.

The company's latest disclosures put numbers around that transition. Hut 8 reported $16.8 billion in triple-net, take-or-pay contracted lease revenue across two hyperscale AI campuses, then separately refinanced a $200 million Bitcoin-backed credit facility with FalconX.

The new facility cut the fixed rate to 7.0% from 9.0% and unencumbered roughly 3,300 BTC from the prior collateral package.

Related Reading

Hut 8 receives $150 million boost for AI data center expansion

The miner says the investment would help to boost its data center portfolio.

Jun 24, 2024 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Taken together, the disclosures show a miner identity changing into something closer to an infrastructure landlord. Hut 8 is turning megawatts, lease commitments, project debt, and Bitcoin holdings into the machinery for a business that depends less on mining alone.

The result is a case study with more substance than a generic AI pivot. Hut 8 is showing a funded path into data center infrastructure, though the model still needs operating proof. The test is whether contracted AI cash flows arrive on schedule and become durable enough that Bitcoin collateral becomes a bridge instead of a recurring source of balance-sheet dependence.

The lease base turns power into finance

The strongest number in Hut 8's first-quarter disclosure sits outside the Q1 income statement: $16.8 billion of contracted lease revenue across River Bend and Beacon Point, covering 597 MW of AI data center capacity.

Hut 8 generated $71 million of revenue in the first quarter, including $66 million from Compute, and posted a $253 million net loss that included $295 million of primarily unrealized digital-asset losses.

The $16.8 billion figure represents long-term contracted lease value that Hut 8 is presenting as the foundation for a different kind of business.

The pieces are specific. Hut 8's Beacon Point lease added 352 MW of IT capacity and $9.8 billion of base-term value. Its earlier River Bend lease added 245 MW and $7 billion of base-term value, with Google providing a financial backstop for the base lease term.

Hut 8 is commercializing scarce power and data center capacity under long-term lease structures. The appeal comes from contracts and power access rather than a token, a cloud slogan, or a vague compute promise.

Triple-net and take-or-pay terms are designed to make those cash flows more financeable because the tenant obligation is less tied to day-to-day mining economics.

Hut 8's disclosures line up across four moving parts:

Hut 8's AI transition has more to it than most, but each component still carries a different kind of risk.

Related Reading

Bitcoin miners are transforming into AI utilities based on math

With 500MW and 168MW hosting deals inked, miners get financing-friendly dollars while hashrate and fee trajectories determine who captures the upside.

Oct 31, 2025 · Gino Matos

The leases reduce some revenue uncertainty. The bond financing reduces some parent-level funding pressure. The Bitcoin facility improves liquidity. Still, all three leave Hut 8 with the task of building, delivering, and operating infrastructure for customers whose requirements differ from Bitcoin mining.

Bitcoin becomes bridge capital

The FalconX refinancing is the clearest sign that Bitcoin is becoming part of the financing machinery rather than only the asset being mined.

The full Hut 8 release distributed through Nasdaq described the facility as a 364-day Bitcoin-backed loan with limited recourse to pledged BTC, a no-rehypothecation covenant, fixed loan-to-value thresholds, and no loan-to-value ratchet triggered by declines in Bitcoin's price.

Those terms blunt part of the obvious criticism. The deal improves the terms of a miner's coin-backed borrowing instead of worsening them to chase a new market.

Hut 8 lowered its fixed cost of debt by 200 basis points and increased Bitcoin held outside collateral covenants. The release valued the newly unencumbered coins at roughly $260 million as of May 1, 2026, giving Hut 8 more balance-sheet room without selling the asset.

That makes the facility a better tool, but not a risk-free one.

Related Reading

Riot Platforms leverages $1.8 billion Bitcoin trove for $100 million Coinbase loan

Riot Platforms charts path for strategic growth with novel Bitcoin-backed loan amidst industry headwinds.

Apr 24, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Hut 8's own balance sheet shows why the distinction is important. Its 10-Q said the company held about 16,332 BTC as of March 31, 2026, including about 9,311 BTC held by Hut 8 and about 7,021 BTC held by American Bitcoin.

The aggregate fair value was about $1.11 billion, based on approximately $68,222 per BTC. The same filing tied the first-quarter digital-asset loss to Bitcoin's decline during the period.

Today, Bitcoin trades near $75,782 on CryptoSlate's price page, down 2.1% over 24 hours and roughly 40% below its October 2025 all-time high. The market-price channel is the relevant risk.

Bitcoin can provide liquidity without a sale, but the borrowing value, covenant comfort, and refinancing backdrop still depend on the asset's market behavior.

That is why the AI landlord strategy cannot be separated from the Bitcoin treasury strategy. If AI leases produce reliable cash flows, BTC collateral can be transitional capital. If delivery slips, financing markets tighten, or Bitcoin weakens at the wrong time, the same collateral can keep the pivot tied to the volatility it was meant to escape.

The miner label is becoming less useful

Earlier coverage of miners' AI pivot showed the broader identity split facing the sector. Miners are moving toward AI and high-performance computing because power access, cooling infrastructure, land, interconnection work, and industrial operations can be worth more under contracted dollar revenue than under compressed mining margins.

Hut 8 fits that broader sector shift. Public miners built businesses around converting power into BTC, and AI data center demand is now giving some of them a second possible use for the same physical footprint.

The difference is that AI customers do not buy the same thing the Bitcoin network buys. Mining can tolerate interruption when economics or grid conditions change. AI tenants want uptime, delivery certainty, dense power, cooling, network architecture, and creditworthy execution.

A miner with megawatts still has to become a hyperscale landlord. It has to turn a power position into infrastructure that lenders and tenants will treat as dependable.

Hut 8's disclosures show both sides of that transition. The company describes itself as an energy infrastructure platform integrating power, digital infrastructure, and compute. It also still reports digital-asset losses, BTC holdings, and exposure to mining economics.

Some Compute revenue and BTC holdings are held by American Bitcoin, a consolidated subsidiary, making Hut 8's strategy less straightforward than a clean exit from mining.

That complexity is part of the shift. The market is watching whether miners can stop being pure BTC proxies without losing the balance-sheet optionality that made their treasuries valuable in the first place.

The strongest argument in Hut 8's favor is that the AI pivot uses more than Bitcoin-backed debt. The company said it closed $3.25 billion of fully amortizing 16.5-year investment-grade senior secured notes to finance River Bend.

Hut 8 described the financing as non-dilutive and non-recourse to Hut 8, with loan-to-cost increasing to about 95%.

That weakens the crutch argument. If project-level debt funds the campus and long-term leases support the debt, then Bitcoin collateral is one part of the structure rather than the whole. It is a liquidity tool alongside project finance and contracted revenue.

The caution is that the financial structure still has to become operationally sound. River Bend is still advancing toward delivery, Beacon Point still has to be built out, and the company still has to convert an 8,375 MW development pipeline into real contracted capacity.

Hut 8 also warned investors about risks tied to data center construction, financing, power expansion, permitting, supply chains, technical challenges, and market conditions.

Hut 8 is showing that miners can finance a route into AI infrastructure when they have scarce power, credible tenants, project-finance access, and a Bitcoin balance sheet lenders will underwrite. It has yet to show that the route is self-sustaining.

The next test is whether AI infrastructure cash flows become strong enough to push Bitcoin collateral into the background. If they do, Hut 8's BTC-backed financing will look like bridge capital for a miner that successfully monetized its power footprint.

If they fail to do so, the pivot will remain tethered to the same balance-sheet asset that made the strategy possible in the first place.

The post Hut 8 AI landlord data center strategy turns Bitcoin collateral into bridge capital appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The cryptocurrency market is witnessing a stark disconnect between Washington politics and raw market mechanics. Within the last 24 hours, U.S. President Donald Trump aggressively attempted to salvage market sentiment by issuing two highly supportive, pro-crypto statements on his Truth Social platform. Most notably, Trump declared that under his administration, the United States is securely positioned as the "crypto capital of the world," emphatically promising that he will "NEVER let Crypto down!"

Despite this overt rescue attempt from the White House, the market reacted with cold indifference. Instead of an upward rally, the premier digital assets entered a synchronized freefall. The Bitcoin price suffered a sharp drop, dumping over $2,000 to slide into the $73,200 range, while major altcoins like Ethereum ($ETH) and Ripple ($XRP) recorded even steeper percentage losses.

Why is Bitcoin Crashing?

If you are wondering why is bitcoin crashing right as a sitting U.S. President goes out of his way to salvage the industry's regulatory outlook, the fundamental catalyst isn't domestic policy—it is escalating war.

While Trump's verbal rhetoric was bullish, a fresh exchange of U.S.-Iranian military strikes shattered regional ceasefire hopes, triggering global risk-off sentiment. Short-term traders used the temporary political headline pump to exit their positions into stable cash and gold. This flight to safety triggered an aggressive cascade of margin liquidations that dragged down the entire crypto sector, breaking multi-month support zones for several top-tier tokens.

Crypto Crash: Ethereum and XRP Suffer Major Breakdowns

The downside momentum was not isolated to Bitcoin. The broader altcoin market faced intense distribution, invalidating critical psychological floors.

Ethereum ($ETH) Slices Below $2,000

Ethereum experienced a severe technical breakdown, plunging by over 4.8% within 24 hours to trade at $1,987. This marks the first time ETH has closed below the vital $2,000 level since March. Analysts note that after seven consecutive weeks of downward or sideways distribution, the failure to hold the $2,100 support level has opened the door for Ethereum to test the next structural floor near $1,900.

Ripple ($XRP) Crashes Past Key Supports

Ripple’s native token, $XRP, similarly fell victim to the heavy selling pressure, losing roughly 4% of its value to drop to $1.27. The intense selling volume pushed XRP below its strongly defended $1.30 support zone. The asset is facing dual headwinds from stagnant spot ETF inflows and external geopolitical anxieties, with traders now eyeing the $1.10 horizontal support as the next defensive line.

How Trump is Trying to Salvage the Market

To understand Trump's salvage operation, we must look closely at what the administration expressed. Trump's posts targeted two specific pillars of the domestic digital asset landscape that have faced heavy regulatory pressure: structural market legislation and federal regulatory jurisdiction.

Codifying the CLARITY Act: Trump took aim at the "Anti-Crypto Army" and promised to permanently codify a "FUTURE-PROOF Digital Asset Market Structure," referring implicitly to the ongoing legislative push for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act currently awaiting a full Senate floor vote.

Defending Prediction Markets via the CFTC: In his secondary post, Trump came to the defense of prediction markets (such as Polymarket and Kalshi), insisting that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) must retain "exclusive authority" over these platforms to ensure they thrive against state-level restrictions.

Crypto Analysis: Breaking Down the Crypto Price Dumps

An examination of the BTC/USD trading chart and major altcoin pairs shows that the market was already showing signs of severe exhaustion prior to the social media posts.

When the bullish headlines hit, price action experienced a brief, volatile spike before aggressively reversing. From a technical perspective, both BTC and ETH have drifted well below their short-term 50-day and 100-day Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs). If Bitcoin cannot stabilize above $73,000, analysts warn that a deeper correction toward the psychological floor of $70,000 could trigger a broader capitulation.

ETF Outflows and Leverage Flush: $744 Million Wiped Out

The primary underlying mechanism behind the sudden price drop was a massive influx of institutional selling paired with a flush in the derivatives market. Data from Coinglass revealed that spot Bitcoin ETFs suffered a massive single-day outflow of $733 million, led heavily by BlackRock's IBIT fund shedding over $500 million.

This institutional exit exacerbated a massive leverage wipeout in the derivatives market. The broader cryptocurrency market suffered over $744 million in total liquidations within a 12-hour window, with $715 million consisting of forced long liquidations. Trump's attempt to salvage the mood acted as a counter-indicator; instead of driving spot demand, it provided the ideal conditions for whales to distribute assets, trapping over-leveraged retail traders in the process.

The entire crypto market is going through a rough patch today, leaving many investors wondering about the exact crypto crash reason behind the sudden drop. Over the past 24 hours, the total cryptocurrency market cap fell by 3.313%, bringing the global valuation down to $2.45 trillion.

Major digital assets are down across the board. The market leader, Bitcoin ($BTC), slid by 3.2% to find itself trading at $73,250. This downside momentum quickly spilled over into the altcoin market. Ethereum ($ETH) took an especially hard hit, dropping 4.3% in just the past two hours and breaking down below the crucial $2,000 psychological support level to sit at $1,980.

Other major tokens couldn't escape the selling pressure either. Solana ($SOL) dropped 3% to $81, while Ripple ($XRP) fell 2.9% to $1.28. Tron ($TRX) and Dogecoin ($DOGE) also posted noticeable losses, sliding 4.8% (to $0.354) and 3.1% (to $0.09) respectively. Meanwhile, Hyper ($HYPER) experienced a brutal 8.9% decline, crashing down to $57.

To navigate these choppy waters and manage your trading risk effectively, it is always a good idea to stick with liquidity-rich choices found on the best crypto exchanges.

Global Tensions Cause a Chain Reaction

The main reason your portfolio is in the red today doesn't have to do with blockchain tech failing. Instead, it is being driven by global political tension. Fresh news of military strikes near the Strait of Hormuz—a major global shipping lane—and threats of retaliation have caused oil prices to spike. Higher oil prices mean higher inflation, making it much harder for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates anytime soon.

When inflation fears rise, big institutional investors usually pull their money out of speculative assets. Right now, Bitcoin is moving in close alignment with traditional assets like Gold as global markets adjust to these changes. With liquidity drying up across the financial world, crypto is feeling the squeeze.

Liquidations and ETF Panic Multiply Losses

What started as a normal market pullback quickly snowballed into a much larger drop due to a couple of key market mechanics.

1. Leveraged Traders Get Wiped Out

As the Bitcoin price began to break down, traders who borrowed money to bet on higher prices got caught off guard. This triggered a massive chain reaction, causing automated long liquidations to spike by 161%. Over $296 million worth of bullish positions were forcefully sold into the market within 24 hours, driving prices down even faster.

2. Record Institutional Outflows

At the same time, big money institutions are pulling out. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs just suffered a massive $733 million in net outflows in a single day. Because these funds have to sell physical Bitcoin on the open market whenever investors cash out, this sudden institutional exit put immense downward pressure on prices.

What to Watch Next

Where the market goes from here depends heavily on whether buyers step up to defend current technical levels and how upcoming economic data looks.

Even though an oversold RSI reading of 21.47 means a short-term relief rally could be right around the corner, a real recovery won't happen until ETF outflows stop and global tensions settle down. During periods of extreme volatility, many long-term investors prefer keeping their digital assets off exchange platforms using secure setups highlighted in our hardware wallets comparison.

Retail brokerage Robinhood has launched a breakthrough feature allowing customers to connect third-party artificial intelligence (AI) agents directly to their accounts. This system, known as Agentic Trading, enables advanced AI models to autonomously execute market strategies within a partitioned financial ecosystem.

Robinhood AI Trading News

Robinhood rolled out the beta phase of its Agentic Trading platform on May 27, 2026. Currently, the setup supports automated operations strictly for equities (stocks). While cryptocurrency execution is not available at launch, Robinhood confirmed that support for Robinhood Crypto and options will be integrated as the ecosystem expands out of beta.

What is Robinhood Agentic Trading?

Agentic Trading enables users to delegate deployment choices and execution power to an independent AI agent. Instead of relying on static algorithmic APIs, traders can connect LLMs (like Claude or ChatGPT) to evaluate data and adjust portfolios based on conversational natural language instructions.

To maintain security, Robinhood implemented the open-standard Model Context Protocol (MCP) server architecture. Built-in safeguards include:

• Siloed Accounts: AI agents cannot touch a user’s primary portfolio. They can only use funds explicitly moved to a separate, dedicated Agentic Trading account.
• Real-Time Monitoring: Holders receive instant push notifications for all automated operations, with a distinct app interface tracking live performance.
• Master Kill Switch: Investors maintain complete oversight and can immediately sever an agent's connection with a single tap.

What are Agentic Credit Cards

Alongside market access, Robinhood is bridging AI with everyday consumer spending via the new Agentic Credit Card. Available to Robinhood Gold members, this virtual credit card leverages secure banking MCP servers to let an AI agent shop autonomously on behalf of the customer.

Users can instruct their AI agent to scan the web for consumer items—such as tracking optimal travel deals—and authorize the purchase automatically when specific price thresholds are met. These virtual cards feature strict spending caps to insulate core financial assets.

After a brutal multi-week downtrend stemming from the $2,500 region, the Ethereum price is currently trading at $2,075, hovering above the psychologically vital $2,000 baseline.

The central question is whether the current consolidation is the final pause before a catastrophic $ETH coin crash below $2,000, or a classic liquidity hunt designed to trap short-sellers before a sharp bullish reversal.

How Other Cryptos Are Performing

The current weakness in $ETH does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of a systemic pullback visible across the entire crypto ecosystem. Heavy institutional liquidations and spot ETF outflows are weighing heavily on major assets:

• Bitcoin ($BTC): The premier cryptocurrency has lost its grip on the crucial $76,000 support level, down roughly 1.2% over the last session to trade near $75,800. A multi-day streak of net outflows from major U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs has dented the near-term bullish momentum for $BTC.
• Ripple ($XRP): Despite positive fundamental updates to the XRP Ledger (XRPL), $XRP has steadied around $1.32. A failed local breakout keeps the asset locked within a narrowing trading range, closely tracking $BTC's macro pullbacks.
• Solana ($SOL): Much like $XRP, Solana has faced structural headwinds, sliding down to approximately $84 despite recording occasional green ticks in its isolated fund inflows.

Compared to its peers, $ETH has notably underperformed over the past month due to an extended ten-day streak of negative ETF flows, placing its immediate technical floors under maximum stress.

Ethereum Price Analysis: Deciphering the $2,000 Floor

An analysis of the daily ETH/USD chart reveals a highly defined horizontal support and resistance matrix that has dictated price action throughout the year.

The $2,100 Breakdown and the Orange Zone

Over the past few weeks, the $2,100 level served as a firm structural floor, repelling multiple downside attempts. However, the chart shows that after three successive tests, this defensive perimeter finally gave way. The price has descended into the orange-highlighted circle, finding temporary friction just above the primary horizontal support at $2,000.

When a critical level like $2,100 breaks, it typically triggers momentum expansion toward the next major psychological boundary. In this case, the $2,000 level represents the absolute line in the sand for macro bulls.

RSI Momentum: Approaching Oversold Territory

Complementing the candlestick structure is the Relative Strength Index (RSI), currently registering at 37.49, with its moving average sitting slightly higher at 37.65.

• Bearish Continuation Risk: Because the RSI has not yet dipped below the traditional oversold threshold of 30.00, there remains mathematical room for a final flush downward to sweep liquidity beneath $2,000.
• Bullish Divergence Potential: Conversely, the flattening out of the RSI while price makes lower local lows indicates that selling pressure is beginning to exhaust itself. This exhaustion is a primary prerequisite for a market fakeout.

The Bear Case: A Clean Break and Descent to $1,800

If macroeconomic headwinds—specifically via hotter-than-expected inflation metrics or persistent spot ETF outflows—continue to dominate the news, a clean breakdown becomes highly probable.

In a strict bearish continuation scenario, a daily candle closing decisively below $2,000 will invalidate the local accumulation thesis. This would effectively turn the $2,000 floor into a formidable overhead resistance level. According to historical volume profiles shown on the chart, the next defensive bastions for buyers are situated at $1,800 (marked by the teal horizontal line) and $1,600 (marked by the lower yellow support line).

Traders looking to manage their risk safely during such structural shifts often utilize secure storage solutions, which can be reviewed on our comprehensive guide to hardware wallets.

The Bull Case: The Liquidity Sweep and "Fakeout" Blueprint

Despite the grim short-term price action, several institutional and underlying variables point heavily toward a potential bullish fakeout (also known as a spring or bear trap) rather than a complete market collapse.

• What is a Market Fakeout? A fakeout occurs when an asset's price briefly breaches a well-known support level to trigger stop-loss orders and liquidate over-leveraged long positions. Once this deep pool of liquidity is absorbed by major market makers, the price rapidly and aggressively reverses in the opposite direction.

Institutional Accumulation Signals

While retail sentiment remains fearful, deep-pocketed entities are treating this correction as a premier buying window. Massive corporate treasuries and institutional buyers have been taking advantage of the sub-$2,200 discount, showing that structural demand remains strong under the surface of the spot market.

Furthermore, recent efforts to minimize operational selling pressure from major ecosystem foundations are helping establish a cleaner fundamental launchpad for the asset.

If a fakeout occurs, expect the price to momentarily wick down to the $1,950–$1,980 range to sweep stops before closing the daily candle back above $2,020. This behavior would confirm a structural failure to break lower, rapidly shifting momentum back toward the overhead targets at $2,400 and $2,600.

What to know:

• The cryptocurrency market has entered a critical consolidation phase in late May 2026.
• After a painful 40% drop over the last six months and a harsh rejection above $2.20, XRP's aggressive selling pressure is finally exhausting.
• Price action shows XRP is establishing a firm cyclical floor, offering a high-potential entry point for buyers.
• A breakout from this defensive posture eyes key resistance levels at $1.80, $2.20, and $2.50.

Is the XRP Bottom In?

Data from the daily charts strongly confirms that XRP has found its cyclical bottom at current prices. Despite a broader market slowdown that has dragged down top assets, $XRP has repeatedly held its ground above the $1.29 horizontal support line.

While the 40% drop over the last six months shaken out speculative weak hands, on-chain metrics show aggressive accumulation by institutional entities. With sell-side liquidity drying up on major exchanges, the path of least resistance for XRP is shifting heavily to the upside, making a trend reversal toward $2.50 highly probable.

XRP Analysis: Breaking Down the XRP Price Bottom

A closer look at the daily XRP/USD chart reveals a clear structural shift from an aggressive sell-off to a prolonged, tightly wound accumulation phase.

The $1.29 Support Floor Holds Firm

Following the steep 40% decline from its local highs, XRP found major buyer interest just above the $1.2931 horizontal support line. Despite multiple tests throughout April and May, bears have repeatedly failed to push the price decisively below this threshold. This tells us that institutional demand and retail accumulation are heavily concentrated in this pocket, validating it as a reliable market bottom.

Relative Strength Index (RSI) Divergence

The 14-period Relative Strength Index (RSI) is currently hovering around 41.18. While this indicates mild bearish momentum in the short term, it also highlights that XRP is approaching oversold territory on a macro scale. More importantly, the RSI has stopped making lower lows, showing a subtle bullish divergence against the stabilizing price action. This typically precedes a violent trend reversal as selling momentum completely dries up.

How High can XRP Price Reach?

With XRP hovering around $1.3452, entering a position at these levels offers a highly favorable risk-to-reward ratio. If the identified bottom holds and the broader crypto market enters an upward expansion phase, the potential percentage returns for investors targeting key resistance levels are substantial:

• Target 1 ($1.80): A rally to this initial psychological barrier represents a gain of +33.8% from current prices.
• Target 2 ($2.20): Reaching the previous local highs would yield a return of +63.5%.
• Target 3 ($2.50): A clean breakout into a fresh bullish expansion toward the $2.50 macro target represents an impressive +85.8% price increase.

To execute trades safely during these accumulation phases, choosing a secure and liquid platform is vital. You can evaluate top-tier trading venues using our comprehensive crypto exchange comparison.

When will XRP Price Turn Bullish?

The technical bottoming structure does not exist in a vacuum; it is heavily backed by shifting global fundamentals. While the chart shows a tightening coil, external events are providing the fuel needed for a violent breakout.

Global Regulatory Shifts

According to recent reports, regulatory clarity continues to act as a primary tailwind for Ripple. Japan’s upcoming reclassification of XRP under its strict Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, paired with progress on the U.S. CLARITY Act, has given institutional investors the legal safety they need to deploy capital into the asset.

Ecosystem Interoperability and Stablecoin Growth

Ripple is fundamentally transforming its utility narrative. The company recently backed a $6 million funding round for Squid, a cross-chain routing protocol, aiming to embed the XRP Ledger directly into over 100 blockchains. Concurrently, Ripple’s USD stablecoin (RLUSD) hit an all-time high supply of $1.76 billion, dramatically outperforming competitors. This expanding liquidity ecosystem ensures that XRP is no longer just a speculative tool, but core financial infrastructure.

Road to Recovery: The Key Obstacles Ahead

While the long-term outlook remains highly asymmetric to the upside, XRP faces immediate structural hurdles before it can trigger its violent expansion toward the $2.50 milestone.

The first major test for the bulls sits between $1.45 and $1.50. This zone previously acted as a rigid support-turned-resistance level. A daily candle close above $1.50 will confirm a bullish market structure break, likely triggering a rapid short-squeeze toward the $1.80 level.

Volume profiles indicate that thin liquidity exists between $1.50 and $1.80. This drop in liquidity—evidenced by Binance order books hitting multi-year depths—means that large orders can move the price much faster than usual. Once the immediate overhead supply is cleared, the upward move could happen in a matter of days. For broader context on how these movements align with major market leaders, keeping an eye on the $Bitcoin price remains essential, as macro liquidity trends still heavily dictate altcoin momentum.

Prediction market odds are rising for Bitcoin to drop below $70,000 in the next few days following a dip to a six-week low price.

A London startup trained an AI on 4.1 million recipes across seven languages—and the whole thing is smaller than a song file.

A prize pool of over $100,000 is available for top traders and makers on prediction markets linked to FIFA World Cup matches.

Massive ETF outflows just sent crypto sharply lower. Jefferies says the next crypto IPO wave could create a $1T public market.

The near-$1 billion crypto liquidation spree comes amid rising tensions over the U.S.-Iran conflict and ETF outflows.

Ripple has destroyed 30 million RLUSD to control its supply on the Ethereum blockchain while regulating its value to boost adoption.

Vitalik Buterin warns Europe cannot beat the US and China at their own game.

XRP community watches closely as ATH odds go live on prediction market.

Block's Miles Suter rules out XRP for Cash App, calling it a 'never.'.

XRP sees a real network activity increase, which should create a cushion for a potential market review.

TLDR:

• Polkadot cut annual DOT issuance by 53.6% in March 2026, introducing a hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT.
• Cosmos IBC is live across 115+ networks in 2026, leading Polkadot in real-world cross-chain transaction volume.
• IBC Eureka launched in April 2025, enabling direct Ethereum-to-Cosmos connections without wrapping assets.
• Polkadot ranked first in developer commits in 2026, yet its DeFi TVL remains below $300 million ecosystem-wide.

Polkadot and Cosmos both solve blockchain interoperability, but through contrasting engineering models. Polkadot ties connected chains to a central Relay Chain for shared security.

Cosmos lets each chain operate independently through IBC, an open messaging protocol. The choice between them depends on whether a project needs built-in security from launch or full operational control over every layer.

Polkadot Moves Toward Defined Scarcity With Tokenomics Overhaul

Polkadot’s architecture relies on a hub-and-spoke model centered on its Relay Chain. Connected application chains, called parachains, inherit validation directly from the Relay Chain. This removes the need to build an independent validator network from scratch.

In March 2026, Polkadot cut annual DOT issuance by 53.6% through OpenGov referendums. Issuance dropped from roughly 120 million to 55 million DOT per year.

A hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT was introduced for the first time, with circulating supply already at 1.68 billion DOT.

DOT currently trades between $1.1 and $1.3, with a market cap near $2 billion. Polkadot ranked first in developer commits in 2026.

However, DeFi TVL across its ecosystem remains below $300 million, a gap that persists compared to Ethereum and Solana.

Cross-chain messaging through XCMP is still rolling out in phases as of May 2026. Many chains still rely on the older HRMP protocol in the meantime.

Polkadot also replaced competitive parachain slot auctions in 2025 with a governance-based Agile Coretime system.

Cosmos Expands IBC Beyond Its Own Ecosystem in 2025

Cosmos takes a different path by giving each chain full sovereignty. Every zone runs its own validator set through CometBFT and connects to others via IBC. IBC uses light client connections and avoids token wrapping, bridge contracts, and trusted custodians.

IBC Eureka, launched in April 2025, introduced direct connections between Ethereum and Cosmos chains. No asset wrapping is required.

Expansion to Solana and major EVM Layer 2 networks is planned through 2026, positioning IBC as a cross-ecosystem standard.

As of 2026, IBC is live across 115 or more networks. Active examples include Osmosis, dYdX, and Celestia. Each operates as a fully independent chain built on the Cosmos SDK.

ATOM currently trades between $2.06 and $2.11. Projects like dYdX migrated from Ethereum specifically for the execution control that Cosmos provides.

That control comes with a real cost, though — each chain must attract and maintain its own validator set. Cosmos leads in live cross-chain volume today, while Polkadot continues building toward a more tightly integrated long-term structure.

The post Polkadot vs Cosmos: Which Blockchain Interoperability Platform Leads in 2026? appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Agentic AI workloads projected to fuel approximately 30% expansion in CPU market revenues by 2028, according to Wolfe Research
• Advanced Micro Devices identified as strongest performer relative to current market position, with server CPU sales projected at $44 billion by 2028
• ARM architecture anticipated to dominate 50–75% of agentic AI CPU segment
• Intel projected to experience continued market share erosion in both orchestration and agentic segments despite absolute revenue gains
• Nvidia forecast to deliver over 4 million CPU units in current year, though segment remains minor compared to core accelerator business

In a comprehensive market analysis, Wolfe Research has outlined how the emergence of agentic artificial intelligence will catalyze substantial CPU market expansion—approximately 30% growth through the end of 2028. According to the firm’s assessment, next-generation AI systems require significantly enhanced CPU capacity working in tandem with GPUs to orchestrate operations, allocate memory resources, and execute sophisticated computational tasks.

Wolfe Research additionally highlighted that constrained production capacity at TSMC may become the determining factor in competitive positioning, potentially overshadowing pure performance advantages in the coming years.

AMD Emerges as Primary Beneficiary in Wolfe’s Assessment

According to Wolfe Research’s analysis, Advanced Micro Devices represents the most compelling opportunity when evaluated against current market capitalization and equity valuation metrics. The investment firm anticipates server CPU revenues for AMD will surge to $44 billion by calendar 2028, representing substantial growth from the projected $17 billion in 2026.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD

Wolfe’s modeling suggests the AI-centric CPU expansion could contribute approximately $7 in additional earnings per share relative to 2025 baseline figures. This would elevate AMD’s overall profitability to a range of $25 to $30 per share by the conclusion of 2028.

The research emphasizes ARM-based processor architectures as central to this trajectory. Wolfe anticipates ARM designs will command between 50% and 75% of the agentic artificial intelligence CPU segment, attributing this to superior energy efficiency metrics and enhanced parallel processing capabilities versus conventional x86 architectures.

Intel Expands in Absolute Terms While Market Position Weakens

Intel is projected to achieve server CPU revenue reaching $41.5 billion by 2028, climbing from $22.6 billion in 2026. Wolfe’s calculations indicate this expansion could deliver roughly $1 in additional earnings per share compared to 2025 performance.

Nevertheless, the analysis simultaneously projects ongoing market share deterioration for Intel. The migration of Google’s infrastructure to its proprietary Axion processors for orchestration functions represents a direct competitive challenge to Intel’s market positioning.

Intel confronts headwinds across both conventional server and emerging agentic CPU categories, even as total addressable market opportunity expands significantly.

Nvidia and Arm Positioned for Secondary Gains

Wolfe’s forecast indicates Nvidia will distribute in excess of 4 million CPU units during the current calendar year. Approximately 1.3 million units will consist of Vera agentic processors, with the majority of shipments concentrated in the final quarter. Revenue from agentic CPU products is projected to accelerate from $6.6 billion in 2026 to $24.6 billion by 2028.

Despite this substantial growth trajectory, Wolfe emphasizes that CPU revenues will continue representing a relatively minor component of Nvidia’s business mix when compared to its dominant AI accelerator division. The incremental earnings per share contribution from CPU operations is estimated at merely $0.50 above 2025 levels.

Arm Holdings stands to capture value through both intellectual property licensing fees and direct chip sales. Wolfe’s financial model projects $1.5 billion in royalty-based revenue for 2027, expanding to $2.5 billion in 2028. The firm additionally forecasts $2 billion in ARM silicon sales during 2028, driving total earnings power to approximately $4.50 per share by that timeframe. Wolfe cautions that current ARM equity valuations appear elevated relative to fundamentals.

The comprehensive CPU market expansion is also anticipated to generate roughly 20% growth in semiconductor wafer demand over a two-year horizon, though GPU and XPU products remain the predominant catalysts for leading-edge manufacturing capacity utilization.

The post Wolfe Research Declares AMD (AMD) the Ultimate AI CPU Winner Over Intel, Nvidia, and Arm appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• CME Bitcoin futures now trade 24/7 on Globex, with only a 60-minute Sunday maintenance pause each week.
• The long-standing CME weekend gap is effectively gone, removing a key structural inefficiency in Bitcoin markets.
• Three unresolved CME gaps from 2024 remain open near $80,000, $78,500, and just below $70,000 respectively.
• IBIT options hold up to $30B in open interest, far exceeding CME Bitcoin options sitting near $900 million.

CME Bitcoin futures and options now trade around the clock on the Globex electronic platform. Starting this Friday, CME Group ended its traditional weekend market closure.

A 60-minute maintenance pause remains each Sunday from 10 PM to 11 PM UTC. Weekend trades will still clear on the next business day. This move effectively eliminates the long-standing CME gap.

CME Bitcoin Futures Trading Shifts to a Continuous Market Structure

For years, CME Bitcoin futures closed every Friday and reopened on Sunday. That window created a well-known structural gap between CME and Bitcoin’s continuous spot market.

Traders actively positioned around these gaps, often betting on price “fills” when futures reopened. Thin weekend liquidity regularly exaggerated those price moves.

Volatility typically spiked at the Sunday 11 PM UTC reopen as futures caught up to spot prices. Low trading volumes over weekends amplified moves that later reversed once institutional players returned.

With CME’s maintenance window now occupying that same Sunday slot, some of that volatility pattern may linger briefly. Market participants should monitor the reopen closely in coming weeks.

By moving to 24/7 trading, CME now aligns Bitcoin futures with crypto’s native market structure. Asset managers, hedge funds, and corporate treasury desks gain continuous hedging access.

Weekend risk premiums are expected to shrink as a result. Institutional participants no longer need to wait until Monday to adjust their exposure.

Three CME gaps from earlier this year remain unresolved. Two sit above Bitcoin’s current spot price near $80,000 and $78,500 respectively.

A third remains open below the market, just under $70,000. Traders will likely continue watching those levels for potential fills.

Liquidity Still Favors ETF Options and Offshore Perpetual Markets

Despite the structural change, CME still trails where institutional liquidity is concentrated. BlackRock’s IBIT ETF options hold roughly $27 billion to $30 billion in open interest.

CME Bitcoin futures options, by comparison, sit closer to $800 million to $900 million. That gap in market depth remains a key consideration for large traders.

Cole Kennelly, Founder and CEO of Volmex Labs, noted this disparity directly to CoinDesk. The BVIV-US Index, derived from IBIT’s deeper options market, has become the preferred institutional benchmark for Bitcoin volatility.

CME’s thinner options market has yet to match that level of adoption. Offshore perpetuals also continue to dominate short-term speculative activity.

Still, removing the weekend closure addresses a real friction point for institutional participants. Continuous trading reduces forced position gaps and improves price discovery across venues.

Over time, that structural alignment may draw more volume toward CME. For now, the market will watch whether liquidity follows the extended hours.

The post CME Bitcoin Futures Now Trade 24/7, Ending the Weekend Gap Era for Good appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Boeing received FAA authorization to manufacture 47 737 MAX aircraft monthly, an increase from the previous 42-jet cap, with ambitions to exceed 50 and reach 60 eventually
• CEO Kelly Ortberg revealed China’s 200-aircraft purchase represents only an “initial tranche,” signaling additional orders ahead
• The aerospace giant delivered 600 aircraft in 2025, a substantial jump from 348 in 2024, though still below the 2018 record of 800+ deliveries
• Boeing’s defense segment carries a record backlog despite failing to achieve operating profitability since 2021
• Wall Street consensus rates BA stock a “Moderate Buy” with a $259.80 average price target; shares started Thursday trading at $224.36

Shares of Boeing (BA) began Thursday’s session at $224.36 following a 2.5% Wednesday rally, driven by CEO Kelly Ortberg’s remarks at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions conference regarding manufacturing momentum, Chinese aircraft commitments, and the company’s profitability roadmap.

The Boeing Company, BA

The most significant development from Wednesday involved the FAA granting Boeing permission to manufacture 47 737 MAX aircraft per month. This represents an increase from the previous 42-jet ceiling, which had already been elevated from the 38-aircraft monthly restriction implemented following the door plug incident on a 737 MAX 9 in January 2024.

The aerospace manufacturer aims to elevate production beyond 50 monthly units in the near term, with long-range goals exceeding 60 aircraft. These production milestones currently represent critical factors for the investment thesis.

Throughout 2025, Boeing handed over 600 aircraft to customers — a meaningful advance from merely 348 in 2024. However, this still trails the company’s 2018 zenith of more than 800 deliveries. Industry analysts project Boeing will eclipse that benchmark by 2028, forecasting approximately 860 deliveries.

The calculation is straightforward: increased aircraft output translates to higher revenue and improved free cash flow generation. Boeing consumed roughly $38 billion in cash between 2019 and 2025, following approximately $59 billion in free cash flow generated during the prior seven-year period. The financial deficit runs deep, and ramping production represents the recovery mechanism.

Chinese Aircraft Orders: Additional Volume Expected

Regarding China, Ortberg worked to temper investor concerns. Beijing’s recent commitment for 200 aircraft disappointed some observers who anticipated 500 units. Ortberg characterized it as an “initial tranche” and indicated subsequent orders would materialize.

This positioning provided some reassurance, though market reaction remained muted. Boeing’s commercial order backlog already extends deep into the 2030s, positioning China as an incremental upside opportunity rather than immediate necessity.

Regulatory authorities also indicated the 737 MAX 7 certification should arrive this summer, with MAX 10 approval anticipated before year-end. Both certifications would expand delivery capabilities. The 777X and extended MAX 10 variant are scheduled to commence deliveries in 2027.

Defense Operations: Improving But Still Unprofitable

The defense segment continues weighing on overall performance. Boeing’s defense operations recorded approximately $130 million in losses during 2025, following a $5.4 billion deficit in 2024. The division hasn’t generated operating profit since 2021.

Ortberg indicated Boeing plans to transition away from fixed-price agreements, which have consistently produced losses. The defense order backlog stands at unprecedented levels, with management pursuing a return to “high-single-digit” profit margins.

Recent contract losses involving NASA and Italy-related programs, combined with competitive pressure from SpaceX, underscore that the defense recovery trajectory won’t follow a linear path.

Regarding institutional ownership, hedge funds and major investors control 64.82% of Boeing shares. Director Bradley Tilden purchased 1,370 shares at $218.50 on May 20th, while Director Mortimer Buckley acquired 2,230 shares at $224.20 during March.

The consensus analyst price objective stands at $259.80, accompanied by a “Moderate Buy” rating. For Q1 2026, Boeing reported a loss of $0.20 per share, surpassing projections of -$0.68, with revenue reaching $22.22 billion — representing 14% year-over-year growth.

The post Boeing (BA) Stock Climbs After FAA Approves Increased 737 MAX Production Rate appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• International Business Machines shares advanced 4% to $265.34 following the revelation of a five-year, $10 billion quantum computing investment strategy.
• The tech giant aims to launch Starling, its inaugural large-scale fault-tolerant quantum system, by the end of 2029.
• Concurrently, IBM revealed Project Lightwell, a $5 billion open-source security platform supported by over 20 leading banking institutions.
• This commitment follows an agreement with U.S. federal authorities to establish a quantum chip manufacturing facility in Albany, New York, incorporating $1 billion in potential CHIPS Act support.
• To date, IBM has rolled out over 90 quantum computing systems and pioneered cloud-based quantum access in 2016.

International Business Machines experienced a 4% increase to $265.34 on Thursday following the submission of documentation to the Securities and Exchange Commission outlining plans to allocate over $10 billion toward quantum technology research and production capabilities across the coming five years.

International Business Machines Corporation, IBM

Shares had already experienced upward movement in the previous week after IBM secured a position among quantum technology firms eligible for support through the 2022 Chips and Science Act. Thursday’s regulatory submission provided additional momentum to the rally.

According to the SEC documentation, IBM indicated the capital would be allocated toward “R&D, capex, ecosystem partnerships, manufacturing scaling, and M&A.” The organization stated this “further enhances our confidence in delivering the first large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computer by 2029.”

The projected system has been designated Starling — continuing IBM’s established practice of utilizing avian nomenclature for its platforms. The architecture is engineered to process 100 million quantum operations leveraging 200 logical qubits.

IBM has installed more than 90 quantum computing systems globally. The corporation introduced cloud-accessible quantum computing to the public in 2016 and has maintained quantum-computing-as-a-service offerings ever since.

Quantum Manufacturing Facility and Government Support

The $10 billion capital commitment expands upon an agreement between IBM and federal authorities to create a quantum chip production facility in Albany, New York. The initiative encompasses $1 billion in anticipated CHIPS Act financial support from the government, complemented by $1 billion in direct investment from IBM, alongside contributions of intellectual property, infrastructure, and human resources.

The manufacturing center will concentrate on producing 300-millimeter quantum wafers.

Jay Gambetta, who previously served as IBM’s vice president of quantum before being elevated to oversee the corporation’s complete research operations last year, characterized the facility as primarily focused on operational flexibility rather than simply funding.

“Now that we’re accelerating, we want to have a very agile team designing new quantum processing units, new quantum computers, and deploying them,” Gambetta explained. “And we need the fab to get to a point where it’s reliable — that’s what this is really about.”

Project Lightwell: $5 Billion Open-Source Security Platform

In a parallel announcement Thursday, IBM alongside its Red Hat subsidiary introduced Project Lightwell. The initiative represents a $5 billion pledge to develop a comprehensive clearinghouse for open-source software security, underpinned by an advanced frontier AI model.

The endeavor will deploy more than 20,000 engineering professionals dedicated to assisting enterprises in fortifying open-source software infrastructure.

Over 90% of Fortune 500 corporations depend on open-source technologies, elevating security considerations as AI capabilities continue advancing.

Numerous prominent banking organizations have already committed as collaborative partners, including Bank of America, BNY, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Mastercard, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Canada, State Street, Visa, and Wells Fargo.

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna characterized open source as “the backbone of today’s digital economy and the foundation of modern AI.”

IBM finalized its $34 billion purchase of Red Hat in July 2019.

The Nasdaq Composite remained unchanged on Thursday while IBM concluded trading up 4%.

The post IBM (IBM) Stock Surges 4% Following Massive $10B Quantum Computing Investment Announcement appeared first on Blockonomi.

Bitcoin continues to trade under pressure after losing the critical $75K-$76K support zone, while broader market sentiment remains cautious amid weakening ETF inflows and deteriorating technical structure.

However, BTC is now approaching an important confluence of technical supports around $70K-$72K, where both trendline support and the 100-day MA could provide temporary relief for the market.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, Bitcoin has officially broken below the key $75K-$76K support region, which previously acted as an important decision point for the market. The breakdown confirms bearish continuation after repeated failures to reclaim the descending 200-day MA near $80K-$81K.

Currently, the price is approaching a major support confluence around $70K-$72K. This region aligns with the ascending lower boundary of the broader structure, the 100-day MA around $73K, and a significant historical order block visible on the chart. Such overlapping supports often increase the probability of at least a short-term reaction or relief bounce.

If buyers manage to defend the $70K-$72K range, Bitcoin could attempt a corrective recovery back toward the broken $75K-$76K resistance zone. However, failure to hold this area may open the path toward deeper supports around $65K-$66K and potentially the broader $60K-$63K demand region.

For now, the overall market structure remains bearish unless BTC reclaims the $75K-$76K zone and stabilizes above it.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart reflects accelerating bearish momentum following the recent breakdown below the consolidation structure near $75K-$76K. Sellers remain in control, while lower highs and persistent rejection candles continue to dominate the short-term trend.

Nevertheless, Bitcoin is now entering a critical order block between $70K and $72K. This zone has historically attracted significant demand and currently overlaps with the rising trendline support shown on the chart. The market reaction here will likely determine the next major move.

A short-term bullish pullback remains possible if buyers step in around this support cluster. In that scenario, BTC could revisit the $74K-$76K region as a corrective rebound. However, if the current support fails to hold, bearish momentum could accelerate rapidly toward the $65K-$66K liquidity zone.

Therefore, the $70K-$72K area represents the most important short-term battlefield between buyers and sellers.

Sentiment Analysis

The ETF cumulative flow chart reveals an important divergence developing in the market. Despite Bitcoin attempting multiple recoveries during recent months, cumulative ETF inflows have started flattening and have recently turned weaker alongside the latest correction.

This behavior suggests that institutional demand has cooled considerably compared to previous accumulation phases. The slowdown in spot Bitcoin ETF inflows indicates reduced aggressive buying from large market participants, which partly explains BTC’s inability to sustain rallies above the $80K-$82K region.

More importantly, recent price weakness has occurred while cumulative ETF flows remain relatively stable rather than aggressively expanding higher. This signals a lack of fresh capital entering the market at current levels.

Historically, strong bullish continuation phases in Bitcoin have usually been accompanied by accelerating ETF inflows. The absence of that dynamic increases the likelihood that the current market will remain corrective in the short term.

Still, if Bitcoin stabilizes around the $70K-$72K support region and ETF flows begin strengthening again, the market could regain momentum later. Until then, weakening institutional demand, combined with a bearish technical structure, keeps downside risks elevated despite the possibility of temporary relief rallies.

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: BTC Eyes $70K Support as ETF Demand Weakens and Bears Stay in Control appeared first on CryptoPotato.

OP Labs said exchange-owned chains built on the OP Stack generated more than $495 million in application revenue in the second half of 2025. The figure includes sequencer fees from transactions, revenue generated through applications embedded directly into exchange platforms, and assets that remained onchain.

According to the official press release shared with CryptoPotato, OP Labs said exchanges historically relied on third-party networks that captured much of the value generated from settlement activity, application fees, and broader onchain monetization linked to user activity.

OP Stack Onchain Revenue

Over the past year, however, applications running across exchange-owned chains built on the OP Stack have expanded rapidly. OP Labs highlighted that Morpho’s total value locked (TVL) on Coinbase-backed Base rose from $48 million at the beginning of 2025 to more than $960 million by the end of the year, representing nearly 20x growth. The company said the increase was driven mainly by lending products integrated directly into the Coinbase app rather than through wallet-based user acquisition.

Base has now become Morpho’s second-largest chain globally and accounted for 32% of Morpho’s application fees in H2 2025, which OP Labs said was 13 times that of Arbitrum and 60 times that of OP Mainnet.

Meanwhile, Kraken’s Ink chain added more than one million unique addresses since December 2024. OP Labs said fewer than 0.6% of those addresses had any prior onchain history with Kraken, while the remaining 99.4% represented net-new onchain wallets, which it described as evidence that exchange-owned chains are expanding the overall onchain market rather than merely shifting existing users between networks.

OP Labs further noted that Tydro, the Aave V3 white-label lending protocol launched on Ink in October 2025, reached $100 million in TVL within its first 24 hours and surpassed $500 million within 90 days. The company said comparable Aave deployments on neutral Layer 2 networks previously took between 142 and 721 days to reach similar milestones.

Optimism Foundation’s Chief Business Officer Kyle Jenke said the H2 figures showed a shift from the old system, where exchanges made money from trading while external networks captured the value generated thereafter. He added

“Exchanges now own the settlement, distribution, and application layers their users transact on. They’re doing it on a shared standard precisely so they don’t fragment from each other in the process.”

Ecosystem Record High

Across the wider ecosystem, OP Stack chains secured $16.33 billion in total value, held $6.8 billion in DeFi TVL, and processed 3.6 billion transactions during H2 2025. This was an all-time high across more than 50 live chains covering exchanges, consumer applications, financial infrastructure, and developer platforms.

Additionally, regulated companies are also choosing the OP Stack for institutional blockchain projects. Bitpanda’s Vision Chain uses the OP Stack for institutional finance aligned with Europe’s MiCA and MiFID II regulations, while Japan’s Mitsui & Co. Digital Commodities launched the regulated precious-metals-backed Zipangcoin on OP Mainnet.

The post Exchange-Owned OP Stack Chains Made Nearly $500M in Onchain Revenue, OP Labs Says appeared first on CryptoPotato.

HYPE set a new record high, but this attracted sellers, pushing it into a pullback.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price Predictions: Analysis

Key support levels: $52

Key resistance levels: $63

Pullback Ongoing as Sellers Return

As soon as HYPE set a new record price just under $65, sellers returned, sending it into a pullback. At the time of this post, the price is around $57 and is likely to fall even lower, with key support at $52.

Even so, this cryptocurrency remains one of the best-performing assets of 2026, with its price doing a quick 3x since January. For that reason, a pullback here is normal and was expected. The question is if $52 will hold or not to maintain the uptrend intact.

Short Term Bearish, Long Term Bullish?

While the price may enter a correction in the short- to medium-term, the outlook on higher timeframes remains quite bullish. HYPE’s fundamentals are some of the strongest in crypto, and the recent HYPE ETFs bring additional buy volume which was not present in the past.

This is why a correction here could prove quite shallow, especially if the support at $52 holds. In that case, the uptrend remains very much intact and would open the way for the price to make new records later.

RSI Entered Danger Zone

One of the key signals that HYPE was getting overheated and overextended could be seen on the 3-day RSI where this indicator reached over 77 points, a level not seen since May 2025.

Whenever the RSI enters the overbought area (above 70 points) it’s always prudent to be careful since the price may show emotional buying which no longer offers an edge and could be a top. So far, this pullback seems to confirm that.

The post Why is the Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price Down Today? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) has launched 24/7 trading for Bitcoin futures and options on its Globex platform.

CME Group announced that it will be entering the around-the-clock cryptocurrency market.

Bitcoin futures and options trading will be available 24/7 starting this Friday on the Globex trading platform. There will only be a 60-minute maintenance pause every single Sunday from 18:00 to 19:00 UTC+8.

CME Goes 24/7 for Bitcoin Futures, Ending the “CME Gap” Era

CME Group announced that it will officially enter the around-the-clock crypto market. Starting this Friday, CME Bitcoin futures and options will trade 24/7 on the Globex electronic trading platform, with only a… pic.twitter.com/VovH5TIDvF

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) May 28, 2026

Essentially, this means the well-known, crowd-favorite CME gap, caused by weekend market closures, will be no more.

The CME gap became incredibly popular as Bitcoin futures started to gain popularity on CME years ago. In fact, many traders used them as a signal that the price will eventually revisit the closing price before the weekend, essentially “closing” the gap.

The post Bitcoin’s Famous CME Gaps to Disappear Forever as CME Group Launches 24/7 Futures Trading appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Crypto markets took a turn for the worse today, losing more than $100 million in total market capitalization.

This comes on the back of sharp intraday declines in Bitcoin, as well as the majority of large-cap cryptocurrencies. Derivatives markets also felt the pressure as liquidations surpassed $1 billion – a massive 24-hour increase.

Bitcoin Price Tumbles to $73K, What’s Next?

As soon as news that the US has resumed strikes on Iran and the latter retaliated immediately broke, the crypto market tanked.

Bitcoin is no exception. As the leading cryptocurrency, its price tumbled by more than 3.5% on the day, losing over $ 2,000 and reaching an intraday low below $73,000 before recovering slightly to its current level.

The consensus is that the drop is largely attributable to the military escalation, but it’s also worth noting that a massive $1.3 billion block sale took place the other day, in which someone liquidated a whopping 29 million shares of BlackRock’s IBIT spot Bitcoin ETF. It’s the largest single-day sale in the product’s history, executed just before today’s drop.

Legacy markets remain relatively flat, with the S&P 500 holding its position, suggesting that Wall Street doesn’t seem to take what’s happening between the US and Iran right now very seriously. Oil prices have also initially increased but then started to decline.

Stellar (XLM) Prints 18% Daily as Altcoins Falter

As you can see in the heatmap below, the altcoin market is almost entirely painted red. Pretty much all of the major altcoins are charting considerable losses, more or less in line with Bitcoin.

For instance, BNB, XRP, ETH, DOGE, LTC, AVAX, and many others are down between 3% and 4%, while other coins like TRX, HYPE, and TAO are down more than 6%.

One that stands out from the crowd is Stellar. XLM is up by a whopping 19%, at the time of this writing, completely decoupling from the rest of the market. Other good performers include RAIN, which is up by 9%, building further on yesterday’s gains.

The post Bitcoin Crashes to $73,000 While Stellar (XLM) Defies Downturn With a 19% Surge: Market Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.