Crypto Breaking
18.3k Posts
Crypto Breaking
Square Verified+Report
Block User
Get real-time cryptocurrency news, blockchain updates, market analysis, and expert insights. Explore the latest trends in Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi, and Web3.
5 Following
32.8K+ Followers
31.5K Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
Article
Vitalik Buterin Outlines Priorities for ‘Lean Ethereum’ RoadmapEthereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has outlined a renewed technical direction for the network in a new “Lean Ethereum” strawmap, placing quantum resistance, scalability, and privacy at the top of Ethereum’s priorities for the coming years. In a post on X, Buterin said the roadmap is designed to be rolled out over the next three to four years and to span “nearly every layer” of the ecosystem.
Buterin compared the expected breadth of change to the September 2022 “Merge,” when Ethereum shifted away from energy-intensive mining to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. The updated plan also comes as Ethereum Foundation restructuring efforts are ongoing, following recent staffing cuts intended to reduce spending and streamline operations.
Key takeaways
“Lean Ethereum” prioritizes quantum safety, scaling improvements, and stronger privacy, with changes planned across most parts of the stack.
Buterin says quantum safety has become a much higher priority and that finalizing a quantum-safe approach for “blobs” is now urgent.
Privacy is described as a “first class goal,” alongside efforts to expand programmable privacy and scalability.
Several Ethereum Foundation departures and a reported ~20% staff reduction have raised questions about delivery timelines.
Critics argue the three-to-four-year window may be too slow and question whether the Ethereum Foundation can meet the proposed schedule.
Quantum safety and “Lean” upgrades across Ethereum
Buterin’s post frames “Lean Ethereum” as a long-running technical roadmap that begins in 2026 and extends through 2029, according to the strawmap hosted on Strawmap.org. The thrust is not a single upgrade, but a coordinated sequence of work meant to address multiple categories of risk and performance constraints.
One of the most urgent elements, according to Buterin, is quantum safety. He stated that “quantum safety has shifted up a LOT in priority,” and specifically flagged the need to finalize a quantum-safe solution for Ethereum’s “blobs.” While the details of that solution were not described in the article, Buterin’s emphasis suggests Ethereum is accelerating preparation for a future in which quantum computing could threaten today’s cryptographic assumptions.
Scalability remains another central theme. Buterin linked the roadmap to architectural improvements that touch the network broadly, echoing the scale of the Merge as an analogy for how disruptive but necessary the coming work could be.
Privacy moves from feature to priority
Alongside quantum safety and scalability, privacy has been elevated to the top tier of Ethereum’s objectives. Buterin said privacy has become a “first class goal,” signaling that privacy considerations are no longer expected to be an optional add-on for niche use cases.
Buterin also pushed for work on a new virtual machine design—described as similar to “leanISA or RISC-V”—intended to support programmable privacy and improve scalability. The thrust of this idea is to make privacy-related logic more adaptable at the protocol level, while continuing to address throughput and efficiency constraints that have historically shaped Ethereum’s upgrade path.
Ethereum Foundation restructuring adds delivery pressure
The timing of “Lean Ethereum” matters as Ethereum Foundation operations are undergoing changes. Earlier coverage noted that the Ethereum Foundation cut roughly 20% of its staff last month as part of an effort to become leaner and reduce its budget by 40%. The broader reorganization has also included executive departures in recent months, including Hsiao-Wei Wang and Tomasz Stańczak.
Protocol contributor exits were also reported. In May, Tim Beiko and Barnabé Monnot left, adding to a recent pattern of personnel changes.
From an investor and developer perspective, the key issue is not the concept of a new roadmap—Ethereum has repeatedly used multi-year upgrade plans—but the practical question of execution capacity. Roadmaps often collide with staffing, coordination bandwidth, and cross-client implementation realities, especially when multiple layers are expected to evolve in parallel.
Debate over whether the timeline is realistic
While some researchers praised the direction, the proposed three-to-four-year window drew immediate skepticism from others. Dankrad Feist, a researcher behind the payments-focused layer-1 Tempo blockchain, said the plan was positive but argued that the schedule may be too slow. He suggested that AI could help developers ship upgrades within a year.
Crypto analyst Ignas Fiodorovas also supported the general goals but raised doubt about whether the Ethereum Foundation can deliver within Buterin’s timeframe, citing what he described as a history of missed deadlines. Importantly, his critique focused less on the technical ambition and more on execution risk—how likely teams are to complete complex protocol changes on schedule.
Fiodorovas also pointed out a perceived omission from the strawmap: improved tokenomics for Ether (ETH). In the article’s reporting, he connected that gap to ongoing downward pressure on ETH’s price amid a broader market downturn, implying that even a technically successful roadmap may not directly satisfy market expectations in the near term.
These tensions highlight a recurring dynamic in large-scale blockchain roadmaps. Technical upgrades can strengthen the network’s long-term security and usability, but token performance, governance priorities, and deliverable milestones often remain coupled in traders’ minds—particularly when the community expects ecosystem-wide “leaning” to translate into clearer value capture or incentives.
Looking ahead, readers should watch for clarification on how Ethereum intends to finalize a quantum-safe approach for blobs and what specific milestones are attached to the 2026–2029 strawmap. The next signal to monitor will be whether the Foundation’s reorganized structure—and the teams implementing across multiple clients and layers—can convert the roadmap into measurable, time-bound deliverables.
This article was originally published as Vitalik Buterin Outlines Priorities for ‘Lean Ethereum’ Roadmap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Vitalik Buterin Outlines Priorities for ‘Lean Ethereum’ Roadmap
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has outlined a renewed technical direction for the network in a new “Lean Ethereum” strawmap, placing quantum resistance, scalability, and privacy at the top of Ethereum’s priorities for the coming years. In a post on X, Buterin said the roadmap is designed to be rolled out over the next three to four years and to span “nearly every layer” of the ecosystem.
Buterin compared the expected breadth of change to the September 2022 “Merge,” when Ethereum shifted away from energy-intensive mining to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. The updated plan also comes as Ethereum Foundation restructuring efforts are ongoing, following recent staffing cuts intended to reduce spending and streamline operations.
Key takeaways
“Lean Ethereum” prioritizes quantum safety, scaling improvements, and stronger privacy, with changes planned across most parts of the stack.
Buterin says quantum safety has become a much higher priority and that finalizing a quantum-safe approach for “blobs” is now urgent.
Privacy is described as a “first class goal,” alongside efforts to expand programmable privacy and scalability.
Several Ethereum Foundation departures and a reported ~20% staff reduction have raised questions about delivery timelines.
Critics argue the three-to-four-year window may be too slow and question whether the Ethereum Foundation can meet the proposed schedule.
Quantum safety and “Lean” upgrades across Ethereum
Buterin’s post frames “Lean Ethereum” as a long-running technical roadmap that begins in 2026 and extends through 2029, according to the strawmap hosted on Strawmap.org. The thrust is not a single upgrade, but a coordinated sequence of work meant to address multiple categories of risk and performance constraints.
One of the most urgent elements, according to Buterin, is quantum safety. He stated that “quantum safety has shifted up a LOT in priority,” and specifically flagged the need to finalize a quantum-safe solution for Ethereum’s “blobs.” While the details of that solution were not described in the article, Buterin’s emphasis suggests Ethereum is accelerating preparation for a future in which quantum computing could threaten today’s cryptographic assumptions.
Scalability remains another central theme. Buterin linked the roadmap to architectural improvements that touch the network broadly, echoing the scale of the Merge as an analogy for how disruptive but necessary the coming work could be.
Privacy moves from feature to priority
Alongside quantum safety and scalability, privacy has been elevated to the top tier of Ethereum’s objectives. Buterin said privacy has become a “first class goal,” signaling that privacy considerations are no longer expected to be an optional add-on for niche use cases.
Buterin also pushed for work on a new virtual machine design—described as similar to “leanISA or RISC-V”—intended to support programmable privacy and improve scalability. The thrust of this idea is to make privacy-related logic more adaptable at the protocol level, while continuing to address throughput and efficiency constraints that have historically shaped Ethereum’s upgrade path.
Ethereum Foundation restructuring adds delivery pressure
The timing of “Lean Ethereum” matters as Ethereum Foundation operations are undergoing changes. Earlier coverage noted that the Ethereum Foundation cut roughly 20% of its staff last month as part of an effort to become leaner and reduce its budget by 40%. The broader reorganization has also included executive departures in recent months, including Hsiao-Wei Wang and Tomasz Stańczak.
Protocol contributor exits were also reported. In May, Tim Beiko and Barnabé Monnot left, adding to a recent pattern of personnel changes.
From an investor and developer perspective, the key issue is not the concept of a new roadmap—Ethereum has repeatedly used multi-year upgrade plans—but the practical question of execution capacity. Roadmaps often collide with staffing, coordination bandwidth, and cross-client implementation realities, especially when multiple layers are expected to evolve in parallel.
Debate over whether the timeline is realistic
While some researchers praised the direction, the proposed three-to-four-year window drew immediate skepticism from others. Dankrad Feist, a researcher behind the payments-focused layer-1 Tempo blockchain, said the plan was positive but argued that the schedule may be too slow. He suggested that AI could help developers ship upgrades within a year.
Crypto analyst Ignas Fiodorovas also supported the general goals but raised doubt about whether the Ethereum Foundation can deliver within Buterin’s timeframe, citing what he described as a history of missed deadlines. Importantly, his critique focused less on the technical ambition and more on execution risk—how likely teams are to complete complex protocol changes on schedule.
Fiodorovas also pointed out a perceived omission from the strawmap: improved tokenomics for Ether (ETH). In the article’s reporting, he connected that gap to ongoing downward pressure on ETH’s price amid a broader market downturn, implying that even a technically successful roadmap may not directly satisfy market expectations in the near term.
These tensions highlight a recurring dynamic in large-scale blockchain roadmaps. Technical upgrades can strengthen the network’s long-term security and usability, but token performance, governance priorities, and deliverable milestones often remain coupled in traders’ minds—particularly when the community expects ecosystem-wide “leaning” to translate into clearer value capture or incentives.
Looking ahead, readers should watch for clarification on how Ethereum intends to finalize a quantum-safe approach for blobs and what specific milestones are attached to the 2026–2029 strawmap. The next signal to monitor will be whether the Foundation’s reorganized structure—and the teams implementing across multiple clients and layers—can convert the roadmap into measurable, time-bound deliverables.
This article was originally published as Vitalik Buterin Outlines Priorities for ‘Lean Ethereum’ Roadmap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Buterin compared the expected breadth of change to the September 2022 “Merge,” when Ethereum shifted away from energy-intensive mining to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. The updated plan also comes as Ethereum Foundation restructuring efforts are ongoing, following recent staffing cuts intended to reduce spending and streamline operations.
Key takeaways
“Lean Ethereum” prioritizes quantum safety, scaling improvements, and stronger privacy, with changes planned across most parts of the stack.
Buterin says quantum safety has become a much higher priority and that finalizing a quantum-safe approach for “blobs” is now urgent.
Privacy is described as a “first class goal,” alongside efforts to expand programmable privacy and scalability.
Several Ethereum Foundation departures and a reported ~20% staff reduction have raised questions about delivery timelines.
Critics argue the three-to-four-year window may be too slow and question whether the Ethereum Foundation can meet the proposed schedule.
Quantum safety and “Lean” upgrades across Ethereum
Buterin’s post frames “Lean Ethereum” as a long-running technical roadmap that begins in 2026 and extends through 2029, according to the strawmap hosted on Strawmap.org. The thrust is not a single upgrade, but a coordinated sequence of work meant to address multiple categories of risk and performance constraints.
One of the most urgent elements, according to Buterin, is quantum safety. He stated that “quantum safety has shifted up a LOT in priority,” and specifically flagged the need to finalize a quantum-safe solution for Ethereum’s “blobs.” While the details of that solution were not described in the article, Buterin’s emphasis suggests Ethereum is accelerating preparation for a future in which quantum computing could threaten today’s cryptographic assumptions.
Scalability remains another central theme. Buterin linked the roadmap to architectural improvements that touch the network broadly, echoing the scale of the Merge as an analogy for how disruptive but necessary the coming work could be.
Privacy moves from feature to priority
Alongside quantum safety and scalability, privacy has been elevated to the top tier of Ethereum’s objectives. Buterin said privacy has become a “first class goal,” signaling that privacy considerations are no longer expected to be an optional add-on for niche use cases.
Buterin also pushed for work on a new virtual machine design—described as similar to “leanISA or RISC-V”—intended to support programmable privacy and improve scalability. The thrust of this idea is to make privacy-related logic more adaptable at the protocol level, while continuing to address throughput and efficiency constraints that have historically shaped Ethereum’s upgrade path.
Ethereum Foundation restructuring adds delivery pressure
The timing of “Lean Ethereum” matters as Ethereum Foundation operations are undergoing changes. Earlier coverage noted that the Ethereum Foundation cut roughly 20% of its staff last month as part of an effort to become leaner and reduce its budget by 40%. The broader reorganization has also included executive departures in recent months, including Hsiao-Wei Wang and Tomasz Stańczak.
Protocol contributor exits were also reported. In May, Tim Beiko and Barnabé Monnot left, adding to a recent pattern of personnel changes.
From an investor and developer perspective, the key issue is not the concept of a new roadmap—Ethereum has repeatedly used multi-year upgrade plans—but the practical question of execution capacity. Roadmaps often collide with staffing, coordination bandwidth, and cross-client implementation realities, especially when multiple layers are expected to evolve in parallel.
Debate over whether the timeline is realistic
While some researchers praised the direction, the proposed three-to-four-year window drew immediate skepticism from others. Dankrad Feist, a researcher behind the payments-focused layer-1 Tempo blockchain, said the plan was positive but argued that the schedule may be too slow. He suggested that AI could help developers ship upgrades within a year.
Crypto analyst Ignas Fiodorovas also supported the general goals but raised doubt about whether the Ethereum Foundation can deliver within Buterin’s timeframe, citing what he described as a history of missed deadlines. Importantly, his critique focused less on the technical ambition and more on execution risk—how likely teams are to complete complex protocol changes on schedule.
Fiodorovas also pointed out a perceived omission from the strawmap: improved tokenomics for Ether (ETH). In the article’s reporting, he connected that gap to ongoing downward pressure on ETH’s price amid a broader market downturn, implying that even a technically successful roadmap may not directly satisfy market expectations in the near term.
These tensions highlight a recurring dynamic in large-scale blockchain roadmaps. Technical upgrades can strengthen the network’s long-term security and usability, but token performance, governance priorities, and deliverable milestones often remain coupled in traders’ minds—particularly when the community expects ecosystem-wide “leaning” to translate into clearer value capture or incentives.
Looking ahead, readers should watch for clarification on how Ethereum intends to finalize a quantum-safe approach for blobs and what specific milestones are attached to the 2026–2029 strawmap. The next signal to monitor will be whether the Foundation’s reorganized structure—and the teams implementing across multiple clients and layers—can convert the roadmap into measurable, time-bound deliverables.
This article was originally published as Vitalik Buterin Outlines Priorities for ‘Lean Ethereum’ Roadmap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
13
Article
Moonbeam Shifts From Polkadot to Base to Support AI AgentsMoonbeam, an interoperability network originally built for Polkadot, says it is shifting its development focus to Ethereum’s Layer 2 Base. The company’s new plan centers on launching the “Moonbeam Protocol” as an AI agent communication and settlement network—an architecture it believes can benefit from growing interest in agent-driven, on-chain payments.
In a strategic update released Friday, Moonbeam framed the move as a pivot toward what it calls “autonomous AI agents” that can coordinate with one another, negotiate for work, and settle payments directly on-chain “without a middleman.” Moonbeam did not disclose a launch date for the Moonbeam Protocol.
Key takeaways
Moonbeam says it is pivoting from its current Polkadot-centered roadmap to building an AI agent communication and settlement layer on Base.
The company provided no timeline for the Moonbeam Protocol launch.
Moonbeam tokenholders will need to bridge GLMR from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026.
Moonbeam says it will keep supporting its existing cross-chain interoperability services on the Polkadot parachain during the transition.
The announcement lands as the broader “agentic” trend gathers institutional attention, but adoption in on-chain agent payment infrastructure remains limited.
Why Moonbeam is moving to Base for agent settlement
Moonbeam’s stated objective is to build an on-chain network designed for agent-to-agent coordination and settlement. The company argues that autonomous agents—programs that can locate each other, bargain over tasks, and execute payments—represent a “long-term opportunity” for blockchain infrastructure.
By relocating development resources to Base, Moonbeam is effectively betting that the practical bottleneck for agent-based ecosystems is moving from pure experimentation toward execution: enabling systems to transact reliably and automatically on-chain. The company didn’t specify the technical design of the Moonbeam Protocol, but its positioning suggests it intends to become a coordination layer for agent activity rather than just another cross-chain bridge.
Institutional and industry leaders have echoed similar expectations for agent-driven payments. Cointelegraph previously highlighted predictions from executives such as Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire that AI agents could become major users of blockchain-based payments in the coming years.
At the same time, real-world adoption has not yet matched the narrative. Cointelegraph cited Artemis data indicating that only $2 million in trading volume had been facilitated through Coinbase’s x402 protocol over the prior 30 days, underscoring how early the space still is despite high-profile backing.
Polkadot concerns after Moonbeam’s pivot
The shift is also reverberating within the Polkadot community. Multiple voices on social media characterized Moonbeam’s pivot as a setback for Polkadot’s ecosystem, with at least one user calling it the network’s “flagship project.”
Moonbeam originally launched as a Polkadot parachain in January 2022, providing developers with the ability to build Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-compatible applications inside the Polkadot environment. That origin is central to why the move is being seen as more than a simple product upgrade: it signals a reorientation of Moonbeam’s flagship direction away from its parachain-centric identity.
That said, Moonbeam’s statement also implies continuity during the transition period. The company says it will continue operating cross-chain interoperability services on the Polkadot parachain rather than immediately ceasing Polkadot-linked support.
How the GLMR migration works—and who must act
For existing users and decentralized finance participants, the most immediate question raised by the announcement is operational: what happens to GLMR tokens tied to Polkadot-based deployment.
Moonbeam said that GLMR holders will need to bridge their tokens from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026. The update includes GLMR held in or connected to lending markets, staking contracts, and other DeFi protocols. That means many token balances that are not held in a simple wallet could require additional migration steps to preserve positions across chains.
Moonbeam also clarified that users who hold GLMR on a centralized exchange will not need to take action, suggesting exchanges will handle the process on behalf of customers.
Importantly, Moonbeam stated that it is not abandoning its existing builders or infrastructure providers. It intends to keep cross-chain interoperability running on the Polkadot parachain during the transition period, which may reduce the operational risk for teams and services that rely on ongoing interoperability rather than a clean cutover.
Still, for participants in lending, staking, and protocol integrations, the July 31, 2026 deadline effectively becomes the point by which on-chain and integration plans should be re-validated for Base. Investors and developers will likely want to track whether Moonbeam’s migration tools, cross-chain routing, and any protocol-level configuration changes are sufficient for complex DeFi positions—not just spot token transfers.
Agent hype meets slow infrastructure adoption
Moonbeam’s move reflects a broader push across crypto infrastructure to support agentic applications, but it also highlights the gap between expectations and current usage.
Coinbase’s x402 protocol has been one of the prominent catalysts in the “agentic payments” narrative, yet Cointelegraph’s cited Artemis figures indicate that activity remains comparatively small in dollar terms over a 30-day window. This suggests that even with major industry support, agent-driven on-chain payment flows are still early—and may depend on better consumer-facing products, clearer developer tooling, or stronger demand from actual agent deployments.
Outside crypto, progress is also uneven. Cointelegraph noted that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said agent technology hadn’t accelerated the company’s workflows as quickly as expected, signaling that adoption cycles in the broader tech industry may be more gradual than early forecasts.
Within that context, Moonbeam’s strategy can be read as an attempt to move from agent experimentation toward an infrastructure layer that could standardize communication and settlement. Whether that standardization can translate into meaningful on-chain usage will be clearer only after the Moonbeam Protocol is deployed and used by developers and real agent systems.
For now, the key watchpoints are Moonbeam’s unspecified launch timeline, the execution details of the GLMR bridging process ahead of July 31, 2026, and whether early agent settlement activity grows enough to justify a full pivot to Base.
This article was originally published as Moonbeam Shifts From Polkadot to Base to Support AI Agents on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Moonbeam Shifts From Polkadot to Base to Support AI Agents
Moonbeam, an interoperability network originally built for Polkadot, says it is shifting its development focus to Ethereum’s Layer 2 Base. The company’s new plan centers on launching the “Moonbeam Protocol” as an AI agent communication and settlement network—an architecture it believes can benefit from growing interest in agent-driven, on-chain payments.
In a strategic update released Friday, Moonbeam framed the move as a pivot toward what it calls “autonomous AI agents” that can coordinate with one another, negotiate for work, and settle payments directly on-chain “without a middleman.” Moonbeam did not disclose a launch date for the Moonbeam Protocol.
Key takeaways
Moonbeam says it is pivoting from its current Polkadot-centered roadmap to building an AI agent communication and settlement layer on Base.
The company provided no timeline for the Moonbeam Protocol launch.
Moonbeam tokenholders will need to bridge GLMR from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026.
Moonbeam says it will keep supporting its existing cross-chain interoperability services on the Polkadot parachain during the transition.
The announcement lands as the broader “agentic” trend gathers institutional attention, but adoption in on-chain agent payment infrastructure remains limited.
Why Moonbeam is moving to Base for agent settlement
Moonbeam’s stated objective is to build an on-chain network designed for agent-to-agent coordination and settlement. The company argues that autonomous agents—programs that can locate each other, bargain over tasks, and execute payments—represent a “long-term opportunity” for blockchain infrastructure.
By relocating development resources to Base, Moonbeam is effectively betting that the practical bottleneck for agent-based ecosystems is moving from pure experimentation toward execution: enabling systems to transact reliably and automatically on-chain. The company didn’t specify the technical design of the Moonbeam Protocol, but its positioning suggests it intends to become a coordination layer for agent activity rather than just another cross-chain bridge.
Institutional and industry leaders have echoed similar expectations for agent-driven payments. Cointelegraph previously highlighted predictions from executives such as Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire that AI agents could become major users of blockchain-based payments in the coming years.
At the same time, real-world adoption has not yet matched the narrative. Cointelegraph cited Artemis data indicating that only $2 million in trading volume had been facilitated through Coinbase’s x402 protocol over the prior 30 days, underscoring how early the space still is despite high-profile backing.
Polkadot concerns after Moonbeam’s pivot
The shift is also reverberating within the Polkadot community. Multiple voices on social media characterized Moonbeam’s pivot as a setback for Polkadot’s ecosystem, with at least one user calling it the network’s “flagship project.”
Moonbeam originally launched as a Polkadot parachain in January 2022, providing developers with the ability to build Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-compatible applications inside the Polkadot environment. That origin is central to why the move is being seen as more than a simple product upgrade: it signals a reorientation of Moonbeam’s flagship direction away from its parachain-centric identity.
That said, Moonbeam’s statement also implies continuity during the transition period. The company says it will continue operating cross-chain interoperability services on the Polkadot parachain rather than immediately ceasing Polkadot-linked support.
How the GLMR migration works—and who must act
For existing users and decentralized finance participants, the most immediate question raised by the announcement is operational: what happens to GLMR tokens tied to Polkadot-based deployment.
Moonbeam said that GLMR holders will need to bridge their tokens from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026. The update includes GLMR held in or connected to lending markets, staking contracts, and other DeFi protocols. That means many token balances that are not held in a simple wallet could require additional migration steps to preserve positions across chains.
Moonbeam also clarified that users who hold GLMR on a centralized exchange will not need to take action, suggesting exchanges will handle the process on behalf of customers.
Importantly, Moonbeam stated that it is not abandoning its existing builders or infrastructure providers. It intends to keep cross-chain interoperability running on the Polkadot parachain during the transition period, which may reduce the operational risk for teams and services that rely on ongoing interoperability rather than a clean cutover.
Still, for participants in lending, staking, and protocol integrations, the July 31, 2026 deadline effectively becomes the point by which on-chain and integration plans should be re-validated for Base. Investors and developers will likely want to track whether Moonbeam’s migration tools, cross-chain routing, and any protocol-level configuration changes are sufficient for complex DeFi positions—not just spot token transfers.
Agent hype meets slow infrastructure adoption
Moonbeam’s move reflects a broader push across crypto infrastructure to support agentic applications, but it also highlights the gap between expectations and current usage.
Coinbase’s x402 protocol has been one of the prominent catalysts in the “agentic payments” narrative, yet Cointelegraph’s cited Artemis figures indicate that activity remains comparatively small in dollar terms over a 30-day window. This suggests that even with major industry support, agent-driven on-chain payment flows are still early—and may depend on better consumer-facing products, clearer developer tooling, or stronger demand from actual agent deployments.
Outside crypto, progress is also uneven. Cointelegraph noted that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said agent technology hadn’t accelerated the company’s workflows as quickly as expected, signaling that adoption cycles in the broader tech industry may be more gradual than early forecasts.
Within that context, Moonbeam’s strategy can be read as an attempt to move from agent experimentation toward an infrastructure layer that could standardize communication and settlement. Whether that standardization can translate into meaningful on-chain usage will be clearer only after the Moonbeam Protocol is deployed and used by developers and real agent systems.
For now, the key watchpoints are Moonbeam’s unspecified launch timeline, the execution details of the GLMR bridging process ahead of July 31, 2026, and whether early agent settlement activity grows enough to justify a full pivot to Base.
This article was originally published as Moonbeam Shifts From Polkadot to Base to Support AI Agents on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In a strategic update released Friday, Moonbeam framed the move as a pivot toward what it calls “autonomous AI agents” that can coordinate with one another, negotiate for work, and settle payments directly on-chain “without a middleman.” Moonbeam did not disclose a launch date for the Moonbeam Protocol.
Key takeaways
Moonbeam says it is pivoting from its current Polkadot-centered roadmap to building an AI agent communication and settlement layer on Base.
The company provided no timeline for the Moonbeam Protocol launch.
Moonbeam tokenholders will need to bridge GLMR from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026.
Moonbeam says it will keep supporting its existing cross-chain interoperability services on the Polkadot parachain during the transition.
The announcement lands as the broader “agentic” trend gathers institutional attention, but adoption in on-chain agent payment infrastructure remains limited.
Why Moonbeam is moving to Base for agent settlement
Moonbeam’s stated objective is to build an on-chain network designed for agent-to-agent coordination and settlement. The company argues that autonomous agents—programs that can locate each other, bargain over tasks, and execute payments—represent a “long-term opportunity” for blockchain infrastructure.
By relocating development resources to Base, Moonbeam is effectively betting that the practical bottleneck for agent-based ecosystems is moving from pure experimentation toward execution: enabling systems to transact reliably and automatically on-chain. The company didn’t specify the technical design of the Moonbeam Protocol, but its positioning suggests it intends to become a coordination layer for agent activity rather than just another cross-chain bridge.
Institutional and industry leaders have echoed similar expectations for agent-driven payments. Cointelegraph previously highlighted predictions from executives such as Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire that AI agents could become major users of blockchain-based payments in the coming years.
At the same time, real-world adoption has not yet matched the narrative. Cointelegraph cited Artemis data indicating that only $2 million in trading volume had been facilitated through Coinbase’s x402 protocol over the prior 30 days, underscoring how early the space still is despite high-profile backing.
Polkadot concerns after Moonbeam’s pivot
The shift is also reverberating within the Polkadot community. Multiple voices on social media characterized Moonbeam’s pivot as a setback for Polkadot’s ecosystem, with at least one user calling it the network’s “flagship project.”
Moonbeam originally launched as a Polkadot parachain in January 2022, providing developers with the ability to build Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-compatible applications inside the Polkadot environment. That origin is central to why the move is being seen as more than a simple product upgrade: it signals a reorientation of Moonbeam’s flagship direction away from its parachain-centric identity.
That said, Moonbeam’s statement also implies continuity during the transition period. The company says it will continue operating cross-chain interoperability services on the Polkadot parachain rather than immediately ceasing Polkadot-linked support.
How the GLMR migration works—and who must act
For existing users and decentralized finance participants, the most immediate question raised by the announcement is operational: what happens to GLMR tokens tied to Polkadot-based deployment.
Moonbeam said that GLMR holders will need to bridge their tokens from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026. The update includes GLMR held in or connected to lending markets, staking contracts, and other DeFi protocols. That means many token balances that are not held in a simple wallet could require additional migration steps to preserve positions across chains.
Moonbeam also clarified that users who hold GLMR on a centralized exchange will not need to take action, suggesting exchanges will handle the process on behalf of customers.
Importantly, Moonbeam stated that it is not abandoning its existing builders or infrastructure providers. It intends to keep cross-chain interoperability running on the Polkadot parachain during the transition period, which may reduce the operational risk for teams and services that rely on ongoing interoperability rather than a clean cutover.
Still, for participants in lending, staking, and protocol integrations, the July 31, 2026 deadline effectively becomes the point by which on-chain and integration plans should be re-validated for Base. Investors and developers will likely want to track whether Moonbeam’s migration tools, cross-chain routing, and any protocol-level configuration changes are sufficient for complex DeFi positions—not just spot token transfers.
Agent hype meets slow infrastructure adoption
Moonbeam’s move reflects a broader push across crypto infrastructure to support agentic applications, but it also highlights the gap between expectations and current usage.
Coinbase’s x402 protocol has been one of the prominent catalysts in the “agentic payments” narrative, yet Cointelegraph’s cited Artemis figures indicate that activity remains comparatively small in dollar terms over a 30-day window. This suggests that even with major industry support, agent-driven on-chain payment flows are still early—and may depend on better consumer-facing products, clearer developer tooling, or stronger demand from actual agent deployments.
Outside crypto, progress is also uneven. Cointelegraph noted that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said agent technology hadn’t accelerated the company’s workflows as quickly as expected, signaling that adoption cycles in the broader tech industry may be more gradual than early forecasts.
Within that context, Moonbeam’s strategy can be read as an attempt to move from agent experimentation toward an infrastructure layer that could standardize communication and settlement. Whether that standardization can translate into meaningful on-chain usage will be clearer only after the Moonbeam Protocol is deployed and used by developers and real agent systems.
For now, the key watchpoints are Moonbeam’s unspecified launch timeline, the execution details of the GLMR bridging process ahead of July 31, 2026, and whether early agent settlement activity grows enough to justify a full pivot to Base.
This article was originally published as Moonbeam Shifts From Polkadot to Base to Support AI Agents on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
100
Article
Moonbeam Announces Pivot to Base and Launches AI Agent FrameworkMoonbeam Network says it is shifting its focus from Polkadot to Ethereum layer 2 Base in order to build what it calls an “AI agent communication and settlement network.” The interoperability project framed the move as a strategic bet on autonomous, on-chain coordination between AI agents that can negotiate work and transact directly—without relying on a middleman.
In a Friday announcement, Moonbeam said the initiative is part of the “Moonbeam Protocol” and described the pivot as a reallocation of resources toward what it sees as the next major crypto frontier: agent-to-agent discovery, negotiation, and fully on-chain payments. The company did not provide a launch timeline for the Moonbeam Protocol.
Key takeaways
Moonbeam is pivoting from Polkadot to Base to support an AI agent communication and settlement network.
Moonbeam did not specify a launch date for the Moonbeam Protocol.
GLMR token holders are instructed to bridge from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026.
Moonbeam says it will continue interoperability support on Polkadot during the transition and will not abandon existing builders or infrastructure providers.
Why Moonbeam is betting on Base for “agent settlement”
Moonbeam’s statement positions the Base pivot as more than a chain migration. The company argues that the most compelling long-term use case for blockchain is the emergence of autonomous AI agents that coordinate with each other on-chain and settle payments end-to-end.
That framing aligns with broader industry momentum around “agentic” workflows—an area where executives have repeatedly suggested that AI agents will become major users of blockchain-based payments. Cointelegraph previously reported on expectations from leaders including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire that AI agents could drive demand for on-chain payments in the coming years.
Still, adoption has been uneven. Cointelegraph noted earlier that while Coinbase’s x402 payments protocol has been a high-profile catalyst for the agent-payments narrative, Artemis data indicated only about $2 million in trading volume facilitated through x402 over the past 30 days. In parallel, Big Tech experimentation has not always translated into faster production deployment; Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on Thursday that agent tools had not accelerated the company’s workflows as quickly as expected, according to Cointelegraph coverage.
Against that backdrop, Moonbeam’s move to Base suggests a strategic attempt to connect agent functionality with a more established Ethereum scaling ecosystem—while positioning its interoperability expertise as the connective tissue for cross-chain agent activity.
Community backlash and Polkadot ecosystem concerns
Not everyone welcomed the shift. Several community members characterized Moonbeam’s pivot as a setback for Polkadot, with some referring to Moonbeam as a flagship project for the ecosystem.
Moonbeam originally launched in January 2022 as a Polkadot parachain. At the time, it offered developers the ability to build Ethereum Virtual Machine-compatible applications within the Polkadot environment—an approach designed to lower the friction for Ethereum-native tooling and developer workflows while still benefiting from Polkadot’s broader interoperability vision.
Moonbeam’s new direction therefore changes the practical center of gravity for its future roadmap. Even if existing functionality remains supported for a transition period, the messaging implicitly signals that Moonbeam intends to prioritize agent-native settlement and coordination on Base going forward.
Bridging instructions for GLMR before mid-2026
The most immediate operational change concerns token movement. Moonbeam said holders of its token, GLMR, will need to bridge assets from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026. This includes GLMR exposure in lending markets, staking contracts, and other DeFi protocols connected to the parachain.
Moonbeam also clarified that users who hold GLMR through a centralized exchange will not need to take action, implying that the exchange layer will handle the migration on their behalf.
Importantly, Moonbeam said it will keep providing cross-chain interoperability services on Polkadot through the transition period. The company added that it is not abandoning existing builders or infrastructure providers—an assurance intended to reduce the risk that the shift could leave teams stranded on Polkadot immediately.
For participants, the decision raises a practical set of questions that will matter as the deadline approaches: how bridge support will be maintained across different contract types, how long existing integrations will remain fully functional on the parachain, and what future liquidity and settlement patterns will look like once the activity concentrates on Base.
What investors and builders should watch next
Moonbeam did not provide a Moonbeam Protocol launch schedule, which leaves timelines and implementation details open. The next key items for market participants are likely to be: updates on the bridging process and user-facing tooling ahead of the July 31, 2026 deadline; clarification on how DeFi and staking setups will evolve during the transition; and—critically—whether Moonbeam’s agent-focused settlement network attracts real on-chain usage, particularly in light of past reports suggesting that agent payment adoption has been slow even where the concept has momentum.
This article was originally published as Moonbeam Announces Pivot to Base and Launches AI Agent Framework on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Moonbeam Announces Pivot to Base and Launches AI Agent Framework
Moonbeam Network says it is shifting its focus from Polkadot to Ethereum layer 2 Base in order to build what it calls an “AI agent communication and settlement network.” The interoperability project framed the move as a strategic bet on autonomous, on-chain coordination between AI agents that can negotiate work and transact directly—without relying on a middleman.
In a Friday announcement, Moonbeam said the initiative is part of the “Moonbeam Protocol” and described the pivot as a reallocation of resources toward what it sees as the next major crypto frontier: agent-to-agent discovery, negotiation, and fully on-chain payments. The company did not provide a launch timeline for the Moonbeam Protocol.
Key takeaways
Moonbeam is pivoting from Polkadot to Base to support an AI agent communication and settlement network.
Moonbeam did not specify a launch date for the Moonbeam Protocol.
GLMR token holders are instructed to bridge from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026.
Moonbeam says it will continue interoperability support on Polkadot during the transition and will not abandon existing builders or infrastructure providers.
Why Moonbeam is betting on Base for “agent settlement”
Moonbeam’s statement positions the Base pivot as more than a chain migration. The company argues that the most compelling long-term use case for blockchain is the emergence of autonomous AI agents that coordinate with each other on-chain and settle payments end-to-end.
That framing aligns with broader industry momentum around “agentic” workflows—an area where executives have repeatedly suggested that AI agents will become major users of blockchain-based payments. Cointelegraph previously reported on expectations from leaders including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire that AI agents could drive demand for on-chain payments in the coming years.
Still, adoption has been uneven. Cointelegraph noted earlier that while Coinbase’s x402 payments protocol has been a high-profile catalyst for the agent-payments narrative, Artemis data indicated only about $2 million in trading volume facilitated through x402 over the past 30 days. In parallel, Big Tech experimentation has not always translated into faster production deployment; Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on Thursday that agent tools had not accelerated the company’s workflows as quickly as expected, according to Cointelegraph coverage.
Against that backdrop, Moonbeam’s move to Base suggests a strategic attempt to connect agent functionality with a more established Ethereum scaling ecosystem—while positioning its interoperability expertise as the connective tissue for cross-chain agent activity.
Community backlash and Polkadot ecosystem concerns
Not everyone welcomed the shift. Several community members characterized Moonbeam’s pivot as a setback for Polkadot, with some referring to Moonbeam as a flagship project for the ecosystem.
Moonbeam originally launched in January 2022 as a Polkadot parachain. At the time, it offered developers the ability to build Ethereum Virtual Machine-compatible applications within the Polkadot environment—an approach designed to lower the friction for Ethereum-native tooling and developer workflows while still benefiting from Polkadot’s broader interoperability vision.
Moonbeam’s new direction therefore changes the practical center of gravity for its future roadmap. Even if existing functionality remains supported for a transition period, the messaging implicitly signals that Moonbeam intends to prioritize agent-native settlement and coordination on Base going forward.
Bridging instructions for GLMR before mid-2026
The most immediate operational change concerns token movement. Moonbeam said holders of its token, GLMR, will need to bridge assets from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026. This includes GLMR exposure in lending markets, staking contracts, and other DeFi protocols connected to the parachain.
Moonbeam also clarified that users who hold GLMR through a centralized exchange will not need to take action, implying that the exchange layer will handle the migration on their behalf.
Importantly, Moonbeam said it will keep providing cross-chain interoperability services on Polkadot through the transition period. The company added that it is not abandoning existing builders or infrastructure providers—an assurance intended to reduce the risk that the shift could leave teams stranded on Polkadot immediately.
For participants, the decision raises a practical set of questions that will matter as the deadline approaches: how bridge support will be maintained across different contract types, how long existing integrations will remain fully functional on the parachain, and what future liquidity and settlement patterns will look like once the activity concentrates on Base.
What investors and builders should watch next
Moonbeam did not provide a Moonbeam Protocol launch schedule, which leaves timelines and implementation details open. The next key items for market participants are likely to be: updates on the bridging process and user-facing tooling ahead of the July 31, 2026 deadline; clarification on how DeFi and staking setups will evolve during the transition; and—critically—whether Moonbeam’s agent-focused settlement network attracts real on-chain usage, particularly in light of past reports suggesting that agent payment adoption has been slow even where the concept has momentum.
This article was originally published as Moonbeam Announces Pivot to Base and Launches AI Agent Framework on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In a Friday announcement, Moonbeam said the initiative is part of the “Moonbeam Protocol” and described the pivot as a reallocation of resources toward what it sees as the next major crypto frontier: agent-to-agent discovery, negotiation, and fully on-chain payments. The company did not provide a launch timeline for the Moonbeam Protocol.
Key takeaways
Moonbeam is pivoting from Polkadot to Base to support an AI agent communication and settlement network.
Moonbeam did not specify a launch date for the Moonbeam Protocol.
GLMR token holders are instructed to bridge from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026.
Moonbeam says it will continue interoperability support on Polkadot during the transition and will not abandon existing builders or infrastructure providers.
Why Moonbeam is betting on Base for “agent settlement”
Moonbeam’s statement positions the Base pivot as more than a chain migration. The company argues that the most compelling long-term use case for blockchain is the emergence of autonomous AI agents that coordinate with each other on-chain and settle payments end-to-end.
That framing aligns with broader industry momentum around “agentic” workflows—an area where executives have repeatedly suggested that AI agents will become major users of blockchain-based payments. Cointelegraph previously reported on expectations from leaders including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire that AI agents could drive demand for on-chain payments in the coming years.
Still, adoption has been uneven. Cointelegraph noted earlier that while Coinbase’s x402 payments protocol has been a high-profile catalyst for the agent-payments narrative, Artemis data indicated only about $2 million in trading volume facilitated through x402 over the past 30 days. In parallel, Big Tech experimentation has not always translated into faster production deployment; Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on Thursday that agent tools had not accelerated the company’s workflows as quickly as expected, according to Cointelegraph coverage.
Against that backdrop, Moonbeam’s move to Base suggests a strategic attempt to connect agent functionality with a more established Ethereum scaling ecosystem—while positioning its interoperability expertise as the connective tissue for cross-chain agent activity.
Community backlash and Polkadot ecosystem concerns
Not everyone welcomed the shift. Several community members characterized Moonbeam’s pivot as a setback for Polkadot, with some referring to Moonbeam as a flagship project for the ecosystem.
Moonbeam originally launched in January 2022 as a Polkadot parachain. At the time, it offered developers the ability to build Ethereum Virtual Machine-compatible applications within the Polkadot environment—an approach designed to lower the friction for Ethereum-native tooling and developer workflows while still benefiting from Polkadot’s broader interoperability vision.
Moonbeam’s new direction therefore changes the practical center of gravity for its future roadmap. Even if existing functionality remains supported for a transition period, the messaging implicitly signals that Moonbeam intends to prioritize agent-native settlement and coordination on Base going forward.
Bridging instructions for GLMR before mid-2026
The most immediate operational change concerns token movement. Moonbeam said holders of its token, GLMR, will need to bridge assets from Moonbeam’s Polkadot parachain to Base before July 31, 2026. This includes GLMR exposure in lending markets, staking contracts, and other DeFi protocols connected to the parachain.
Moonbeam also clarified that users who hold GLMR through a centralized exchange will not need to take action, implying that the exchange layer will handle the migration on their behalf.
Importantly, Moonbeam said it will keep providing cross-chain interoperability services on Polkadot through the transition period. The company added that it is not abandoning existing builders or infrastructure providers—an assurance intended to reduce the risk that the shift could leave teams stranded on Polkadot immediately.
For participants, the decision raises a practical set of questions that will matter as the deadline approaches: how bridge support will be maintained across different contract types, how long existing integrations will remain fully functional on the parachain, and what future liquidity and settlement patterns will look like once the activity concentrates on Base.
What investors and builders should watch next
Moonbeam did not provide a Moonbeam Protocol launch schedule, which leaves timelines and implementation details open. The next key items for market participants are likely to be: updates on the bridging process and user-facing tooling ahead of the July 31, 2026 deadline; clarification on how DeFi and staking setups will evolve during the transition; and—critically—whether Moonbeam’s agent-focused settlement network attracts real on-chain usage, particularly in light of past reports suggesting that agent payment adoption has been slow even where the concept has momentum.
This article was originally published as Moonbeam Announces Pivot to Base and Launches AI Agent Framework on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
81
Article
Kalshi Sets June Trading Volume Record as World Cup Boosts Forecast MarketsPrediction markets logged a striking surge in June, and the catalyst was unmistakable: the 2026 FIFA World Cup. According to DefiLlama, Kalshi processed nearly $9.4 billion in trading volume during the month, compared with about $5.3 billion in May. Polymarket International also rose to roughly $4.3 billion from approximately $3.5 billion the previous month.
The tournament began on June 11 and is the first FIFA World Cup to expand to 48 teams. Earlier coverage from CNBC reported that the competition became the biggest driver of prediction market activity in June, citing Dune Analytics data showing record notional volumes on both Kalshi and Polymarket.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s June trading volume nearly reached $9.4B, up from about $5.3B in May, with the World Cup serving as the primary driver.
Polymarket International climbed to about $4.3B in June from roughly $3.5B in May, mirroring broader interest in football-related contracts.
World Cup Round-of-16 matchups showed especially heavy participation, with some markets generating tens of millions in volume.
The growth in trading volume is occurring alongside intensifying U.S. legal and regulatory pressure on prediction markets.
World Cup expansion meets prediction market demand
Football has long been a natural fit for markets where participants want to express views on outcomes. But this year’s tournament offers a larger menu of games and implications. With the World Cup expanding to 48 teams—up from 32 in previous editions—the number of match results, advancement scenarios, and related questions naturally multiplies, giving traders more opportunities to place event-linked bets.
CNBC’s reporting, referenced in the source, framed the World Cup as the dominant driver of June activity. It tied the surge to Dune Analytics figures indicating record notional trading volumes on both platforms, aligning with the month-over-month jump visible in DefiLlama’s protocol-level data.
Round-of-16 matchups pull in the highest volume
As the tournament moved into the knockout stage, trading activity concentrated further around high-stakes fixtures. One example highlighted in the source was Canada’s Round of 16 match against Morocco, scheduled for Saturday. At the time of writing, the match had generated over $48 million in trading volume on Kalshi and over $26.8 million on Polymarket.
Other advancement markets also attracted notable attention in the U.S. Round of 16 matchup. The source states that on Kalshi, a market on which team would advance generated more than $2.1 million in volume as of Saturday. On Polymarket, a comparable market had pulled in around $1.6 million by the same time.
For market participants, these figures underline a practical point: the World Cup doesn’t just bring overall volume—it can also concentrate liquidity into specific, time-sensitive contracts where traders rush to price developments and adjust their expectations as lineups, tactical decisions, and match conditions become clearer.
Trading growth collides with expanding legal pressure in the U.S.
Even as competition-linked volumes climb, prediction markets in the United States remain mired in a rapidly evolving legal debate. The source notes that by March, nearly a dozen U.S. states had taken action against companies including Kalshi and Polymarket. Some states aimed to halt prediction markets, while others sought to bring them under existing gambling laws and state tax frameworks.
Federal regulators have pushed back. The source points to a statement from CFTC Chair Michael Selig, referenced via a CFTC press release, who accused states of pursuing “illegal enforcement actions” against federally regulated exchanges. Selig argued that Congress gave the CFTC sole authority over commodity derivatives markets, which would include prediction markets, warning: “To any state that seeks to nullify federal law and seize authority over these markets, we will see you in court.”
The disagreement has also moved beyond agencies and into the broader legislative arena. In June, casino operators, tribal organizations, and labor groups urged Congress to carve sports-event contracts out of the CFTC’s authority through an amendment to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—arguing those contracts should remain governed by state gambling laws and existing gaming oversight.
Regulators overseas: product substance, not labels
While the U.S. fight has centered on regulatory jurisdiction and enforcement, Europe has emphasized how products are categorized. The source cites an ESMA reminder issued on Friday that many event contracts may already fall under existing restrictions tied to binary options.
Crucially, ESMA’s position—as presented in the source—is that whether a product is regulated depends on its characteristics rather than the presence of an “event contract” label. That means platforms and market operators face a compliance challenge that is less about terminology and more about how specific contract mechanics are structured.
For traders and builders, the key question now is whether the World Cup-driven volume spike will translate into sustained engagement once the tournament ends—or whether liquidity fades as the legal and regulatory backdrop remains unresolved. Readers should watch for further court activity and potential legislative movement around CLARITY, since those outcomes could materially shape what kinds of contracts are allowed, where, and under what rules.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Sets June Trading Volume Record as World Cup Boosts Forecast Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Kalshi Sets June Trading Volume Record as World Cup Boosts Forecast Markets
Prediction markets logged a striking surge in June, and the catalyst was unmistakable: the 2026 FIFA World Cup. According to DefiLlama, Kalshi processed nearly $9.4 billion in trading volume during the month, compared with about $5.3 billion in May. Polymarket International also rose to roughly $4.3 billion from approximately $3.5 billion the previous month.
The tournament began on June 11 and is the first FIFA World Cup to expand to 48 teams. Earlier coverage from CNBC reported that the competition became the biggest driver of prediction market activity in June, citing Dune Analytics data showing record notional volumes on both Kalshi and Polymarket.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s June trading volume nearly reached $9.4B, up from about $5.3B in May, with the World Cup serving as the primary driver.
Polymarket International climbed to about $4.3B in June from roughly $3.5B in May, mirroring broader interest in football-related contracts.
World Cup Round-of-16 matchups showed especially heavy participation, with some markets generating tens of millions in volume.
The growth in trading volume is occurring alongside intensifying U.S. legal and regulatory pressure on prediction markets.
World Cup expansion meets prediction market demand
Football has long been a natural fit for markets where participants want to express views on outcomes. But this year’s tournament offers a larger menu of games and implications. With the World Cup expanding to 48 teams—up from 32 in previous editions—the number of match results, advancement scenarios, and related questions naturally multiplies, giving traders more opportunities to place event-linked bets.
CNBC’s reporting, referenced in the source, framed the World Cup as the dominant driver of June activity. It tied the surge to Dune Analytics figures indicating record notional trading volumes on both platforms, aligning with the month-over-month jump visible in DefiLlama’s protocol-level data.
Round-of-16 matchups pull in the highest volume
As the tournament moved into the knockout stage, trading activity concentrated further around high-stakes fixtures. One example highlighted in the source was Canada’s Round of 16 match against Morocco, scheduled for Saturday. At the time of writing, the match had generated over $48 million in trading volume on Kalshi and over $26.8 million on Polymarket.
Other advancement markets also attracted notable attention in the U.S. Round of 16 matchup. The source states that on Kalshi, a market on which team would advance generated more than $2.1 million in volume as of Saturday. On Polymarket, a comparable market had pulled in around $1.6 million by the same time.
For market participants, these figures underline a practical point: the World Cup doesn’t just bring overall volume—it can also concentrate liquidity into specific, time-sensitive contracts where traders rush to price developments and adjust their expectations as lineups, tactical decisions, and match conditions become clearer.
Trading growth collides with expanding legal pressure in the U.S.
Even as competition-linked volumes climb, prediction markets in the United States remain mired in a rapidly evolving legal debate. The source notes that by March, nearly a dozen U.S. states had taken action against companies including Kalshi and Polymarket. Some states aimed to halt prediction markets, while others sought to bring them under existing gambling laws and state tax frameworks.
Federal regulators have pushed back. The source points to a statement from CFTC Chair Michael Selig, referenced via a CFTC press release, who accused states of pursuing “illegal enforcement actions” against federally regulated exchanges. Selig argued that Congress gave the CFTC sole authority over commodity derivatives markets, which would include prediction markets, warning: “To any state that seeks to nullify federal law and seize authority over these markets, we will see you in court.”
The disagreement has also moved beyond agencies and into the broader legislative arena. In June, casino operators, tribal organizations, and labor groups urged Congress to carve sports-event contracts out of the CFTC’s authority through an amendment to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—arguing those contracts should remain governed by state gambling laws and existing gaming oversight.
Regulators overseas: product substance, not labels
While the U.S. fight has centered on regulatory jurisdiction and enforcement, Europe has emphasized how products are categorized. The source cites an ESMA reminder issued on Friday that many event contracts may already fall under existing restrictions tied to binary options.
Crucially, ESMA’s position—as presented in the source—is that whether a product is regulated depends on its characteristics rather than the presence of an “event contract” label. That means platforms and market operators face a compliance challenge that is less about terminology and more about how specific contract mechanics are structured.
For traders and builders, the key question now is whether the World Cup-driven volume spike will translate into sustained engagement once the tournament ends—or whether liquidity fades as the legal and regulatory backdrop remains unresolved. Readers should watch for further court activity and potential legislative movement around CLARITY, since those outcomes could materially shape what kinds of contracts are allowed, where, and under what rules.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Sets June Trading Volume Record as World Cup Boosts Forecast Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The tournament began on June 11 and is the first FIFA World Cup to expand to 48 teams. Earlier coverage from CNBC reported that the competition became the biggest driver of prediction market activity in June, citing Dune Analytics data showing record notional volumes on both Kalshi and Polymarket.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s June trading volume nearly reached $9.4B, up from about $5.3B in May, with the World Cup serving as the primary driver.
Polymarket International climbed to about $4.3B in June from roughly $3.5B in May, mirroring broader interest in football-related contracts.
World Cup Round-of-16 matchups showed especially heavy participation, with some markets generating tens of millions in volume.
The growth in trading volume is occurring alongside intensifying U.S. legal and regulatory pressure on prediction markets.
World Cup expansion meets prediction market demand
Football has long been a natural fit for markets where participants want to express views on outcomes. But this year’s tournament offers a larger menu of games and implications. With the World Cup expanding to 48 teams—up from 32 in previous editions—the number of match results, advancement scenarios, and related questions naturally multiplies, giving traders more opportunities to place event-linked bets.
CNBC’s reporting, referenced in the source, framed the World Cup as the dominant driver of June activity. It tied the surge to Dune Analytics figures indicating record notional trading volumes on both platforms, aligning with the month-over-month jump visible in DefiLlama’s protocol-level data.
Round-of-16 matchups pull in the highest volume
As the tournament moved into the knockout stage, trading activity concentrated further around high-stakes fixtures. One example highlighted in the source was Canada’s Round of 16 match against Morocco, scheduled for Saturday. At the time of writing, the match had generated over $48 million in trading volume on Kalshi and over $26.8 million on Polymarket.
Other advancement markets also attracted notable attention in the U.S. Round of 16 matchup. The source states that on Kalshi, a market on which team would advance generated more than $2.1 million in volume as of Saturday. On Polymarket, a comparable market had pulled in around $1.6 million by the same time.
For market participants, these figures underline a practical point: the World Cup doesn’t just bring overall volume—it can also concentrate liquidity into specific, time-sensitive contracts where traders rush to price developments and adjust their expectations as lineups, tactical decisions, and match conditions become clearer.
Trading growth collides with expanding legal pressure in the U.S.
Even as competition-linked volumes climb, prediction markets in the United States remain mired in a rapidly evolving legal debate. The source notes that by March, nearly a dozen U.S. states had taken action against companies including Kalshi and Polymarket. Some states aimed to halt prediction markets, while others sought to bring them under existing gambling laws and state tax frameworks.
Federal regulators have pushed back. The source points to a statement from CFTC Chair Michael Selig, referenced via a CFTC press release, who accused states of pursuing “illegal enforcement actions” against federally regulated exchanges. Selig argued that Congress gave the CFTC sole authority over commodity derivatives markets, which would include prediction markets, warning: “To any state that seeks to nullify federal law and seize authority over these markets, we will see you in court.”
The disagreement has also moved beyond agencies and into the broader legislative arena. In June, casino operators, tribal organizations, and labor groups urged Congress to carve sports-event contracts out of the CFTC’s authority through an amendment to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—arguing those contracts should remain governed by state gambling laws and existing gaming oversight.
Regulators overseas: product substance, not labels
While the U.S. fight has centered on regulatory jurisdiction and enforcement, Europe has emphasized how products are categorized. The source cites an ESMA reminder issued on Friday that many event contracts may already fall under existing restrictions tied to binary options.
Crucially, ESMA’s position—as presented in the source—is that whether a product is regulated depends on its characteristics rather than the presence of an “event contract” label. That means platforms and market operators face a compliance challenge that is less about terminology and more about how specific contract mechanics are structured.
For traders and builders, the key question now is whether the World Cup-driven volume spike will translate into sustained engagement once the tournament ends—or whether liquidity fades as the legal and regulatory backdrop remains unresolved. Readers should watch for further court activity and potential legislative movement around CLARITY, since those outcomes could materially shape what kinds of contracts are allowed, where, and under what rules.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Sets June Trading Volume Record as World Cup Boosts Forecast Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
1
43
Article
Kalshi Logs Record June Volume as World Cup Lifts Prediction TradingPrediction markets have found an unexpected new liquidity magnet: the 2026 FIFA World Cup. According to DefiLlama data cited by CNBC, trading volume surged across major US prediction platforms after the tournament began on June 11—at a time when the sector is simultaneously facing intensified regulatory pressure.
DefiLlama shows Kalshi handled nearly $9.4 billion in trading volume in June, up from about $5.3 billion in May. Polymarket International also rose to roughly $4.3 billion in June, compared with about $3.5 billion the month prior. CNBC reported that the World Cup became the biggest driver of prediction market volumes in June, with Dune Analytics highlighting record notional trading activity on both Kalshi and Polymarket.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s June trading volume nearly hit $9.4 billion, rising from about $5.3 billion in May, as World Cup activity accelerated.
Polymarket climbed to about $4.3 billion in June from roughly $3.5 billion in May, also pointing to the tournament as a major catalyst.
High-stakes World Cup knockout matchups are generating tens of millions in daily volume on both exchanges, with some fixtures surpassing $48 million on Kalshi.
The growth is unfolding alongside escalating US legal and regulatory disputes over whether prediction markets should fall under federal derivatives authority or state gambling frameworks.
World Cup liquidity floods prediction platforms
The jump in activity aligns with the tournament’s expanded format. The 2026 World Cup is the first FIFA edition featuring 48 teams, up from 32 previously. That increase has effectively created more matches, more outcomes, and more trading opportunities—especially around qualification and match advancement markets.
Knockout-stage matchups appear to be particularly attractive to traders. For example, Canada’s Round of 16 match against Morocco—scheduled for Saturday—had generated more than $48 million in trading volume on Kalshi and over $26.8 million on Polymarket at the time of reporting.
The pattern extends to the US Round of 16. Kalshi’s market on which team advances recorded more than $2.1 million in volume, while a comparable Polymarket market attracted around $1.6 million as of Saturday. While these figures are smaller than the Canada–Morocco matchup, they show how quickly attention can shift between fixtures as brackets lock in.
What matters for market participants is not just overall volume, but where it concentrates. World Cup-related contracts create repeatable, time-bound narratives that traders can model—often with clear deadlines and an intense news cycle. That combination helps explain why notional activity can spike even for markets that are narrower than broad political or macro event themes.
Regulatory pressure rises as trading expands
The World Cup-driven surge is occurring against a backdrop of growing controversy over prediction markets in the United States. Earlier this year, Cointelegraph noted that by March nearly a dozen US states had moved against companies including Kalshi and Polymarket. Some states sought to halt such markets, while others argued they should be brought under existing gambling laws and related tax regimes.
At the federal level, regulators have pushed back. In the following month, CFTC Chair Michael Selig accused states of pursuing what he called “illegal enforcement actions” against federally regulated exchanges. In remarks reported via a CFTC press release, Selig argued that Congress granted the agency sole authority over commodity derivatives markets, which can include prediction markets, warning that any state effort to nullify federal law could lead to court challenges.
This is not merely an abstract legal dispute. For platforms, regulatory uncertainty can influence which contracts can be offered to different users, how product structures are shaped, and what compliance costs may look like in practice. For traders, the risk is that market access could change rapidly depending on court outcomes or agency interpretations.
Congress and Europe weigh in with different approaches
The debate is also expanding beyond regulators and into Congress. In June, casino operators, tribal organizations, and labor groups urged lawmakers to amend the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act by removing sports-event contracts from the CFTC’s authority. Their argument, as described in Cointelegraph reporting, is that sports contracts should instead remain under state gambling laws and existing gaming oversight.
Europe’s approach is different. In a recent reminder, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) told firms that many event contracts may already fall under existing restrictions tied to binary options. ESMA’s stance emphasized that whether a product is regulated depends on its characteristics rather than merely the label “event contract.” For market operators contemplating cross-border expansion, that distinction is crucial: product design details, not marketing terminology, can determine regulatory treatment.
Taken together, the picture is uneven. The US environment appears to hinge on jurisdiction—whether prediction markets are treated as commodity derivatives under federal authority or as gambling under state law. In Europe, the focus shifts more toward how the contract functions under binary-options-like rules. These differences can shape where liquidity travels, which venues can scale fastest, and how quickly new market formats can be launched.
What to watch next
With the World Cup supplying an immediate, high-volume catalyst, the key question for investors and builders is whether these trading surges translate into longer-term user growth or just prove how concentrated liquidity becomes during major events. Just as importantly, readers should track how ongoing legal challenges—and potential congressional or European regulatory clarifications—affect market access, contract structures, and the durability of platform volume beyond the tournament.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Logs Record June Volume as World Cup Lifts Prediction Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Kalshi Logs Record June Volume as World Cup Lifts Prediction Trading
Prediction markets have found an unexpected new liquidity magnet: the 2026 FIFA World Cup. According to DefiLlama data cited by CNBC, trading volume surged across major US prediction platforms after the tournament began on June 11—at a time when the sector is simultaneously facing intensified regulatory pressure.
DefiLlama shows Kalshi handled nearly $9.4 billion in trading volume in June, up from about $5.3 billion in May. Polymarket International also rose to roughly $4.3 billion in June, compared with about $3.5 billion the month prior. CNBC reported that the World Cup became the biggest driver of prediction market volumes in June, with Dune Analytics highlighting record notional trading activity on both Kalshi and Polymarket.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s June trading volume nearly hit $9.4 billion, rising from about $5.3 billion in May, as World Cup activity accelerated.
Polymarket climbed to about $4.3 billion in June from roughly $3.5 billion in May, also pointing to the tournament as a major catalyst.
High-stakes World Cup knockout matchups are generating tens of millions in daily volume on both exchanges, with some fixtures surpassing $48 million on Kalshi.
The growth is unfolding alongside escalating US legal and regulatory disputes over whether prediction markets should fall under federal derivatives authority or state gambling frameworks.
World Cup liquidity floods prediction platforms
The jump in activity aligns with the tournament’s expanded format. The 2026 World Cup is the first FIFA edition featuring 48 teams, up from 32 previously. That increase has effectively created more matches, more outcomes, and more trading opportunities—especially around qualification and match advancement markets.
Knockout-stage matchups appear to be particularly attractive to traders. For example, Canada’s Round of 16 match against Morocco—scheduled for Saturday—had generated more than $48 million in trading volume on Kalshi and over $26.8 million on Polymarket at the time of reporting.
The pattern extends to the US Round of 16. Kalshi’s market on which team advances recorded more than $2.1 million in volume, while a comparable Polymarket market attracted around $1.6 million as of Saturday. While these figures are smaller than the Canada–Morocco matchup, they show how quickly attention can shift between fixtures as brackets lock in.
What matters for market participants is not just overall volume, but where it concentrates. World Cup-related contracts create repeatable, time-bound narratives that traders can model—often with clear deadlines and an intense news cycle. That combination helps explain why notional activity can spike even for markets that are narrower than broad political or macro event themes.
Regulatory pressure rises as trading expands
The World Cup-driven surge is occurring against a backdrop of growing controversy over prediction markets in the United States. Earlier this year, Cointelegraph noted that by March nearly a dozen US states had moved against companies including Kalshi and Polymarket. Some states sought to halt such markets, while others argued they should be brought under existing gambling laws and related tax regimes.
At the federal level, regulators have pushed back. In the following month, CFTC Chair Michael Selig accused states of pursuing what he called “illegal enforcement actions” against federally regulated exchanges. In remarks reported via a CFTC press release, Selig argued that Congress granted the agency sole authority over commodity derivatives markets, which can include prediction markets, warning that any state effort to nullify federal law could lead to court challenges.
This is not merely an abstract legal dispute. For platforms, regulatory uncertainty can influence which contracts can be offered to different users, how product structures are shaped, and what compliance costs may look like in practice. For traders, the risk is that market access could change rapidly depending on court outcomes or agency interpretations.
Congress and Europe weigh in with different approaches
The debate is also expanding beyond regulators and into Congress. In June, casino operators, tribal organizations, and labor groups urged lawmakers to amend the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act by removing sports-event contracts from the CFTC’s authority. Their argument, as described in Cointelegraph reporting, is that sports contracts should instead remain under state gambling laws and existing gaming oversight.
Europe’s approach is different. In a recent reminder, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) told firms that many event contracts may already fall under existing restrictions tied to binary options. ESMA’s stance emphasized that whether a product is regulated depends on its characteristics rather than merely the label “event contract.” For market operators contemplating cross-border expansion, that distinction is crucial: product design details, not marketing terminology, can determine regulatory treatment.
Taken together, the picture is uneven. The US environment appears to hinge on jurisdiction—whether prediction markets are treated as commodity derivatives under federal authority or as gambling under state law. In Europe, the focus shifts more toward how the contract functions under binary-options-like rules. These differences can shape where liquidity travels, which venues can scale fastest, and how quickly new market formats can be launched.
What to watch next
With the World Cup supplying an immediate, high-volume catalyst, the key question for investors and builders is whether these trading surges translate into longer-term user growth or just prove how concentrated liquidity becomes during major events. Just as importantly, readers should track how ongoing legal challenges—and potential congressional or European regulatory clarifications—affect market access, contract structures, and the durability of platform volume beyond the tournament.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Logs Record June Volume as World Cup Lifts Prediction Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
DefiLlama shows Kalshi handled nearly $9.4 billion in trading volume in June, up from about $5.3 billion in May. Polymarket International also rose to roughly $4.3 billion in June, compared with about $3.5 billion the month prior. CNBC reported that the World Cup became the biggest driver of prediction market volumes in June, with Dune Analytics highlighting record notional trading activity on both Kalshi and Polymarket.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s June trading volume nearly hit $9.4 billion, rising from about $5.3 billion in May, as World Cup activity accelerated.
Polymarket climbed to about $4.3 billion in June from roughly $3.5 billion in May, also pointing to the tournament as a major catalyst.
High-stakes World Cup knockout matchups are generating tens of millions in daily volume on both exchanges, with some fixtures surpassing $48 million on Kalshi.
The growth is unfolding alongside escalating US legal and regulatory disputes over whether prediction markets should fall under federal derivatives authority or state gambling frameworks.
World Cup liquidity floods prediction platforms
The jump in activity aligns with the tournament’s expanded format. The 2026 World Cup is the first FIFA edition featuring 48 teams, up from 32 previously. That increase has effectively created more matches, more outcomes, and more trading opportunities—especially around qualification and match advancement markets.
Knockout-stage matchups appear to be particularly attractive to traders. For example, Canada’s Round of 16 match against Morocco—scheduled for Saturday—had generated more than $48 million in trading volume on Kalshi and over $26.8 million on Polymarket at the time of reporting.
The pattern extends to the US Round of 16. Kalshi’s market on which team advances recorded more than $2.1 million in volume, while a comparable Polymarket market attracted around $1.6 million as of Saturday. While these figures are smaller than the Canada–Morocco matchup, they show how quickly attention can shift between fixtures as brackets lock in.
What matters for market participants is not just overall volume, but where it concentrates. World Cup-related contracts create repeatable, time-bound narratives that traders can model—often with clear deadlines and an intense news cycle. That combination helps explain why notional activity can spike even for markets that are narrower than broad political or macro event themes.
Regulatory pressure rises as trading expands
The World Cup-driven surge is occurring against a backdrop of growing controversy over prediction markets in the United States. Earlier this year, Cointelegraph noted that by March nearly a dozen US states had moved against companies including Kalshi and Polymarket. Some states sought to halt such markets, while others argued they should be brought under existing gambling laws and related tax regimes.
At the federal level, regulators have pushed back. In the following month, CFTC Chair Michael Selig accused states of pursuing what he called “illegal enforcement actions” against federally regulated exchanges. In remarks reported via a CFTC press release, Selig argued that Congress granted the agency sole authority over commodity derivatives markets, which can include prediction markets, warning that any state effort to nullify federal law could lead to court challenges.
This is not merely an abstract legal dispute. For platforms, regulatory uncertainty can influence which contracts can be offered to different users, how product structures are shaped, and what compliance costs may look like in practice. For traders, the risk is that market access could change rapidly depending on court outcomes or agency interpretations.
Congress and Europe weigh in with different approaches
The debate is also expanding beyond regulators and into Congress. In June, casino operators, tribal organizations, and labor groups urged lawmakers to amend the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act by removing sports-event contracts from the CFTC’s authority. Their argument, as described in Cointelegraph reporting, is that sports contracts should instead remain under state gambling laws and existing gaming oversight.
Europe’s approach is different. In a recent reminder, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) told firms that many event contracts may already fall under existing restrictions tied to binary options. ESMA’s stance emphasized that whether a product is regulated depends on its characteristics rather than merely the label “event contract.” For market operators contemplating cross-border expansion, that distinction is crucial: product design details, not marketing terminology, can determine regulatory treatment.
Taken together, the picture is uneven. The US environment appears to hinge on jurisdiction—whether prediction markets are treated as commodity derivatives under federal authority or as gambling under state law. In Europe, the focus shifts more toward how the contract functions under binary-options-like rules. These differences can shape where liquidity travels, which venues can scale fastest, and how quickly new market formats can be launched.
What to watch next
With the World Cup supplying an immediate, high-volume catalyst, the key question for investors and builders is whether these trading surges translate into longer-term user growth or just prove how concentrated liquidity becomes during major events. Just as importantly, readers should track how ongoing legal challenges—and potential congressional or European regulatory clarifications—affect market access, contract structures, and the durability of platform volume beyond the tournament.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Logs Record June Volume as World Cup Lifts Prediction Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
45
Article
Coinbase Ceo Says Ai Turns Engineers Into Super Builders Shipping More CodeCoinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said AI has changed how engineers work inside the crypto exchange. He described the shift as the rise of the “super builder,” where one engineer can deliver far more output. According to Armstrong, Coinbase now ships twice as much code overall. He said some engineers act as ten-times contributors who share effective AI practices.
Armstrong said Coinbase has become one of the most AI-enabled companies in the world. The Coinbase AI engineering strategy focuses on productivity, cost control, and wider adoption. A user reacting to his remarks said former Coinbase employees at other crypto firms describe the company as ahead in AI integration. That reaction added context to Armstrong’s claim about Coinbase’s engineering culture.
Coinbase Cuts Ai Costs As Usage Rises
The update covered how Coinbase reduced AI spending while usage continued to rise. Armstrong said the company nearly halved AI costs even as token usage grew sharply across systems. “How to keep AI spend flat while token usage grows exponentially: not with friction and spend alerts. With better defaults, routing, and caching,” Armstrong said.
Source:
Coinbase is one of the most AI-enabled companies in the world, based on all the feedback I hear.
We’re in the age of the super builder. pic.twitter.com/NeFLukYIer
— Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) July 3, 2026
The Coinbase AI engineering approach uses smarter model routing to match tasks with suitable models. This method sends simple work to cheaper tools and reserves stronger models for harder tasks. The company also uses caching to avoid paying for repeated answers when teams ask similar queries. Coinbase uses cheaper open-weight models for routine work where advanced models add little value.
Armstrong Links Ai Growth To Infrastructure
Armstrong framed the savings as a scaling decision rather than a limit on AI use. He said the goal does not involve cutting access or slowing engineers through controls. Instead, Coinbase wants infrastructure that allows AI usage to grow without future budget pressure. That view places cost efficiency at the center of Coinbase AI engineering operations.
The comments connect with Armstrong’s earlier view on AI bottlenecks. In June, he argued that access to energy and compute matters more than model quality for AI growth. His latest comments extend that position into company operations through routing, caching, and model selection. As a result, Coinbase AI engineering reflects productivity gains and infrastructure discipline.
For Coinbase, the message points to AI as an operating layer for software teams. Engineers use AI to write, review, and ship code faster, while management tracks costs. The company’s approach suggests that AI adoption depends on workflow design, not only model access. Coinbase AI engineering shows how a crypto firm can scale AI while watching spend.
This article was originally published as Coinbase Ceo Says Ai Turns Engineers Into Super Builders Shipping More Code on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Coinbase Ceo Says Ai Turns Engineers Into Super Builders Shipping More Code
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said AI has changed how engineers work inside the crypto exchange. He described the shift as the rise of the “super builder,” where one engineer can deliver far more output. According to Armstrong, Coinbase now ships twice as much code overall. He said some engineers act as ten-times contributors who share effective AI practices.
Armstrong said Coinbase has become one of the most AI-enabled companies in the world. The Coinbase AI engineering strategy focuses on productivity, cost control, and wider adoption. A user reacting to his remarks said former Coinbase employees at other crypto firms describe the company as ahead in AI integration. That reaction added context to Armstrong’s claim about Coinbase’s engineering culture.
Coinbase Cuts Ai Costs As Usage Rises
The update covered how Coinbase reduced AI spending while usage continued to rise. Armstrong said the company nearly halved AI costs even as token usage grew sharply across systems. “How to keep AI spend flat while token usage grows exponentially: not with friction and spend alerts. With better defaults, routing, and caching,” Armstrong said.
Source:
Coinbase is one of the most AI-enabled companies in the world, based on all the feedback I hear.
We’re in the age of the super builder. pic.twitter.com/NeFLukYIer
— Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) July 3, 2026
The Coinbase AI engineering approach uses smarter model routing to match tasks with suitable models. This method sends simple work to cheaper tools and reserves stronger models for harder tasks. The company also uses caching to avoid paying for repeated answers when teams ask similar queries. Coinbase uses cheaper open-weight models for routine work where advanced models add little value.
Armstrong Links Ai Growth To Infrastructure
Armstrong framed the savings as a scaling decision rather than a limit on AI use. He said the goal does not involve cutting access or slowing engineers through controls. Instead, Coinbase wants infrastructure that allows AI usage to grow without future budget pressure. That view places cost efficiency at the center of Coinbase AI engineering operations.
The comments connect with Armstrong’s earlier view on AI bottlenecks. In June, he argued that access to energy and compute matters more than model quality for AI growth. His latest comments extend that position into company operations through routing, caching, and model selection. As a result, Coinbase AI engineering reflects productivity gains and infrastructure discipline.
For Coinbase, the message points to AI as an operating layer for software teams. Engineers use AI to write, review, and ship code faster, while management tracks costs. The company’s approach suggests that AI adoption depends on workflow design, not only model access. Coinbase AI engineering shows how a crypto firm can scale AI while watching spend.
This article was originally published as Coinbase Ceo Says Ai Turns Engineers Into Super Builders Shipping More Code on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Armstrong said Coinbase has become one of the most AI-enabled companies in the world. The Coinbase AI engineering strategy focuses on productivity, cost control, and wider adoption. A user reacting to his remarks said former Coinbase employees at other crypto firms describe the company as ahead in AI integration. That reaction added context to Armstrong’s claim about Coinbase’s engineering culture.
Coinbase Cuts Ai Costs As Usage Rises
The update covered how Coinbase reduced AI spending while usage continued to rise. Armstrong said the company nearly halved AI costs even as token usage grew sharply across systems. “How to keep AI spend flat while token usage grows exponentially: not with friction and spend alerts. With better defaults, routing, and caching,” Armstrong said.
Source:
Coinbase is one of the most AI-enabled companies in the world, based on all the feedback I hear.
We’re in the age of the super builder. pic.twitter.com/NeFLukYIer
— Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) July 3, 2026
The Coinbase AI engineering approach uses smarter model routing to match tasks with suitable models. This method sends simple work to cheaper tools and reserves stronger models for harder tasks. The company also uses caching to avoid paying for repeated answers when teams ask similar queries. Coinbase uses cheaper open-weight models for routine work where advanced models add little value.
Armstrong Links Ai Growth To Infrastructure
Armstrong framed the savings as a scaling decision rather than a limit on AI use. He said the goal does not involve cutting access or slowing engineers through controls. Instead, Coinbase wants infrastructure that allows AI usage to grow without future budget pressure. That view places cost efficiency at the center of Coinbase AI engineering operations.
The comments connect with Armstrong’s earlier view on AI bottlenecks. In June, he argued that access to energy and compute matters more than model quality for AI growth. His latest comments extend that position into company operations through routing, caching, and model selection. As a result, Coinbase AI engineering reflects productivity gains and infrastructure discipline.
For Coinbase, the message points to AI as an operating layer for software teams. Engineers use AI to write, review, and ship code faster, while management tracks costs. The company’s approach suggests that AI adoption depends on workflow design, not only model access. Coinbase AI engineering shows how a crypto firm can scale AI while watching spend.
This article was originally published as Coinbase Ceo Says Ai Turns Engineers Into Super Builders Shipping More Code on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
67
Article
Bollinger Bands’ creator suggests Bitcoin may be ending its bear trendBitcoin appears to be nearing a potential technical turning point as analyst John Bollinger points to a “W”-shaped double-bottom pattern forming on the daily chart. In a fresh set of posts on X, Bollinger argued that the setup is “perfectly fractal,” suggesting the market could be moving into the final phase of a longer bearish cycle.
The technical discussion is landing alongside evidence that institutional demand may be cautiously reappearing. Data shared by market participants indicated that US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded their first net inflows in ten days, while traders noted that BTC’s ability to hold near the $60,000 area despite broader outflows may signal absorption of selling pressure.
Key takeaways
John Bollinger highlighted a daily “W” double-bottom structure on BTC/USD, framing it as a candidate to break the prevailing downtrend.
Bollinger described the pattern as “perfectly fractal,” including smaller “w” formations near prior lows and a corresponding “m” at the rebound apex.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw their first net inflows in ten days, signaling easing pressure in the ETF channel.
Traders said BTC’s stability around the ~$60,000 region—despite ETF outflows earlier—could matter if price continues holding into the next week.
Bollinger’s “perfectly fractal” double bottom
Bollinger, known for creating the Bollinger Bands volatility indicator, used X to examine the current BTC/USD structure. He pointed to a “W”-shaped reversal pattern—typically defined by two swing lows with a rebound in between—arguing that such formations become bullish once price clears the level of resistance created at the rebound.
In his posts, Bollinger noted that prior bullish patterns had been broken, reinforcing his view that the downtrend has been dominant. He then asked whether the present “W” could be the one that “breaks” the trend.
Bollinger also shared a chart aligning the setup with the lower Bollinger Band on daily time frames. He emphasized the fractal nature of the structure, stating that smaller “w” shapes appear at the nadirs and a smaller “m” forms near the apex of the bounce. He further referenced a similar “W” on the weekly chart, implying the idea is not only limited to the daily timeframe.
For traders, the practical question is what counts as confirmation. In classical pattern terms, the bullish outcome hinges on BTC pushing through the rejection level between the two lows. Until that occurs, the pattern remains a hypothesis rather than a verified reversal.
Why the ETF channel is drawing attention
While Bollinger’s analysis is technical, the accompanying focus on ETFs reflects how institutional flows are often used as a real-time indicator of demand. According to market participants on X, US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded their first net inflows in ten days on Friday.
Analyst Axel Adler Jr., a contributor to onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant, characterized the move as meaningful for gauging whether ETF-related pressure is easing. In his summary, Adler Jr. said that Bitcoin may be in the late stage of the bear cycle, but the ETF segment had, for the first time, signaled reduced pressure.
Another trader, Daan Crypto Trades, responded by cautioning that the inflow amount—reported as $220 million—was “not massive.” Still, he suggested the context matters: BTC had been holding roughly the $60,000 region even while there were many outflows. In his view, the area becomes more relevant if price continues to bounce further into the next week, since that would imply a larger amount of “absorption” has taken place.
This is an important distinction. In bearish phases, inflows can be sporadic and not necessarily change the broader trend. The market impact tends to be clearer when price holds and demand persists rather than appearing briefly.
Signals vs. expectations for a macro bottom
Even with renewed interest in ETF flows, the broader market narrative still points to uncertainty about when the macro bottom will arrive. Earlier coverage cited by the same discussion noted that multiple price indicators have been flashing signals not seen since the 2022 bear market. However, many participants continue to believe the next macro bottom is still ahead, with timing expectations pointing to Q3 or later.
Bollinger’s framing fits into that wider tension between “early signals” and “final bottoms.” A W-shaped reversal, if it plays out as expected, would suggest momentum could shift sooner than the macro timetable implies. But without confirmation—especially a breakout through the pattern’s rejection level—the setup could also end up failing or only triggering a temporary bounce within a longer downtrend.
From an investor perspective, that makes the coming price action particularly consequential. If BTC can hold near the reclaimed levels mentioned in the ETF discussion and then follow through on a breakout, the technical pattern could align with improving demand. If not, it may reinforce the view that market participants have not yet reached the stage where bearish pressure fully dissipates.
What to watch next
The next phase will likely depend on whether BTC can translate ETF inflows and near-$60,000 stability into sustained upside, particularly through the key resistance level implied by Bollinger’s “W” structure. Readers should watch for actual confirmation of the pattern—rather than relying only on improving signals—and track whether institutional demand remains supportive beyond this first inflow after a ten-day stretch.
This article was originally published as Bollinger Bands’ creator suggests Bitcoin may be ending its bear trend on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bollinger Bands’ creator suggests Bitcoin may be ending its bear trend
Bitcoin appears to be nearing a potential technical turning point as analyst John Bollinger points to a “W”-shaped double-bottom pattern forming on the daily chart. In a fresh set of posts on X, Bollinger argued that the setup is “perfectly fractal,” suggesting the market could be moving into the final phase of a longer bearish cycle.
The technical discussion is landing alongside evidence that institutional demand may be cautiously reappearing. Data shared by market participants indicated that US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded their first net inflows in ten days, while traders noted that BTC’s ability to hold near the $60,000 area despite broader outflows may signal absorption of selling pressure.
Key takeaways
John Bollinger highlighted a daily “W” double-bottom structure on BTC/USD, framing it as a candidate to break the prevailing downtrend.
Bollinger described the pattern as “perfectly fractal,” including smaller “w” formations near prior lows and a corresponding “m” at the rebound apex.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw their first net inflows in ten days, signaling easing pressure in the ETF channel.
Traders said BTC’s stability around the ~$60,000 region—despite ETF outflows earlier—could matter if price continues holding into the next week.
Bollinger’s “perfectly fractal” double bottom
Bollinger, known for creating the Bollinger Bands volatility indicator, used X to examine the current BTC/USD structure. He pointed to a “W”-shaped reversal pattern—typically defined by two swing lows with a rebound in between—arguing that such formations become bullish once price clears the level of resistance created at the rebound.
In his posts, Bollinger noted that prior bullish patterns had been broken, reinforcing his view that the downtrend has been dominant. He then asked whether the present “W” could be the one that “breaks” the trend.
Bollinger also shared a chart aligning the setup with the lower Bollinger Band on daily time frames. He emphasized the fractal nature of the structure, stating that smaller “w” shapes appear at the nadirs and a smaller “m” forms near the apex of the bounce. He further referenced a similar “W” on the weekly chart, implying the idea is not only limited to the daily timeframe.
For traders, the practical question is what counts as confirmation. In classical pattern terms, the bullish outcome hinges on BTC pushing through the rejection level between the two lows. Until that occurs, the pattern remains a hypothesis rather than a verified reversal.
Why the ETF channel is drawing attention
While Bollinger’s analysis is technical, the accompanying focus on ETFs reflects how institutional flows are often used as a real-time indicator of demand. According to market participants on X, US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded their first net inflows in ten days on Friday.
Analyst Axel Adler Jr., a contributor to onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant, characterized the move as meaningful for gauging whether ETF-related pressure is easing. In his summary, Adler Jr. said that Bitcoin may be in the late stage of the bear cycle, but the ETF segment had, for the first time, signaled reduced pressure.
Another trader, Daan Crypto Trades, responded by cautioning that the inflow amount—reported as $220 million—was “not massive.” Still, he suggested the context matters: BTC had been holding roughly the $60,000 region even while there were many outflows. In his view, the area becomes more relevant if price continues to bounce further into the next week, since that would imply a larger amount of “absorption” has taken place.
This is an important distinction. In bearish phases, inflows can be sporadic and not necessarily change the broader trend. The market impact tends to be clearer when price holds and demand persists rather than appearing briefly.
Signals vs. expectations for a macro bottom
Even with renewed interest in ETF flows, the broader market narrative still points to uncertainty about when the macro bottom will arrive. Earlier coverage cited by the same discussion noted that multiple price indicators have been flashing signals not seen since the 2022 bear market. However, many participants continue to believe the next macro bottom is still ahead, with timing expectations pointing to Q3 or later.
Bollinger’s framing fits into that wider tension between “early signals” and “final bottoms.” A W-shaped reversal, if it plays out as expected, would suggest momentum could shift sooner than the macro timetable implies. But without confirmation—especially a breakout through the pattern’s rejection level—the setup could also end up failing or only triggering a temporary bounce within a longer downtrend.
From an investor perspective, that makes the coming price action particularly consequential. If BTC can hold near the reclaimed levels mentioned in the ETF discussion and then follow through on a breakout, the technical pattern could align with improving demand. If not, it may reinforce the view that market participants have not yet reached the stage where bearish pressure fully dissipates.
What to watch next
The next phase will likely depend on whether BTC can translate ETF inflows and near-$60,000 stability into sustained upside, particularly through the key resistance level implied by Bollinger’s “W” structure. Readers should watch for actual confirmation of the pattern—rather than relying only on improving signals—and track whether institutional demand remains supportive beyond this first inflow after a ten-day stretch.
This article was originally published as Bollinger Bands’ creator suggests Bitcoin may be ending its bear trend on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The technical discussion is landing alongside evidence that institutional demand may be cautiously reappearing. Data shared by market participants indicated that US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded their first net inflows in ten days, while traders noted that BTC’s ability to hold near the $60,000 area despite broader outflows may signal absorption of selling pressure.
Key takeaways
John Bollinger highlighted a daily “W” double-bottom structure on BTC/USD, framing it as a candidate to break the prevailing downtrend.
Bollinger described the pattern as “perfectly fractal,” including smaller “w” formations near prior lows and a corresponding “m” at the rebound apex.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw their first net inflows in ten days, signaling easing pressure in the ETF channel.
Traders said BTC’s stability around the ~$60,000 region—despite ETF outflows earlier—could matter if price continues holding into the next week.
Bollinger’s “perfectly fractal” double bottom
Bollinger, known for creating the Bollinger Bands volatility indicator, used X to examine the current BTC/USD structure. He pointed to a “W”-shaped reversal pattern—typically defined by two swing lows with a rebound in between—arguing that such formations become bullish once price clears the level of resistance created at the rebound.
In his posts, Bollinger noted that prior bullish patterns had been broken, reinforcing his view that the downtrend has been dominant. He then asked whether the present “W” could be the one that “breaks” the trend.
Bollinger also shared a chart aligning the setup with the lower Bollinger Band on daily time frames. He emphasized the fractal nature of the structure, stating that smaller “w” shapes appear at the nadirs and a smaller “m” forms near the apex of the bounce. He further referenced a similar “W” on the weekly chart, implying the idea is not only limited to the daily timeframe.
For traders, the practical question is what counts as confirmation. In classical pattern terms, the bullish outcome hinges on BTC pushing through the rejection level between the two lows. Until that occurs, the pattern remains a hypothesis rather than a verified reversal.
Why the ETF channel is drawing attention
While Bollinger’s analysis is technical, the accompanying focus on ETFs reflects how institutional flows are often used as a real-time indicator of demand. According to market participants on X, US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded their first net inflows in ten days on Friday.
Analyst Axel Adler Jr., a contributor to onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant, characterized the move as meaningful for gauging whether ETF-related pressure is easing. In his summary, Adler Jr. said that Bitcoin may be in the late stage of the bear cycle, but the ETF segment had, for the first time, signaled reduced pressure.
Another trader, Daan Crypto Trades, responded by cautioning that the inflow amount—reported as $220 million—was “not massive.” Still, he suggested the context matters: BTC had been holding roughly the $60,000 region even while there were many outflows. In his view, the area becomes more relevant if price continues to bounce further into the next week, since that would imply a larger amount of “absorption” has taken place.
This is an important distinction. In bearish phases, inflows can be sporadic and not necessarily change the broader trend. The market impact tends to be clearer when price holds and demand persists rather than appearing briefly.
Signals vs. expectations for a macro bottom
Even with renewed interest in ETF flows, the broader market narrative still points to uncertainty about when the macro bottom will arrive. Earlier coverage cited by the same discussion noted that multiple price indicators have been flashing signals not seen since the 2022 bear market. However, many participants continue to believe the next macro bottom is still ahead, with timing expectations pointing to Q3 or later.
Bollinger’s framing fits into that wider tension between “early signals” and “final bottoms.” A W-shaped reversal, if it plays out as expected, would suggest momentum could shift sooner than the macro timetable implies. But without confirmation—especially a breakout through the pattern’s rejection level—the setup could also end up failing or only triggering a temporary bounce within a longer downtrend.
From an investor perspective, that makes the coming price action particularly consequential. If BTC can hold near the reclaimed levels mentioned in the ETF discussion and then follow through on a breakout, the technical pattern could align with improving demand. If not, it may reinforce the view that market participants have not yet reached the stage where bearish pressure fully dissipates.
What to watch next
The next phase will likely depend on whether BTC can translate ETF inflows and near-$60,000 stability into sustained upside, particularly through the key resistance level implied by Bollinger’s “W” structure. Readers should watch for actual confirmation of the pattern—rather than relying only on improving signals—and track whether institutional demand remains supportive beyond this first inflow after a ten-day stretch.
This article was originally published as Bollinger Bands’ creator suggests Bitcoin may be ending its bear trend on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
107
Article
Revolut Plans August USDT Delisting, Citing Regulatory and Risk IssuesUK-headquartered fintech Revolut has informed some users that it will remove support for the Tether USDT stablecoin, with restrictions beginning in July and a full delisting scheduled for the end of August 2026. The bank said the change is driven by “regulatory and risk considerations,” while it also outlined how remaining USDT balances will be handled.
According to a customer notice reviewed by Cointelegraph, Revolut will stop letting users buy USDT starting July 6, 2026. Deposits will no longer be supported after July 30, 2026, and any incoming USDT transfers after that date will be rejected. Revolut’s final step is a full delisting by Aug. 31, 2026, after which it will automatically convert any remaining USDT into the user’s base currency at the exchange rate for that day.
Key takeaways
Revolut will restrict USDT purchases from July 6, 2026, with full delisting set for Aug. 31, 2026.
USDT deposits will end July 30, 2026, and transfers made afterward will be rejected.
Unsold USDT after August will be automatically converted to users’ base currency using that day’s exchange rate.
The company cites “regulatory and risk considerations” but does not specify which regulatory framework triggered the decision.
The move fits a broader pattern of stablecoin access being reduced by European crypto service providers under MiCA.
Revolut’s timeline for USDT removal
Revolut’s notice divides the process into three practical phases for users. First, new USDT purchases will stop on July 6, 2026. Second, USDT deposits will cease on July 30, 2026, meaning users will not be able to add fresh USDT into Revolut accounts from that point onward. Third, if any USDT remains after the Aug. 31, 2026 delisting deadline, Revolut will convert those remaining holdings into a user’s base currency at the prevailing daily exchange rate.
That structure is important for anyone holding or planning transfers: the ability to receive USDT stops roughly a month before the complete delisting, and conversion happens automatically if the asset is still on-platform. In other words, even users who do nothing between the end of deposits and the end of August should expect their USDT exposure to be removed from Revolut.
Regulatory pressure in Europe, without a clear jurisdiction answer
The notice, seen by Cointelegraph, frames the USDT delisting as the result of “regulatory and risk considerations.” However, Revolut did not clarify whether its delisting applies globally or only to particular jurisdictions.
For users, that ambiguity matters. Many regulated crypto service providers in Europe have adjusted product offerings in response to the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime, but the scope of those adjustments can differ by region. Cointelegraph said it reached out to Revolut to ask which jurisdictions are affected and for clarification on the scope of its crypto offering, but did not receive a response by publication.
Revolut’s own regulatory status appears to be intertwined with the European framework. Cointelegraph reported that Revolut was granted a MiCA license as a crypto asset service provider (CASP) in November 2025, citing the ESMA register. The license was reportedly issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), according to ESMA’s published information.
Why MiCA-era stablecoin compliance keeps reshaping access
The Revolut decision echoes a broader European trend. Cointelegraph noted that other exchanges, including Coinbase, began delisting USDT in Europe in 2024 to align with MiCA requirements. The underlying issue is that MiCA imposes rules on crypto asset service providers and expects stablecoin issuers that serve those markets to meet particular compliance expectations.
In this case, Cointelegraph also referenced reporting that Tether has refused to comply with MiCA. As Cointelegraph described, USDT has been gradually delisted by CASPs in Europe since late 2024, with the issuer’s stance contributing to the access reductions.
Tether’s leadership has criticized MiCA in public. Cointelegraph reported that CEO Paolo Ardoino has repeatedly argued that aspects of the framework are flawed, including reserve-related requirements applicable to certain stablecoin issuers—requirements that involve holding a portion of reserves with EU credit institutions. Cointelegraph also noted Ardoino’s remarks in a May 2025 interview criticizing the legislation as “very not well thought.”
The tension is straightforward: stablecoins may be widely used by traders and payment-oriented users, but the ability of regulated intermediaries—exchanges, platforms, and banks—to offer those tokens can depend on how the stablecoin issuer interacts with the relevant rule set.
Stablecoin scale remains large even as on-ramps shrink
Even as access is tightened by certain regulated providers, USDT remains a major part of the crypto ecosystem. Cointelegraph stated that USDT is the third-largest crypto asset by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ether, citing a market value of $184 billion at the time of publication. It also referenced CoinGecko data for broader ranking context, stating Circle’s USDC has a market cap of about $73 billion and is positioned as the fifth-largest crypto asset according to CoinGecko.
For investors and active users, the key question is less whether USDT exists in the market and more how easily it can move through mainstream channels. When banks and fintech platforms reduce purchase options, stop deposits, or delist stablecoins entirely, users may be pushed toward alternative routes such as on-exchange trading, self-custody, or different regulated products—each with different costs, user experience, and risk profiles.
In that environment, Revolut’s move is likely to be viewed as another step in the “stablecoin access” tightening cycle in Europe: even where a platform holds a relevant MiCA authorization, its product lineup can still shift if it determines the compliance and risk picture for a specific issuer is not acceptable under its operating requirements.
Users affected by Revolut’s notice should watch the cut-off dates closely—particularly July 30 for incoming deposits and Aug. 31 for automatic conversion. What remains uncertain is the exact geographic scope of Revolut’s action, and whether further stablecoin adjustments will follow as Europe continues to implement and enforce MiCA requirements.
This article was originally published as Revolut Plans August USDT Delisting, Citing Regulatory and Risk Issues on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Revolut Plans August USDT Delisting, Citing Regulatory and Risk Issues
UK-headquartered fintech Revolut has informed some users that it will remove support for the Tether USDT stablecoin, with restrictions beginning in July and a full delisting scheduled for the end of August 2026. The bank said the change is driven by “regulatory and risk considerations,” while it also outlined how remaining USDT balances will be handled.
According to a customer notice reviewed by Cointelegraph, Revolut will stop letting users buy USDT starting July 6, 2026. Deposits will no longer be supported after July 30, 2026, and any incoming USDT transfers after that date will be rejected. Revolut’s final step is a full delisting by Aug. 31, 2026, after which it will automatically convert any remaining USDT into the user’s base currency at the exchange rate for that day.
Key takeaways
Revolut will restrict USDT purchases from July 6, 2026, with full delisting set for Aug. 31, 2026.
USDT deposits will end July 30, 2026, and transfers made afterward will be rejected.
Unsold USDT after August will be automatically converted to users’ base currency using that day’s exchange rate.
The company cites “regulatory and risk considerations” but does not specify which regulatory framework triggered the decision.
The move fits a broader pattern of stablecoin access being reduced by European crypto service providers under MiCA.
Revolut’s timeline for USDT removal
Revolut’s notice divides the process into three practical phases for users. First, new USDT purchases will stop on July 6, 2026. Second, USDT deposits will cease on July 30, 2026, meaning users will not be able to add fresh USDT into Revolut accounts from that point onward. Third, if any USDT remains after the Aug. 31, 2026 delisting deadline, Revolut will convert those remaining holdings into a user’s base currency at the prevailing daily exchange rate.
That structure is important for anyone holding or planning transfers: the ability to receive USDT stops roughly a month before the complete delisting, and conversion happens automatically if the asset is still on-platform. In other words, even users who do nothing between the end of deposits and the end of August should expect their USDT exposure to be removed from Revolut.
Regulatory pressure in Europe, without a clear jurisdiction answer
The notice, seen by Cointelegraph, frames the USDT delisting as the result of “regulatory and risk considerations.” However, Revolut did not clarify whether its delisting applies globally or only to particular jurisdictions.
For users, that ambiguity matters. Many regulated crypto service providers in Europe have adjusted product offerings in response to the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime, but the scope of those adjustments can differ by region. Cointelegraph said it reached out to Revolut to ask which jurisdictions are affected and for clarification on the scope of its crypto offering, but did not receive a response by publication.
Revolut’s own regulatory status appears to be intertwined with the European framework. Cointelegraph reported that Revolut was granted a MiCA license as a crypto asset service provider (CASP) in November 2025, citing the ESMA register. The license was reportedly issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), according to ESMA’s published information.
Why MiCA-era stablecoin compliance keeps reshaping access
The Revolut decision echoes a broader European trend. Cointelegraph noted that other exchanges, including Coinbase, began delisting USDT in Europe in 2024 to align with MiCA requirements. The underlying issue is that MiCA imposes rules on crypto asset service providers and expects stablecoin issuers that serve those markets to meet particular compliance expectations.
In this case, Cointelegraph also referenced reporting that Tether has refused to comply with MiCA. As Cointelegraph described, USDT has been gradually delisted by CASPs in Europe since late 2024, with the issuer’s stance contributing to the access reductions.
Tether’s leadership has criticized MiCA in public. Cointelegraph reported that CEO Paolo Ardoino has repeatedly argued that aspects of the framework are flawed, including reserve-related requirements applicable to certain stablecoin issuers—requirements that involve holding a portion of reserves with EU credit institutions. Cointelegraph also noted Ardoino’s remarks in a May 2025 interview criticizing the legislation as “very not well thought.”
The tension is straightforward: stablecoins may be widely used by traders and payment-oriented users, but the ability of regulated intermediaries—exchanges, platforms, and banks—to offer those tokens can depend on how the stablecoin issuer interacts with the relevant rule set.
Stablecoin scale remains large even as on-ramps shrink
Even as access is tightened by certain regulated providers, USDT remains a major part of the crypto ecosystem. Cointelegraph stated that USDT is the third-largest crypto asset by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ether, citing a market value of $184 billion at the time of publication. It also referenced CoinGecko data for broader ranking context, stating Circle’s USDC has a market cap of about $73 billion and is positioned as the fifth-largest crypto asset according to CoinGecko.
For investors and active users, the key question is less whether USDT exists in the market and more how easily it can move through mainstream channels. When banks and fintech platforms reduce purchase options, stop deposits, or delist stablecoins entirely, users may be pushed toward alternative routes such as on-exchange trading, self-custody, or different regulated products—each with different costs, user experience, and risk profiles.
In that environment, Revolut’s move is likely to be viewed as another step in the “stablecoin access” tightening cycle in Europe: even where a platform holds a relevant MiCA authorization, its product lineup can still shift if it determines the compliance and risk picture for a specific issuer is not acceptable under its operating requirements.
Users affected by Revolut’s notice should watch the cut-off dates closely—particularly July 30 for incoming deposits and Aug. 31 for automatic conversion. What remains uncertain is the exact geographic scope of Revolut’s action, and whether further stablecoin adjustments will follow as Europe continues to implement and enforce MiCA requirements.
This article was originally published as Revolut Plans August USDT Delisting, Citing Regulatory and Risk Issues on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
According to a customer notice reviewed by Cointelegraph, Revolut will stop letting users buy USDT starting July 6, 2026. Deposits will no longer be supported after July 30, 2026, and any incoming USDT transfers after that date will be rejected. Revolut’s final step is a full delisting by Aug. 31, 2026, after which it will automatically convert any remaining USDT into the user’s base currency at the exchange rate for that day.
Key takeaways
Revolut will restrict USDT purchases from July 6, 2026, with full delisting set for Aug. 31, 2026.
USDT deposits will end July 30, 2026, and transfers made afterward will be rejected.
Unsold USDT after August will be automatically converted to users’ base currency using that day’s exchange rate.
The company cites “regulatory and risk considerations” but does not specify which regulatory framework triggered the decision.
The move fits a broader pattern of stablecoin access being reduced by European crypto service providers under MiCA.
Revolut’s timeline for USDT removal
Revolut’s notice divides the process into three practical phases for users. First, new USDT purchases will stop on July 6, 2026. Second, USDT deposits will cease on July 30, 2026, meaning users will not be able to add fresh USDT into Revolut accounts from that point onward. Third, if any USDT remains after the Aug. 31, 2026 delisting deadline, Revolut will convert those remaining holdings into a user’s base currency at the prevailing daily exchange rate.
That structure is important for anyone holding or planning transfers: the ability to receive USDT stops roughly a month before the complete delisting, and conversion happens automatically if the asset is still on-platform. In other words, even users who do nothing between the end of deposits and the end of August should expect their USDT exposure to be removed from Revolut.
Regulatory pressure in Europe, without a clear jurisdiction answer
The notice, seen by Cointelegraph, frames the USDT delisting as the result of “regulatory and risk considerations.” However, Revolut did not clarify whether its delisting applies globally or only to particular jurisdictions.
For users, that ambiguity matters. Many regulated crypto service providers in Europe have adjusted product offerings in response to the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime, but the scope of those adjustments can differ by region. Cointelegraph said it reached out to Revolut to ask which jurisdictions are affected and for clarification on the scope of its crypto offering, but did not receive a response by publication.
Revolut’s own regulatory status appears to be intertwined with the European framework. Cointelegraph reported that Revolut was granted a MiCA license as a crypto asset service provider (CASP) in November 2025, citing the ESMA register. The license was reportedly issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), according to ESMA’s published information.
Why MiCA-era stablecoin compliance keeps reshaping access
The Revolut decision echoes a broader European trend. Cointelegraph noted that other exchanges, including Coinbase, began delisting USDT in Europe in 2024 to align with MiCA requirements. The underlying issue is that MiCA imposes rules on crypto asset service providers and expects stablecoin issuers that serve those markets to meet particular compliance expectations.
In this case, Cointelegraph also referenced reporting that Tether has refused to comply with MiCA. As Cointelegraph described, USDT has been gradually delisted by CASPs in Europe since late 2024, with the issuer’s stance contributing to the access reductions.
Tether’s leadership has criticized MiCA in public. Cointelegraph reported that CEO Paolo Ardoino has repeatedly argued that aspects of the framework are flawed, including reserve-related requirements applicable to certain stablecoin issuers—requirements that involve holding a portion of reserves with EU credit institutions. Cointelegraph also noted Ardoino’s remarks in a May 2025 interview criticizing the legislation as “very not well thought.”
The tension is straightforward: stablecoins may be widely used by traders and payment-oriented users, but the ability of regulated intermediaries—exchanges, platforms, and banks—to offer those tokens can depend on how the stablecoin issuer interacts with the relevant rule set.
Stablecoin scale remains large even as on-ramps shrink
Even as access is tightened by certain regulated providers, USDT remains a major part of the crypto ecosystem. Cointelegraph stated that USDT is the third-largest crypto asset by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ether, citing a market value of $184 billion at the time of publication. It also referenced CoinGecko data for broader ranking context, stating Circle’s USDC has a market cap of about $73 billion and is positioned as the fifth-largest crypto asset according to CoinGecko.
For investors and active users, the key question is less whether USDT exists in the market and more how easily it can move through mainstream channels. When banks and fintech platforms reduce purchase options, stop deposits, or delist stablecoins entirely, users may be pushed toward alternative routes such as on-exchange trading, self-custody, or different regulated products—each with different costs, user experience, and risk profiles.
In that environment, Revolut’s move is likely to be viewed as another step in the “stablecoin access” tightening cycle in Europe: even where a platform holds a relevant MiCA authorization, its product lineup can still shift if it determines the compliance and risk picture for a specific issuer is not acceptable under its operating requirements.
Users affected by Revolut’s notice should watch the cut-off dates closely—particularly July 30 for incoming deposits and Aug. 31 for automatic conversion. What remains uncertain is the exact geographic scope of Revolut’s action, and whether further stablecoin adjustments will follow as Europe continues to implement and enforce MiCA requirements.
This article was originally published as Revolut Plans August USDT Delisting, Citing Regulatory and Risk Issues on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
25
Article
Revolut Plans to Delist USDT in August Over Regulatory, Risk ConcernsRevolut, the UK-headquartered digital banking platform, has informed some users that it will delist the Tether USDt (USDT) stablecoin starting in July, with the full removal scheduled for Aug. 31, 2026. The company says the decision is driven by “regulatory and risk considerations,” highlighting how stablecoin access is being reshaped across mainstream financial apps as rules tighten.
According to a customer notice reviewed by Cointelegraph, users will stop being able to buy USDT beginning July 6, 2026. Revolut will continue to support USDT until the end of August, but any USDT not sold or withdrawn by then will be automatically converted into the user’s base currency using that day’s exchange rate.
Key takeaways
Revolut will block USDT purchases from July 6, 2026, followed by full delisting on Aug. 31, 2026.
USDT deposits will no longer be supported after July 30, 2026, with incoming transfers rejected.
Users who still hold USDT at the end of August will be converted into base currency at the applicable exchange rate.
Revolut cited only broad “regulatory and risk considerations,” without specifying which framework applies.
The move fits a wider European pattern of stablecoin delistings tied to the EU’s MiCA regime.
Timeline for Revolut users
Revolut’s notice lays out a phased exit for USDT within its platform. The first restriction comes earlier than the final delisting: users will no longer be able to buy USDT starting July 6, 2026. That effectively limits new exposure to USDT well ahead of the end date, giving holders time to decide whether to sell or withdraw.
Support for deposits ends later, on July 30, 2026. From that point, any attempted USDT transfer into Revolut’s system will be rejected, narrowing the options for users who might have planned to move stablecoins into their accounts after the purchase restriction begins.
If users do not act before the end of August, Revolut says it will automatically convert remaining USDT holdings into the user’s base currency on the day’s exchange rate. That detail matters for anyone using USDT as a temporary parking asset or settlement tool inside a broader workflow, because it removes the ability to hold stablecoins through the delisting date without triggering conversion.
Revolut’s regulatory rationale remains vague
While Revolut attributes the delisting to “regulatory and risk considerations,” it does not spell out which specific rules or jurisdictions are behind the decision. The notice also does not clarify whether the changes apply globally or only to certain markets where Revolut operates under particular regulatory constraints.
For readers trying to understand the practical impact, the lack of jurisdictional clarity leaves an open question: whether the delisting is limited to particular European locations, or whether the company is preparing a broader policy that could affect users beyond the EU. Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Revolut for comment on affected jurisdictions and the scope of its crypto offering but did not receive a response by publication.
What is clear from public regulatory records is that Revolut received a Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) license as a crypto asset service provider (CASP in November 2025. The authorization was issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), according to the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) MiCA register. You can review ESMA’s MiCA information through its official page: ESMA’s MiCA overview.
Why Europe’s stablecoin delistings keep accelerating
Revolut’s decision follows a broader European trend in which exchanges and crypto service providers have reduced or removed access to USDT as they adjust to MiCA compliance expectations. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that exchanges began delisting USDT in Europe in 2024 to align with MiCA requirements, including Coinbase’s preparations to delist USDT in Europe: Cointelegraph report on Coinbase’s move.
The key tension is that MiCA does not only regulate how crypto services are delivered; it also imposes obligations on stablecoin issuers and the stablecoin ecosystem, which in turn affects whether specific products can continue being offered by regulated platforms. In practice, CASPs can decide that the compliance burden—or the perceived regulatory risk—does not justify continuing a stablecoin listing.
Cointelegraph’s reporting also describes the issuer side of this story: Tether has refused to comply with MiCA, and CASPs have gradually delisted USDT across Europe since late 2024. In earlier coverage, Cointelegraph pointed to Tether’s stance, including the issuer’s critique of aspects of the MiCA framework—such as reserve requirements for certain stablecoin issuers and the stipulation that part of reserves be held with EU credit institutions. See Cointelegraph’s related reporting: Tether’s refusal to comply with MiCA.
Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has publicly argued that the legislation is poorly designed. Cointelegraph previously noted Ardoino’s comments to the outlet, including criticism of the EU rules, as well as his concerns about reserve-related provisions and how they apply. According to Cointelegraph, Ardoino told the publication that MiCA is “very not well thought legislation.”
Market stakes: USDT’s size vs. platform constraints
Even as USDT’s presence shrinks on some regulated platforms, it remains one of the largest stablecoins in the market. Cointelegraph reported that USDT is currently the third-largest crypto asset by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ether, with a market value of $184 billion at the time of publication. It also cited CoinGecko data indicating that USDC—Circle’s stablecoin—has a $73 billion market cap and ranks as the fifth-largest crypto asset.
This mismatch—USDT’s scale versus the willingness (or ability) of platforms to keep listing it—illustrates how stablecoin distribution increasingly depends on regulatory alignment, not just liquidity or demand. For users, that can translate into operational friction: stablecoin rails that once felt “always available” can change under compliance reviews, leaving customers with forced exits or automated conversions like the one Revolut describes.
It also underlines an important practical point for traders and builders: stablecoin availability on on-ramps and app-based finance is becoming a policy issue. Even when a stablecoin remains liquid in broader markets, individual providers may reduce access based on issuer compliance positions, platform risk assessments, or specific interpretations of regulatory expectations.
For now, USDT’s delisting path on Revolut is scheduled in clear steps, but the broader question is still unsettled—whether Revolut’s actions will remain local to certain jurisdictions or expand across its entire user base. As more CASPs adapt their stablecoin listings to MiCA, market participants should watch for additional platform announcements, potential switches in preferred stablecoins, and whether issuer compliance disputes continue to narrow access on mainstream financial apps.
This article was originally published as Revolut Plans to Delist USDT in August Over Regulatory, Risk Concerns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Revolut Plans to Delist USDT in August Over Regulatory, Risk Concerns
Revolut, the UK-headquartered digital banking platform, has informed some users that it will delist the Tether USDt (USDT) stablecoin starting in July, with the full removal scheduled for Aug. 31, 2026. The company says the decision is driven by “regulatory and risk considerations,” highlighting how stablecoin access is being reshaped across mainstream financial apps as rules tighten.
According to a customer notice reviewed by Cointelegraph, users will stop being able to buy USDT beginning July 6, 2026. Revolut will continue to support USDT until the end of August, but any USDT not sold or withdrawn by then will be automatically converted into the user’s base currency using that day’s exchange rate.
Key takeaways
Revolut will block USDT purchases from July 6, 2026, followed by full delisting on Aug. 31, 2026.
USDT deposits will no longer be supported after July 30, 2026, with incoming transfers rejected.
Users who still hold USDT at the end of August will be converted into base currency at the applicable exchange rate.
Revolut cited only broad “regulatory and risk considerations,” without specifying which framework applies.
The move fits a wider European pattern of stablecoin delistings tied to the EU’s MiCA regime.
Timeline for Revolut users
Revolut’s notice lays out a phased exit for USDT within its platform. The first restriction comes earlier than the final delisting: users will no longer be able to buy USDT starting July 6, 2026. That effectively limits new exposure to USDT well ahead of the end date, giving holders time to decide whether to sell or withdraw.
Support for deposits ends later, on July 30, 2026. From that point, any attempted USDT transfer into Revolut’s system will be rejected, narrowing the options for users who might have planned to move stablecoins into their accounts after the purchase restriction begins.
If users do not act before the end of August, Revolut says it will automatically convert remaining USDT holdings into the user’s base currency on the day’s exchange rate. That detail matters for anyone using USDT as a temporary parking asset or settlement tool inside a broader workflow, because it removes the ability to hold stablecoins through the delisting date without triggering conversion.
Revolut’s regulatory rationale remains vague
While Revolut attributes the delisting to “regulatory and risk considerations,” it does not spell out which specific rules or jurisdictions are behind the decision. The notice also does not clarify whether the changes apply globally or only to certain markets where Revolut operates under particular regulatory constraints.
For readers trying to understand the practical impact, the lack of jurisdictional clarity leaves an open question: whether the delisting is limited to particular European locations, or whether the company is preparing a broader policy that could affect users beyond the EU. Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Revolut for comment on affected jurisdictions and the scope of its crypto offering but did not receive a response by publication.
What is clear from public regulatory records is that Revolut received a Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) license as a crypto asset service provider (CASP in November 2025. The authorization was issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), according to the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) MiCA register. You can review ESMA’s MiCA information through its official page: ESMA’s MiCA overview.
Why Europe’s stablecoin delistings keep accelerating
Revolut’s decision follows a broader European trend in which exchanges and crypto service providers have reduced or removed access to USDT as they adjust to MiCA compliance expectations. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that exchanges began delisting USDT in Europe in 2024 to align with MiCA requirements, including Coinbase’s preparations to delist USDT in Europe: Cointelegraph report on Coinbase’s move.
The key tension is that MiCA does not only regulate how crypto services are delivered; it also imposes obligations on stablecoin issuers and the stablecoin ecosystem, which in turn affects whether specific products can continue being offered by regulated platforms. In practice, CASPs can decide that the compliance burden—or the perceived regulatory risk—does not justify continuing a stablecoin listing.
Cointelegraph’s reporting also describes the issuer side of this story: Tether has refused to comply with MiCA, and CASPs have gradually delisted USDT across Europe since late 2024. In earlier coverage, Cointelegraph pointed to Tether’s stance, including the issuer’s critique of aspects of the MiCA framework—such as reserve requirements for certain stablecoin issuers and the stipulation that part of reserves be held with EU credit institutions. See Cointelegraph’s related reporting: Tether’s refusal to comply with MiCA.
Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has publicly argued that the legislation is poorly designed. Cointelegraph previously noted Ardoino’s comments to the outlet, including criticism of the EU rules, as well as his concerns about reserve-related provisions and how they apply. According to Cointelegraph, Ardoino told the publication that MiCA is “very not well thought legislation.”
Market stakes: USDT’s size vs. platform constraints
Even as USDT’s presence shrinks on some regulated platforms, it remains one of the largest stablecoins in the market. Cointelegraph reported that USDT is currently the third-largest crypto asset by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ether, with a market value of $184 billion at the time of publication. It also cited CoinGecko data indicating that USDC—Circle’s stablecoin—has a $73 billion market cap and ranks as the fifth-largest crypto asset.
This mismatch—USDT’s scale versus the willingness (or ability) of platforms to keep listing it—illustrates how stablecoin distribution increasingly depends on regulatory alignment, not just liquidity or demand. For users, that can translate into operational friction: stablecoin rails that once felt “always available” can change under compliance reviews, leaving customers with forced exits or automated conversions like the one Revolut describes.
It also underlines an important practical point for traders and builders: stablecoin availability on on-ramps and app-based finance is becoming a policy issue. Even when a stablecoin remains liquid in broader markets, individual providers may reduce access based on issuer compliance positions, platform risk assessments, or specific interpretations of regulatory expectations.
For now, USDT’s delisting path on Revolut is scheduled in clear steps, but the broader question is still unsettled—whether Revolut’s actions will remain local to certain jurisdictions or expand across its entire user base. As more CASPs adapt their stablecoin listings to MiCA, market participants should watch for additional platform announcements, potential switches in preferred stablecoins, and whether issuer compliance disputes continue to narrow access on mainstream financial apps.
This article was originally published as Revolut Plans to Delist USDT in August Over Regulatory, Risk Concerns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
According to a customer notice reviewed by Cointelegraph, users will stop being able to buy USDT beginning July 6, 2026. Revolut will continue to support USDT until the end of August, but any USDT not sold or withdrawn by then will be automatically converted into the user’s base currency using that day’s exchange rate.
Key takeaways
Revolut will block USDT purchases from July 6, 2026, followed by full delisting on Aug. 31, 2026.
USDT deposits will no longer be supported after July 30, 2026, with incoming transfers rejected.
Users who still hold USDT at the end of August will be converted into base currency at the applicable exchange rate.
Revolut cited only broad “regulatory and risk considerations,” without specifying which framework applies.
The move fits a wider European pattern of stablecoin delistings tied to the EU’s MiCA regime.
Timeline for Revolut users
Revolut’s notice lays out a phased exit for USDT within its platform. The first restriction comes earlier than the final delisting: users will no longer be able to buy USDT starting July 6, 2026. That effectively limits new exposure to USDT well ahead of the end date, giving holders time to decide whether to sell or withdraw.
Support for deposits ends later, on July 30, 2026. From that point, any attempted USDT transfer into Revolut’s system will be rejected, narrowing the options for users who might have planned to move stablecoins into their accounts after the purchase restriction begins.
If users do not act before the end of August, Revolut says it will automatically convert remaining USDT holdings into the user’s base currency on the day’s exchange rate. That detail matters for anyone using USDT as a temporary parking asset or settlement tool inside a broader workflow, because it removes the ability to hold stablecoins through the delisting date without triggering conversion.
Revolut’s regulatory rationale remains vague
While Revolut attributes the delisting to “regulatory and risk considerations,” it does not spell out which specific rules or jurisdictions are behind the decision. The notice also does not clarify whether the changes apply globally or only to certain markets where Revolut operates under particular regulatory constraints.
For readers trying to understand the practical impact, the lack of jurisdictional clarity leaves an open question: whether the delisting is limited to particular European locations, or whether the company is preparing a broader policy that could affect users beyond the EU. Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Revolut for comment on affected jurisdictions and the scope of its crypto offering but did not receive a response by publication.
What is clear from public regulatory records is that Revolut received a Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) license as a crypto asset service provider (CASP in November 2025. The authorization was issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), according to the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) MiCA register. You can review ESMA’s MiCA information through its official page: ESMA’s MiCA overview.
Why Europe’s stablecoin delistings keep accelerating
Revolut’s decision follows a broader European trend in which exchanges and crypto service providers have reduced or removed access to USDT as they adjust to MiCA compliance expectations. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that exchanges began delisting USDT in Europe in 2024 to align with MiCA requirements, including Coinbase’s preparations to delist USDT in Europe: Cointelegraph report on Coinbase’s move.
The key tension is that MiCA does not only regulate how crypto services are delivered; it also imposes obligations on stablecoin issuers and the stablecoin ecosystem, which in turn affects whether specific products can continue being offered by regulated platforms. In practice, CASPs can decide that the compliance burden—or the perceived regulatory risk—does not justify continuing a stablecoin listing.
Cointelegraph’s reporting also describes the issuer side of this story: Tether has refused to comply with MiCA, and CASPs have gradually delisted USDT across Europe since late 2024. In earlier coverage, Cointelegraph pointed to Tether’s stance, including the issuer’s critique of aspects of the MiCA framework—such as reserve requirements for certain stablecoin issuers and the stipulation that part of reserves be held with EU credit institutions. See Cointelegraph’s related reporting: Tether’s refusal to comply with MiCA.
Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has publicly argued that the legislation is poorly designed. Cointelegraph previously noted Ardoino’s comments to the outlet, including criticism of the EU rules, as well as his concerns about reserve-related provisions and how they apply. According to Cointelegraph, Ardoino told the publication that MiCA is “very not well thought legislation.”
Market stakes: USDT’s size vs. platform constraints
Even as USDT’s presence shrinks on some regulated platforms, it remains one of the largest stablecoins in the market. Cointelegraph reported that USDT is currently the third-largest crypto asset by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ether, with a market value of $184 billion at the time of publication. It also cited CoinGecko data indicating that USDC—Circle’s stablecoin—has a $73 billion market cap and ranks as the fifth-largest crypto asset.
This mismatch—USDT’s scale versus the willingness (or ability) of platforms to keep listing it—illustrates how stablecoin distribution increasingly depends on regulatory alignment, not just liquidity or demand. For users, that can translate into operational friction: stablecoin rails that once felt “always available” can change under compliance reviews, leaving customers with forced exits or automated conversions like the one Revolut describes.
It also underlines an important practical point for traders and builders: stablecoin availability on on-ramps and app-based finance is becoming a policy issue. Even when a stablecoin remains liquid in broader markets, individual providers may reduce access based on issuer compliance positions, platform risk assessments, or specific interpretations of regulatory expectations.
For now, USDT’s delisting path on Revolut is scheduled in clear steps, but the broader question is still unsettled—whether Revolut’s actions will remain local to certain jurisdictions or expand across its entire user base. As more CASPs adapt their stablecoin listings to MiCA, market participants should watch for additional platform announcements, potential switches in preferred stablecoins, and whether issuer compliance disputes continue to narrow access on mainstream financial apps.
This article was originally published as Revolut Plans to Delist USDT in August Over Regulatory, Risk Concerns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
23
Article
Strategy’s Bitcoin Pivot, OpenUSD Launch, and Fidelity’s RoleStrategy, the corporate vehicle behind Michael Saylor’s long-running “Bitcoin treasury” approach, has moved further into real-world capital management. The company authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales under a newly defined capital framework—an acknowledgment that even highly committed holders must plan for liquidity, shareholder payouts, and balance-sheet flexibility.
Meanwhile, the crypto industry’s business priorities are widening beyond price narratives: a new coalition is pushing a US dollar stablecoin designed to capture reserve yield, Fidelity is defending Bitcoin’s security model post-halving, and political spending is ramping up ahead of the 2026 US midterms.
Key takeaways
Strategy authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales to support dividends, cash reserves, and repurchases while maintaining its long-term Bitcoin exposure.
Strategy raised its STRC preferred dividend rate to 12% and says it has built a dedicated cash reserve of $2.55 billion to cover about 17 months of payments.
A group of over 140 firms—including Visa, Mastercard, Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit—plans an “Open USD” stablecoin that is structured to return reserve earnings to users.
Fidelity argues Bitcoin’s security is not solely dependent on block subsidies, citing higher daily miner revenue over time.
Public Citizen reports crypto-linked political spending totaled about $189 million in the 2026 election cycle, with PACs again central to the industry’s influence.
Strategy formalizes Bitcoin monetization and funding priorities
Strategy has adopted a new capital plan that explicitly authorizes Bitcoin sales of up to $1.25 billion. According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, the “Digital Credit Capital Framework” is intended to fund shareholder dividends, reinforce cash reserves, and support stock repurchases while still aiming to preserve the company’s long-term Bitcoin strategy.
Under the framework, the annual dividend on Strategy’s STRC preferred stock rises from 11.5% to 12%. The plan also introduces a structured Bitcoin monetization program and expands capital-return mechanisms that include buybacks of preferred securities and MSTR shares.
Strategy also disclosed that its dedicated cash reserve has grown to $2.55 billion. The company says this level is sufficient to cover roughly 17 months of preferred dividends and interest payments, effectively reducing the need to sell Bitcoin on short notice.
Crucially for investors watching Strategy’s “never sell” messaging, the framework marks a shift from pure accumulation rhetoric to a defined approach for generating liquidity. Strategy previously disclosed its first-ever Bitcoin sale, including the offload of 32 BTC in June, and Cointelegraph notes that the company did not purchase Bitcoin in the prior week referenced in the article.
Strategy’s holdings were reported as unchanged at 847,363 BTC, indicating the recent change is about authorization and planning rather than immediate acceleration of liquidation.
Stablecoin competition heats up with reserve-yield design
The next phase of stablecoin competition appears to be less about simply pegging to the dollar and more about who captures the yield generated by reserves. More than 140 financial and crypto companies have joined to launch a new US dollar-backed stablecoin that is designed to let participants retain the yield from reserves.
Cointelegraph reports the project—Open USD (OUSD)—is backed by major payments players including Visa and Mastercard, as well as crypto firms such as Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit. The coalition’s structure differentiates OUSD from traditional stablecoin models: supporters say businesses will be able to mint tokens without fees or volume limits while keeping the reserve earnings.
That model is positioned as a competitive alternative to incumbent issuers, specifically Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC. If it performs as intended, the ability to keep reserve yield could reduce the effective cost of using stablecoins for businesses and encourage greater adoption—especially in payment and settlement workflows where stablecoin balances function like working capital.
Timing also matters. According to Cointelegraph, Open Standard plans to roll out OUSD later this year. The push arrives as US policy has moved in a more favorable direction following passage of the GENIUS Act, which Cointelegraph links as a key development in stablecoin regulation.
With the article citing a market already worth more than $300 billion and analysts expecting further growth through the rest of the decade, OUSD’s success will likely depend on execution—particularly around reserve management transparency, minting/burning mechanics, and the practical user experience for businesses seeking reserve yield.
Fidelity challenges the “halving weakens security” narrative
Bitcoin’s halving cycle tends to reignite a long-running debate: if block subsidies decline, do miners eventually lose enough economic incentive to keep the network secure? Fidelity Digital Assets is pushing back against that conclusion.
In a research report highlighted by Cointelegraph, Fidelity argues that Bitcoin’s long-term security is not dependent solely on block subsidies. The firm’s framing suggests that other incentives—such as transaction fees, broader market dynamics, and price appreciation—can sustain miner participation even as issuance declines.
Cointelegraph’s summary points to Fidelity research analyst Daniel Gray, who noted a sharp change in the scale of miner revenue over time. Fidelity claims that average daily miner revenue grew from $1.3 million during 2012–2016 to $40.2 million today, despite declining block rewards. The underlying message is that miner economics have evolved beyond the subsidy component.
The report lands as miners face additional pressure following the latest halving. As Cointelegraph notes, many publicly traded mining companies have sought diversification—pivoting into areas such as AI and high-performance computing—while Fidelity maintains that these shifts don’t undermine Bitcoin’s long-term security assumptions.
For readers, the practical question is what happens if transaction fee demand fails to offset subsidy declines. Fidelity’s argument addresses incentive structure, but the real test will come from observing miner revenue composition over time: how much comes from fees versus price-driven valuation, and whether that remains sufficient to sustain hashrate participation through future cycles.
Crypto political spending climbs ahead of 2026 midterms
The business side of crypto is also increasingly visible in US politics. According to a new report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, crypto companies have contributed roughly $189 million to the 2026 election cycle so far—estimated at 37% of all corporate political spending during the period covered.
Cointelegraph reports that political action committees are again the main vehicle for the industry’s influence. Fairshake has spent more than $82 million this cycle, while the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. Super PAC—heavily backed by Crypto.com—has spent more than $56 million.
Public Citizen also said the strategy mirrors 2024 tactics by backing candidates from both major parties who align with the industry’s policy agenda. It further notes that crypto spending has already surpassed the roughly $170 million deployed during the 2024 election cycle, even with more than four months remaining before November’s elections.
For market participants, political spending is not just a headline metric. It can shape how regulators define stablecoins, exchange operations, custody standards, and market surveillance expectations—areas that directly affect compliance costs and product design.
What to watch next
Over the coming weeks, investors and builders should track three closely related developments: whether Strategy’s authorized Bitcoin sales translate into actual, more frequent monetization—or remain primarily a liquidity backstop; how OUSD’s reserve-yield mechanics perform against USDT and USDC in real usage; and whether Fidelity’s security thesis holds up in miner economics as fees and market incentives evolve through subsequent halving periods.
This article was originally published as Strategy’s Bitcoin Pivot, OpenUSD Launch, and Fidelity’s Role on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Strategy’s Bitcoin Pivot, OpenUSD Launch, and Fidelity’s Role
Strategy, the corporate vehicle behind Michael Saylor’s long-running “Bitcoin treasury” approach, has moved further into real-world capital management. The company authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales under a newly defined capital framework—an acknowledgment that even highly committed holders must plan for liquidity, shareholder payouts, and balance-sheet flexibility.
Meanwhile, the crypto industry’s business priorities are widening beyond price narratives: a new coalition is pushing a US dollar stablecoin designed to capture reserve yield, Fidelity is defending Bitcoin’s security model post-halving, and political spending is ramping up ahead of the 2026 US midterms.
Key takeaways
Strategy authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales to support dividends, cash reserves, and repurchases while maintaining its long-term Bitcoin exposure.
Strategy raised its STRC preferred dividend rate to 12% and says it has built a dedicated cash reserve of $2.55 billion to cover about 17 months of payments.
A group of over 140 firms—including Visa, Mastercard, Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit—plans an “Open USD” stablecoin that is structured to return reserve earnings to users.
Fidelity argues Bitcoin’s security is not solely dependent on block subsidies, citing higher daily miner revenue over time.
Public Citizen reports crypto-linked political spending totaled about $189 million in the 2026 election cycle, with PACs again central to the industry’s influence.
Strategy formalizes Bitcoin monetization and funding priorities
Strategy has adopted a new capital plan that explicitly authorizes Bitcoin sales of up to $1.25 billion. According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, the “Digital Credit Capital Framework” is intended to fund shareholder dividends, reinforce cash reserves, and support stock repurchases while still aiming to preserve the company’s long-term Bitcoin strategy.
Under the framework, the annual dividend on Strategy’s STRC preferred stock rises from 11.5% to 12%. The plan also introduces a structured Bitcoin monetization program and expands capital-return mechanisms that include buybacks of preferred securities and MSTR shares.
Strategy also disclosed that its dedicated cash reserve has grown to $2.55 billion. The company says this level is sufficient to cover roughly 17 months of preferred dividends and interest payments, effectively reducing the need to sell Bitcoin on short notice.
Crucially for investors watching Strategy’s “never sell” messaging, the framework marks a shift from pure accumulation rhetoric to a defined approach for generating liquidity. Strategy previously disclosed its first-ever Bitcoin sale, including the offload of 32 BTC in June, and Cointelegraph notes that the company did not purchase Bitcoin in the prior week referenced in the article.
Strategy’s holdings were reported as unchanged at 847,363 BTC, indicating the recent change is about authorization and planning rather than immediate acceleration of liquidation.
Stablecoin competition heats up with reserve-yield design
The next phase of stablecoin competition appears to be less about simply pegging to the dollar and more about who captures the yield generated by reserves. More than 140 financial and crypto companies have joined to launch a new US dollar-backed stablecoin that is designed to let participants retain the yield from reserves.
Cointelegraph reports the project—Open USD (OUSD)—is backed by major payments players including Visa and Mastercard, as well as crypto firms such as Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit. The coalition’s structure differentiates OUSD from traditional stablecoin models: supporters say businesses will be able to mint tokens without fees or volume limits while keeping the reserve earnings.
That model is positioned as a competitive alternative to incumbent issuers, specifically Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC. If it performs as intended, the ability to keep reserve yield could reduce the effective cost of using stablecoins for businesses and encourage greater adoption—especially in payment and settlement workflows where stablecoin balances function like working capital.
Timing also matters. According to Cointelegraph, Open Standard plans to roll out OUSD later this year. The push arrives as US policy has moved in a more favorable direction following passage of the GENIUS Act, which Cointelegraph links as a key development in stablecoin regulation.
With the article citing a market already worth more than $300 billion and analysts expecting further growth through the rest of the decade, OUSD’s success will likely depend on execution—particularly around reserve management transparency, minting/burning mechanics, and the practical user experience for businesses seeking reserve yield.
Fidelity challenges the “halving weakens security” narrative
Bitcoin’s halving cycle tends to reignite a long-running debate: if block subsidies decline, do miners eventually lose enough economic incentive to keep the network secure? Fidelity Digital Assets is pushing back against that conclusion.
In a research report highlighted by Cointelegraph, Fidelity argues that Bitcoin’s long-term security is not dependent solely on block subsidies. The firm’s framing suggests that other incentives—such as transaction fees, broader market dynamics, and price appreciation—can sustain miner participation even as issuance declines.
Cointelegraph’s summary points to Fidelity research analyst Daniel Gray, who noted a sharp change in the scale of miner revenue over time. Fidelity claims that average daily miner revenue grew from $1.3 million during 2012–2016 to $40.2 million today, despite declining block rewards. The underlying message is that miner economics have evolved beyond the subsidy component.
The report lands as miners face additional pressure following the latest halving. As Cointelegraph notes, many publicly traded mining companies have sought diversification—pivoting into areas such as AI and high-performance computing—while Fidelity maintains that these shifts don’t undermine Bitcoin’s long-term security assumptions.
For readers, the practical question is what happens if transaction fee demand fails to offset subsidy declines. Fidelity’s argument addresses incentive structure, but the real test will come from observing miner revenue composition over time: how much comes from fees versus price-driven valuation, and whether that remains sufficient to sustain hashrate participation through future cycles.
Crypto political spending climbs ahead of 2026 midterms
The business side of crypto is also increasingly visible in US politics. According to a new report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, crypto companies have contributed roughly $189 million to the 2026 election cycle so far—estimated at 37% of all corporate political spending during the period covered.
Cointelegraph reports that political action committees are again the main vehicle for the industry’s influence. Fairshake has spent more than $82 million this cycle, while the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. Super PAC—heavily backed by Crypto.com—has spent more than $56 million.
Public Citizen also said the strategy mirrors 2024 tactics by backing candidates from both major parties who align with the industry’s policy agenda. It further notes that crypto spending has already surpassed the roughly $170 million deployed during the 2024 election cycle, even with more than four months remaining before November’s elections.
For market participants, political spending is not just a headline metric. It can shape how regulators define stablecoins, exchange operations, custody standards, and market surveillance expectations—areas that directly affect compliance costs and product design.
What to watch next
Over the coming weeks, investors and builders should track three closely related developments: whether Strategy’s authorized Bitcoin sales translate into actual, more frequent monetization—or remain primarily a liquidity backstop; how OUSD’s reserve-yield mechanics perform against USDT and USDC in real usage; and whether Fidelity’s security thesis holds up in miner economics as fees and market incentives evolve through subsequent halving periods.
This article was originally published as Strategy’s Bitcoin Pivot, OpenUSD Launch, and Fidelity’s Role on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Meanwhile, the crypto industry’s business priorities are widening beyond price narratives: a new coalition is pushing a US dollar stablecoin designed to capture reserve yield, Fidelity is defending Bitcoin’s security model post-halving, and political spending is ramping up ahead of the 2026 US midterms.
Key takeaways
Strategy authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales to support dividends, cash reserves, and repurchases while maintaining its long-term Bitcoin exposure.
Strategy raised its STRC preferred dividend rate to 12% and says it has built a dedicated cash reserve of $2.55 billion to cover about 17 months of payments.
A group of over 140 firms—including Visa, Mastercard, Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit—plans an “Open USD” stablecoin that is structured to return reserve earnings to users.
Fidelity argues Bitcoin’s security is not solely dependent on block subsidies, citing higher daily miner revenue over time.
Public Citizen reports crypto-linked political spending totaled about $189 million in the 2026 election cycle, with PACs again central to the industry’s influence.
Strategy formalizes Bitcoin monetization and funding priorities
Strategy has adopted a new capital plan that explicitly authorizes Bitcoin sales of up to $1.25 billion. According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, the “Digital Credit Capital Framework” is intended to fund shareholder dividends, reinforce cash reserves, and support stock repurchases while still aiming to preserve the company’s long-term Bitcoin strategy.
Under the framework, the annual dividend on Strategy’s STRC preferred stock rises from 11.5% to 12%. The plan also introduces a structured Bitcoin monetization program and expands capital-return mechanisms that include buybacks of preferred securities and MSTR shares.
Strategy also disclosed that its dedicated cash reserve has grown to $2.55 billion. The company says this level is sufficient to cover roughly 17 months of preferred dividends and interest payments, effectively reducing the need to sell Bitcoin on short notice.
Crucially for investors watching Strategy’s “never sell” messaging, the framework marks a shift from pure accumulation rhetoric to a defined approach for generating liquidity. Strategy previously disclosed its first-ever Bitcoin sale, including the offload of 32 BTC in June, and Cointelegraph notes that the company did not purchase Bitcoin in the prior week referenced in the article.
Strategy’s holdings were reported as unchanged at 847,363 BTC, indicating the recent change is about authorization and planning rather than immediate acceleration of liquidation.
Stablecoin competition heats up with reserve-yield design
The next phase of stablecoin competition appears to be less about simply pegging to the dollar and more about who captures the yield generated by reserves. More than 140 financial and crypto companies have joined to launch a new US dollar-backed stablecoin that is designed to let participants retain the yield from reserves.
Cointelegraph reports the project—Open USD (OUSD)—is backed by major payments players including Visa and Mastercard, as well as crypto firms such as Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit. The coalition’s structure differentiates OUSD from traditional stablecoin models: supporters say businesses will be able to mint tokens without fees or volume limits while keeping the reserve earnings.
That model is positioned as a competitive alternative to incumbent issuers, specifically Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC. If it performs as intended, the ability to keep reserve yield could reduce the effective cost of using stablecoins for businesses and encourage greater adoption—especially in payment and settlement workflows where stablecoin balances function like working capital.
Timing also matters. According to Cointelegraph, Open Standard plans to roll out OUSD later this year. The push arrives as US policy has moved in a more favorable direction following passage of the GENIUS Act, which Cointelegraph links as a key development in stablecoin regulation.
With the article citing a market already worth more than $300 billion and analysts expecting further growth through the rest of the decade, OUSD’s success will likely depend on execution—particularly around reserve management transparency, minting/burning mechanics, and the practical user experience for businesses seeking reserve yield.
Fidelity challenges the “halving weakens security” narrative
Bitcoin’s halving cycle tends to reignite a long-running debate: if block subsidies decline, do miners eventually lose enough economic incentive to keep the network secure? Fidelity Digital Assets is pushing back against that conclusion.
In a research report highlighted by Cointelegraph, Fidelity argues that Bitcoin’s long-term security is not dependent solely on block subsidies. The firm’s framing suggests that other incentives—such as transaction fees, broader market dynamics, and price appreciation—can sustain miner participation even as issuance declines.
Cointelegraph’s summary points to Fidelity research analyst Daniel Gray, who noted a sharp change in the scale of miner revenue over time. Fidelity claims that average daily miner revenue grew from $1.3 million during 2012–2016 to $40.2 million today, despite declining block rewards. The underlying message is that miner economics have evolved beyond the subsidy component.
The report lands as miners face additional pressure following the latest halving. As Cointelegraph notes, many publicly traded mining companies have sought diversification—pivoting into areas such as AI and high-performance computing—while Fidelity maintains that these shifts don’t undermine Bitcoin’s long-term security assumptions.
For readers, the practical question is what happens if transaction fee demand fails to offset subsidy declines. Fidelity’s argument addresses incentive structure, but the real test will come from observing miner revenue composition over time: how much comes from fees versus price-driven valuation, and whether that remains sufficient to sustain hashrate participation through future cycles.
Crypto political spending climbs ahead of 2026 midterms
The business side of crypto is also increasingly visible in US politics. According to a new report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, crypto companies have contributed roughly $189 million to the 2026 election cycle so far—estimated at 37% of all corporate political spending during the period covered.
Cointelegraph reports that political action committees are again the main vehicle for the industry’s influence. Fairshake has spent more than $82 million this cycle, while the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. Super PAC—heavily backed by Crypto.com—has spent more than $56 million.
Public Citizen also said the strategy mirrors 2024 tactics by backing candidates from both major parties who align with the industry’s policy agenda. It further notes that crypto spending has already surpassed the roughly $170 million deployed during the 2024 election cycle, even with more than four months remaining before November’s elections.
For market participants, political spending is not just a headline metric. It can shape how regulators define stablecoins, exchange operations, custody standards, and market surveillance expectations—areas that directly affect compliance costs and product design.
What to watch next
Over the coming weeks, investors and builders should track three closely related developments: whether Strategy’s authorized Bitcoin sales translate into actual, more frequent monetization—or remain primarily a liquidity backstop; how OUSD’s reserve-yield mechanics perform against USDT and USDC in real usage; and whether Fidelity’s security thesis holds up in miner economics as fees and market incentives evolve through subsequent halving periods.
This article was originally published as Strategy’s Bitcoin Pivot, OpenUSD Launch, and Fidelity’s Role on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
136
Article
Tim Draper Responds to Coinbase Transfer Claim, Denies BTC MoveBitcoin billionaire investor Tim Draper has pushed back against blockchain analytics claims that he moved a large amount of BTC to Coinbase Prime. Draper told Cointelegraph, “Haven’t touched my BTC,” adding that he still expects Bitcoin to reach $250,000 within one year.
The denial follows a report from Lookonchain that a wallet “possibly linked” to Draper sent 1,000 BTC—valued at roughly $62 million at the time of reporting—into Coinbase Prime, based on address data traced using Arkham. The episode underscores how quickly on-chain intelligence can surface high-profile wallet activity, while also highlighting the difficulty of proving wallet ownership with certainty.
Key takeaways
Tim Draper denied involvement after Lookonchain and Arkham-linked attribution pointed to a wallet “possibly linked” to him sending 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime.
Arkham’s AI entity prediction labels wallet ownership with confidence levels, meaning attribution may be probabilistic rather than definitive.
The highlighted transfers show repeated interaction between a wallet and Coinbase Prime over the past year, including a 1,000 BTC movement reported as occurring on July 9, 2025.
Draper reiterated a $250,000 Bitcoin target, despite a multi-year history of price-timeline forecasts missing earlier deadlines.
Analytics flags a possible Draper-linked transfer
Lookonchain’s Friday report drew attention to a transfer of 1,000 BTC into Coinbase Prime, describing the source wallet as “possibly linked” to Tim Draper. The claim relied on Arkham’s wallet labeling and on-chain tracing, with Arkham presenting the address attribution using its AI-powered “entity prediction” capability.
Arkham’s interface notes that it assigns varying levels of confidence to attributions, effectively treating some wallet-to-person links as hypotheses rather than confirmed identities. That distinction matters for investors and market observers because large transfers often attract immediate speculation, yet wallet ownership can be ambiguous when based on probabilistic clustering or pattern matching.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Arkham for comment but had not received a response by the time of publication.
Why wallet attribution remains hard to verify
In this case, Arkham labels the wallet involved in the transfer as “Tim Draper?” using entity prediction. Arkham’s approach is designed to help users investigate possible ownership, but it also means that even high-profile attributions may not amount to direct evidence.
The wallet’s transaction history, as referenced in the report, shows multiple interactions with Coinbase Prime, including a 1,000 BTC transfer from Coinbase Prime on July 9, 2025. That timing adds to the plausibility of the analytics narrative—yet it still does not remove the core uncertainty: on-chain data can show who moved coins, but it cannot always confirm who ultimately controls them, especially when custody practices, exchange flows, and address management strategies are involved.
Draper’s public rebuttal—“Haven’t touched my BTC”—therefore shifts the story from purely technical analysis back toward the human verification problem. For traders, the practical takeaway is that attribution-driven headlines can move sentiment even when ownership is not independently confirmed.
Draper’s BTC history and the persistence of a $250,000 target
Draper is a long-time Bitcoin bull and has been closely associated with an early, high-visibility purchase. According to Reuters, he won a US Marshals Service auction in 2014 for nearly 30,000 Bitcoin seized from holdings tied to the Silk Road. Forbes reported that Draper paid about $18.7 million—roughly $632 per BTC—for the assets, which were later described as worth around $1.9 billion.
Even as he remains outspoken, Draper’s price forecast has been consistent for years. The $250,000 target is reported as being held since at least 2018, when Draper initially expected Bitcoin to reach that level by late 2022 or early 2023. Cointelegraph notes that Bitcoin’s all-time high to date has not matched that timeline, citing a peak price recorded by CoinGecko of $126,080 on Oct. 6, 2025. At the time of reporting, Bitcoin was trading around $62,530.
The gap between long-dated price targets and realized market timing is not unusual for speculative forecasts, but it does affect how investors should interpret future statements. A target can stay the same while the path—and the timeframe—changes materially, meaning believers should evaluate not just the end number, but the assumptions behind it.
What other market voices are saying
While Draper’s comments and the analytics controversy played out, other notable voices continued to debate Bitcoin’s ceiling. Cointelegraph cited Blockstream CEO Adam Back, who expects Bitcoin could eventually reach between $500,000 and $1 million, arguing that such milestones may be closer than many assume.
Institutional and critical perspectives also remained in the conversation. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has previously stated that Bitcoin could climb as high as $700,000 if institutional adoption increases significantly. On the other side, Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has argued that the asset lacks intrinsic value and could ultimately fall to zero.
Meanwhile, retail sentiment instruments reflected more grounded expectations in the near term. Polymarket’s “What price will Bitcoin hit in 2026?” prediction market showed traders pricing the most likely range around $65,000 to $70,000, with bets clustering near $68,000. These market-implied outcomes offer a different lens than celebrity targets: rather than a single endgame number, the odds reflect how participants weigh scenarios for a specific calendar period.
Going forward, readers should watch for two things: whether any follow-up analysis clarifies the attribution confidence around the implicated wallet, and how Draper’s reiterated $250,000 timeline evolves as Bitcoin’s price discovery continues. In cases like this, the on-chain story may change quickly as new traceability and ownership evidence emerges—even when the underlying question remains the same: who controls the keys?
This article was originally published as Tim Draper Responds to Coinbase Transfer Claim, Denies BTC Move on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Tim Draper Responds to Coinbase Transfer Claim, Denies BTC Move
Bitcoin billionaire investor Tim Draper has pushed back against blockchain analytics claims that he moved a large amount of BTC to Coinbase Prime. Draper told Cointelegraph, “Haven’t touched my BTC,” adding that he still expects Bitcoin to reach $250,000 within one year.
The denial follows a report from Lookonchain that a wallet “possibly linked” to Draper sent 1,000 BTC—valued at roughly $62 million at the time of reporting—into Coinbase Prime, based on address data traced using Arkham. The episode underscores how quickly on-chain intelligence can surface high-profile wallet activity, while also highlighting the difficulty of proving wallet ownership with certainty.
Key takeaways
Tim Draper denied involvement after Lookonchain and Arkham-linked attribution pointed to a wallet “possibly linked” to him sending 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime.
Arkham’s AI entity prediction labels wallet ownership with confidence levels, meaning attribution may be probabilistic rather than definitive.
The highlighted transfers show repeated interaction between a wallet and Coinbase Prime over the past year, including a 1,000 BTC movement reported as occurring on July 9, 2025.
Draper reiterated a $250,000 Bitcoin target, despite a multi-year history of price-timeline forecasts missing earlier deadlines.
Analytics flags a possible Draper-linked transfer
Lookonchain’s Friday report drew attention to a transfer of 1,000 BTC into Coinbase Prime, describing the source wallet as “possibly linked” to Tim Draper. The claim relied on Arkham’s wallet labeling and on-chain tracing, with Arkham presenting the address attribution using its AI-powered “entity prediction” capability.
Arkham’s interface notes that it assigns varying levels of confidence to attributions, effectively treating some wallet-to-person links as hypotheses rather than confirmed identities. That distinction matters for investors and market observers because large transfers often attract immediate speculation, yet wallet ownership can be ambiguous when based on probabilistic clustering or pattern matching.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Arkham for comment but had not received a response by the time of publication.
Why wallet attribution remains hard to verify
In this case, Arkham labels the wallet involved in the transfer as “Tim Draper?” using entity prediction. Arkham’s approach is designed to help users investigate possible ownership, but it also means that even high-profile attributions may not amount to direct evidence.
The wallet’s transaction history, as referenced in the report, shows multiple interactions with Coinbase Prime, including a 1,000 BTC transfer from Coinbase Prime on July 9, 2025. That timing adds to the plausibility of the analytics narrative—yet it still does not remove the core uncertainty: on-chain data can show who moved coins, but it cannot always confirm who ultimately controls them, especially when custody practices, exchange flows, and address management strategies are involved.
Draper’s public rebuttal—“Haven’t touched my BTC”—therefore shifts the story from purely technical analysis back toward the human verification problem. For traders, the practical takeaway is that attribution-driven headlines can move sentiment even when ownership is not independently confirmed.
Draper’s BTC history and the persistence of a $250,000 target
Draper is a long-time Bitcoin bull and has been closely associated with an early, high-visibility purchase. According to Reuters, he won a US Marshals Service auction in 2014 for nearly 30,000 Bitcoin seized from holdings tied to the Silk Road. Forbes reported that Draper paid about $18.7 million—roughly $632 per BTC—for the assets, which were later described as worth around $1.9 billion.
Even as he remains outspoken, Draper’s price forecast has been consistent for years. The $250,000 target is reported as being held since at least 2018, when Draper initially expected Bitcoin to reach that level by late 2022 or early 2023. Cointelegraph notes that Bitcoin’s all-time high to date has not matched that timeline, citing a peak price recorded by CoinGecko of $126,080 on Oct. 6, 2025. At the time of reporting, Bitcoin was trading around $62,530.
The gap between long-dated price targets and realized market timing is not unusual for speculative forecasts, but it does affect how investors should interpret future statements. A target can stay the same while the path—and the timeframe—changes materially, meaning believers should evaluate not just the end number, but the assumptions behind it.
What other market voices are saying
While Draper’s comments and the analytics controversy played out, other notable voices continued to debate Bitcoin’s ceiling. Cointelegraph cited Blockstream CEO Adam Back, who expects Bitcoin could eventually reach between $500,000 and $1 million, arguing that such milestones may be closer than many assume.
Institutional and critical perspectives also remained in the conversation. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has previously stated that Bitcoin could climb as high as $700,000 if institutional adoption increases significantly. On the other side, Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has argued that the asset lacks intrinsic value and could ultimately fall to zero.
Meanwhile, retail sentiment instruments reflected more grounded expectations in the near term. Polymarket’s “What price will Bitcoin hit in 2026?” prediction market showed traders pricing the most likely range around $65,000 to $70,000, with bets clustering near $68,000. These market-implied outcomes offer a different lens than celebrity targets: rather than a single endgame number, the odds reflect how participants weigh scenarios for a specific calendar period.
Going forward, readers should watch for two things: whether any follow-up analysis clarifies the attribution confidence around the implicated wallet, and how Draper’s reiterated $250,000 timeline evolves as Bitcoin’s price discovery continues. In cases like this, the on-chain story may change quickly as new traceability and ownership evidence emerges—even when the underlying question remains the same: who controls the keys?
This article was originally published as Tim Draper Responds to Coinbase Transfer Claim, Denies BTC Move on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The denial follows a report from Lookonchain that a wallet “possibly linked” to Draper sent 1,000 BTC—valued at roughly $62 million at the time of reporting—into Coinbase Prime, based on address data traced using Arkham. The episode underscores how quickly on-chain intelligence can surface high-profile wallet activity, while also highlighting the difficulty of proving wallet ownership with certainty.
Key takeaways
Tim Draper denied involvement after Lookonchain and Arkham-linked attribution pointed to a wallet “possibly linked” to him sending 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime.
Arkham’s AI entity prediction labels wallet ownership with confidence levels, meaning attribution may be probabilistic rather than definitive.
The highlighted transfers show repeated interaction between a wallet and Coinbase Prime over the past year, including a 1,000 BTC movement reported as occurring on July 9, 2025.
Draper reiterated a $250,000 Bitcoin target, despite a multi-year history of price-timeline forecasts missing earlier deadlines.
Analytics flags a possible Draper-linked transfer
Lookonchain’s Friday report drew attention to a transfer of 1,000 BTC into Coinbase Prime, describing the source wallet as “possibly linked” to Tim Draper. The claim relied on Arkham’s wallet labeling and on-chain tracing, with Arkham presenting the address attribution using its AI-powered “entity prediction” capability.
Arkham’s interface notes that it assigns varying levels of confidence to attributions, effectively treating some wallet-to-person links as hypotheses rather than confirmed identities. That distinction matters for investors and market observers because large transfers often attract immediate speculation, yet wallet ownership can be ambiguous when based on probabilistic clustering or pattern matching.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Arkham for comment but had not received a response by the time of publication.
Why wallet attribution remains hard to verify
In this case, Arkham labels the wallet involved in the transfer as “Tim Draper?” using entity prediction. Arkham’s approach is designed to help users investigate possible ownership, but it also means that even high-profile attributions may not amount to direct evidence.
The wallet’s transaction history, as referenced in the report, shows multiple interactions with Coinbase Prime, including a 1,000 BTC transfer from Coinbase Prime on July 9, 2025. That timing adds to the plausibility of the analytics narrative—yet it still does not remove the core uncertainty: on-chain data can show who moved coins, but it cannot always confirm who ultimately controls them, especially when custody practices, exchange flows, and address management strategies are involved.
Draper’s public rebuttal—“Haven’t touched my BTC”—therefore shifts the story from purely technical analysis back toward the human verification problem. For traders, the practical takeaway is that attribution-driven headlines can move sentiment even when ownership is not independently confirmed.
Draper’s BTC history and the persistence of a $250,000 target
Draper is a long-time Bitcoin bull and has been closely associated with an early, high-visibility purchase. According to Reuters, he won a US Marshals Service auction in 2014 for nearly 30,000 Bitcoin seized from holdings tied to the Silk Road. Forbes reported that Draper paid about $18.7 million—roughly $632 per BTC—for the assets, which were later described as worth around $1.9 billion.
Even as he remains outspoken, Draper’s price forecast has been consistent for years. The $250,000 target is reported as being held since at least 2018, when Draper initially expected Bitcoin to reach that level by late 2022 or early 2023. Cointelegraph notes that Bitcoin’s all-time high to date has not matched that timeline, citing a peak price recorded by CoinGecko of $126,080 on Oct. 6, 2025. At the time of reporting, Bitcoin was trading around $62,530.
The gap between long-dated price targets and realized market timing is not unusual for speculative forecasts, but it does affect how investors should interpret future statements. A target can stay the same while the path—and the timeframe—changes materially, meaning believers should evaluate not just the end number, but the assumptions behind it.
What other market voices are saying
While Draper’s comments and the analytics controversy played out, other notable voices continued to debate Bitcoin’s ceiling. Cointelegraph cited Blockstream CEO Adam Back, who expects Bitcoin could eventually reach between $500,000 and $1 million, arguing that such milestones may be closer than many assume.
Institutional and critical perspectives also remained in the conversation. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has previously stated that Bitcoin could climb as high as $700,000 if institutional adoption increases significantly. On the other side, Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has argued that the asset lacks intrinsic value and could ultimately fall to zero.
Meanwhile, retail sentiment instruments reflected more grounded expectations in the near term. Polymarket’s “What price will Bitcoin hit in 2026?” prediction market showed traders pricing the most likely range around $65,000 to $70,000, with bets clustering near $68,000. These market-implied outcomes offer a different lens than celebrity targets: rather than a single endgame number, the odds reflect how participants weigh scenarios for a specific calendar period.
Going forward, readers should watch for two things: whether any follow-up analysis clarifies the attribution confidence around the implicated wallet, and how Draper’s reiterated $250,000 timeline evolves as Bitcoin’s price discovery continues. In cases like this, the on-chain story may change quickly as new traceability and ownership evidence emerges—even when the underlying question remains the same: who controls the keys?
This article was originally published as Tim Draper Responds to Coinbase Transfer Claim, Denies BTC Move on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
38
Article
Shiba Inu Falls 95% Off All-Time High: Will There Be Another DownturnOnce among the top performers of the 2021 bull run, Shiba Inu (SHIB) continues to face difficulties after shedding over 95% of its all-time high price. The meme currency, which delivered enormous profits for its early investors, has been trading against a backdrop of strong selling pressure for the past few years due to changed market conditions.
While there has been some positive momentum for SHIB in 2024, hopelessness set back again amid increased economic uncertainties. Now, it is unclear whether SHIB is on the verge of hitting rock bottom or another fall can be anticipated. Despite having faith in the project’s future, there are a number of economic and market reasons that are restricting its potential to recover further.
Economic Situation Further Adds to Pressure on Meme Coins
Shiba Inu was able to start off 2024 well, reaching almost $0.00003 by December as the community expected a new bull run. But it did not last long.
As economic conditions worsened in late 2025 and early 2026 due to inflation, tensions, and slow economic growth, investors became less interested in taking risks. As a result, most of them withdrew money from meme coins.
SHIB fell towards the level of $0.000004, which was one of its lowest values in recent years and canceled out all the gains made by the previous rally. The overall crypto market was also affected as the situation with monetary policy worldwide became unclear.
Policy at the Federal Reserve Remains a Major Threat
Macroeconomic factors will continue to influence the forecast of SHIB’s price.
High inflation has been reported in the country, resulting in the Federal Reserve maintaining its tight monetary policy stance. Although interest rates have not seen changes in the latest meetings of policymakers, many participants in the market see interest rates staying high if inflation persists.
Interest rate hikes usually lead to lower liquidity levels in the financial market as investors tend to shift towards safe investments like government securities and cash. Cryptocurrencies become less popular amid higher interest rates due to their speculative nature. Since meme tokens are the most volatile cryptocurrencies on the market, price fluctuations will be higher if market sentiment declines.
High Supply of Tokens Hinders Price Increases
The next major hurdle that Shiba Inu faces is the huge supply of tokens.
At present, there are around 589 trillion tokens of SHIB in circulation. High token supply makes any significant price appreciation difficult compared to other assets with low token supply.
Even though there are increases in buying activity, it needs heavy demand to accommodate the huge amount of tokens that exist in the market. Despite temporary surges in demand, rallies have been challenging due to the high token supply. Community-initiated token burns keep reducing the supply; however, many experts think the rate is too slow to make any significant difference.
Is There Hope for Shiba Inu to Recover
Even with the current bearish trend, there are various elements that may favor the coin in the long run. Economic growth, lower levels of inflation, and a friendlier monetary policy from the Fed could revive demand for riskier assets. A bullish market for cryptocurrencies would also favor the success of meme coins like Shiba Inu.
One of the major strengths of the project is its massive and highly active community. The token continues to enjoy one of the largest communities in the cryptocurrency space, while development of the ecosystem will further bolster the confidence of investors. Nonetheless, there are numerous people who still hold big unrealized losses after buying the token close to its previous all-time high prices. In the event of a price recovery, some of these investors could dump their tokens during rallies.
This article was originally published as Shiba Inu Falls 95% Off All-Time High: Will There Be Another Downturn on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Shiba Inu Falls 95% Off All-Time High: Will There Be Another Downturn
Once among the top performers of the 2021 bull run, Shiba Inu (SHIB) continues to face difficulties after shedding over 95% of its all-time high price. The meme currency, which delivered enormous profits for its early investors, has been trading against a backdrop of strong selling pressure for the past few years due to changed market conditions.
While there has been some positive momentum for SHIB in 2024, hopelessness set back again amid increased economic uncertainties. Now, it is unclear whether SHIB is on the verge of hitting rock bottom or another fall can be anticipated. Despite having faith in the project’s future, there are a number of economic and market reasons that are restricting its potential to recover further.
Economic Situation Further Adds to Pressure on Meme Coins
Shiba Inu was able to start off 2024 well, reaching almost $0.00003 by December as the community expected a new bull run. But it did not last long.
As economic conditions worsened in late 2025 and early 2026 due to inflation, tensions, and slow economic growth, investors became less interested in taking risks. As a result, most of them withdrew money from meme coins.
SHIB fell towards the level of $0.000004, which was one of its lowest values in recent years and canceled out all the gains made by the previous rally. The overall crypto market was also affected as the situation with monetary policy worldwide became unclear.
Policy at the Federal Reserve Remains a Major Threat
Macroeconomic factors will continue to influence the forecast of SHIB’s price.
High inflation has been reported in the country, resulting in the Federal Reserve maintaining its tight monetary policy stance. Although interest rates have not seen changes in the latest meetings of policymakers, many participants in the market see interest rates staying high if inflation persists.
Interest rate hikes usually lead to lower liquidity levels in the financial market as investors tend to shift towards safe investments like government securities and cash. Cryptocurrencies become less popular amid higher interest rates due to their speculative nature. Since meme tokens are the most volatile cryptocurrencies on the market, price fluctuations will be higher if market sentiment declines.
High Supply of Tokens Hinders Price Increases
The next major hurdle that Shiba Inu faces is the huge supply of tokens.
At present, there are around 589 trillion tokens of SHIB in circulation. High token supply makes any significant price appreciation difficult compared to other assets with low token supply.
Even though there are increases in buying activity, it needs heavy demand to accommodate the huge amount of tokens that exist in the market. Despite temporary surges in demand, rallies have been challenging due to the high token supply. Community-initiated token burns keep reducing the supply; however, many experts think the rate is too slow to make any significant difference.
Is There Hope for Shiba Inu to Recover
Even with the current bearish trend, there are various elements that may favor the coin in the long run. Economic growth, lower levels of inflation, and a friendlier monetary policy from the Fed could revive demand for riskier assets. A bullish market for cryptocurrencies would also favor the success of meme coins like Shiba Inu.
One of the major strengths of the project is its massive and highly active community. The token continues to enjoy one of the largest communities in the cryptocurrency space, while development of the ecosystem will further bolster the confidence of investors. Nonetheless, there are numerous people who still hold big unrealized losses after buying the token close to its previous all-time high prices. In the event of a price recovery, some of these investors could dump their tokens during rallies.
This article was originally published as Shiba Inu Falls 95% Off All-Time High: Will There Be Another Downturn on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
While there has been some positive momentum for SHIB in 2024, hopelessness set back again amid increased economic uncertainties. Now, it is unclear whether SHIB is on the verge of hitting rock bottom or another fall can be anticipated. Despite having faith in the project’s future, there are a number of economic and market reasons that are restricting its potential to recover further.
Economic Situation Further Adds to Pressure on Meme Coins
Shiba Inu was able to start off 2024 well, reaching almost $0.00003 by December as the community expected a new bull run. But it did not last long.
As economic conditions worsened in late 2025 and early 2026 due to inflation, tensions, and slow economic growth, investors became less interested in taking risks. As a result, most of them withdrew money from meme coins.
SHIB fell towards the level of $0.000004, which was one of its lowest values in recent years and canceled out all the gains made by the previous rally. The overall crypto market was also affected as the situation with monetary policy worldwide became unclear.
Policy at the Federal Reserve Remains a Major Threat
Macroeconomic factors will continue to influence the forecast of SHIB’s price.
High inflation has been reported in the country, resulting in the Federal Reserve maintaining its tight monetary policy stance. Although interest rates have not seen changes in the latest meetings of policymakers, many participants in the market see interest rates staying high if inflation persists.
Interest rate hikes usually lead to lower liquidity levels in the financial market as investors tend to shift towards safe investments like government securities and cash. Cryptocurrencies become less popular amid higher interest rates due to their speculative nature. Since meme tokens are the most volatile cryptocurrencies on the market, price fluctuations will be higher if market sentiment declines.
High Supply of Tokens Hinders Price Increases
The next major hurdle that Shiba Inu faces is the huge supply of tokens.
At present, there are around 589 trillion tokens of SHIB in circulation. High token supply makes any significant price appreciation difficult compared to other assets with low token supply.
Even though there are increases in buying activity, it needs heavy demand to accommodate the huge amount of tokens that exist in the market. Despite temporary surges in demand, rallies have been challenging due to the high token supply. Community-initiated token burns keep reducing the supply; however, many experts think the rate is too slow to make any significant difference.
Is There Hope for Shiba Inu to Recover
Even with the current bearish trend, there are various elements that may favor the coin in the long run. Economic growth, lower levels of inflation, and a friendlier monetary policy from the Fed could revive demand for riskier assets. A bullish market for cryptocurrencies would also favor the success of meme coins like Shiba Inu.
One of the major strengths of the project is its massive and highly active community. The token continues to enjoy one of the largest communities in the cryptocurrency space, while development of the ecosystem will further bolster the confidence of investors. Nonetheless, there are numerous people who still hold big unrealized losses after buying the token close to its previous all-time high prices. In the event of a price recovery, some of these investors could dump their tokens during rallies.
This article was originally published as Shiba Inu Falls 95% Off All-Time High: Will There Be Another Downturn on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
190
Article
Tim Draper Denies Bitcoin Transfer, Repeats $250K Price CallTim Draper, a billionaire venture investor and long-standing Bitcoin advocate, has denied moving any Bitcoin after blockchain analytics reports linked a wallet “possibly” associated with him to a transfer of 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime.
Speaking to Cointelegraph on Friday, Draper said he “Haven’t touched my BTC” and reaffirmed his $250,000 Bitcoin price expectation within one year. The exchange of claims underscores how quickly on-chain analytics are shaping public narratives around large transfers—and how difficult it can be to verify wallet ownership independently.
Key takeaways
Lookonchain said a wallet “possibly linked” to Tim Draper moved 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime, citing Arkham address labeling.
Draper directly denied any involvement, telling Cointelegraph he has not “touched” his BTC.
Arkham’s attribution is tentative (“Tim Draper?”) and does not publicly detail the basis for linking the wallet to Draper.
Draper continues to project Bitcoin at $250,000 within a year, a target he has repeatedly stated for years despite earlier misses.
The episode highlights the growing influence—and limitations—of blockchain analytics in linking real-world identities to on-chain activity.
Analytics ties a large transfer to “Tim Draper?”
The latest controversy began after blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain reported Thursday that a wallet it described as “possibly linked” to Tim Draper transferred 1,000 Bitcoin to Coinbase Prime.
Lookonchain’s report cited Arkham labeling and pointed to the transaction details through Arkham’s explorer. In the same breath, it also emphasized the attribution’s uncertainty—something that matters to investors because wallet-to-identity mapping is often probabilistic rather than definitive.
Arkham labels the relevant wallet as “Tim Draper?”, but the platform does not publicly explain the methodology or evidence behind the classification in the material provided here. Cointelegraph said it reached out to Arkham for clarification on its approach and whether other Draper-linked wallets exist; it had not received a response by publication.
For market participants, the practical takeaway is straightforward: on-chain movement alone does not establish ownership. Even when analytics teams infer connections using clustering heuristics, exchange interaction patterns, or historical ties, those links may remain contestable until verified through additional evidence.
What the transaction history suggests—and what it doesn’t
The case centers on a wallet’s interaction with Coinbase Prime over the past year, including a transfer of 1,000 BTC from Coinbase Prime on July 9, 2025. Arkham’s explorer indicates that this activity occurred when Bitcoin was trading around $115,880 per coin at the time, based on CoinGecko’s historical price chart.
While such exchange-linked movements are commonly interpreted as liquidity or operational behavior, they still do not confirm that the wallet belongs to a specific person. Coinbase Prime is widely used by institutions and high-net-worth entities, and large transfers can reflect a range of custody or trading workflows.
That distinction is crucial. Analytics may be able to show a pattern—such as repeated Coinbase Prime interactions—but proving that pattern belongs to a particular public figure usually requires more than address labeling.
Draper’s denial and his recurring $250,000 target
Draper’s response directly addresses the allegation: “Haven’t touched my BTC,” he told Cointelegraph. In the same statement, he reiterated that he still expects Bitcoin to reach $250,000 within one year.
Supporters of Draper’s long-range thesis may view the denial as a reminder that identity attributions are often uncertain. Critics, meanwhile, may argue that repeated high-profile predictions without timing accuracy weaken the credibility of specific milestones.
Either way, the $250,000 target is not new. The article notes Draper has held the same price target since at least 2018, initially expecting Bitcoin to reach that level by late 2022 or early 2023. According to CoinGecko, Bitcoin’s all-time high to date has been $126,080 on Oct. 6, 2025, and at the time of publication Bitcoin was trading around $62,530.
On the wider market side, other prominent figures continue to frame Bitcoin’s long-term potential differently. Blockstream CEO Adam Back has suggested Bitcoin could eventually reach a much broader range—from $500,000 to $1 million—arguing the timeline may be closer than many expect. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has also pointed to a scenario where Bitcoin rises significantly if institutional adoption accelerates, saying it could reach $700,000. Meanwhile, Peter Schiff has consistently criticized Bitcoin’s value proposition, arguing it could fall to zero.
How the market is pricing outcomes around 2026
Prediction markets offer a different lens on expectations. Polymarket’s “What price will Bitcoin hit in 2026?” event shows traders clustering the most likely outcomes between roughly $65,000 and $70,000, with bets concentrated near $68,000.
This distribution matters because it reflects what participants are willing to stake on in a near-term window, rather than long-horizon ideology. Draper’s $250,000-on-a-one-year view sits far outside that clustering—and that gap is likely to keep fueling debate around how different parts of the ecosystem frame risk, adoption, and timing.
Still, prediction markets can only tell you what the crowd prices today; they cannot explain why. When on-chain analytics stories and high-profile price calls collide, the resulting attention can blur signal and noise—especially when identity links remain uncertain.
Going forward, the key question is whether analytics providers can strengthen their wallet attribution with additional methodology transparency or corroborating evidence. Until then, readers should treat identity labels as leads—not proof—and watch for how exchanges, analytics platforms, and public figures respond when large transfers involving labeled wallets become public.
This article was originally published as Tim Draper Denies Bitcoin Transfer, Repeats $250K Price Call on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Tim Draper Denies Bitcoin Transfer, Repeats $250K Price Call
Tim Draper, a billionaire venture investor and long-standing Bitcoin advocate, has denied moving any Bitcoin after blockchain analytics reports linked a wallet “possibly” associated with him to a transfer of 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime.
Speaking to Cointelegraph on Friday, Draper said he “Haven’t touched my BTC” and reaffirmed his $250,000 Bitcoin price expectation within one year. The exchange of claims underscores how quickly on-chain analytics are shaping public narratives around large transfers—and how difficult it can be to verify wallet ownership independently.
Key takeaways
Lookonchain said a wallet “possibly linked” to Tim Draper moved 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime, citing Arkham address labeling.
Draper directly denied any involvement, telling Cointelegraph he has not “touched” his BTC.
Arkham’s attribution is tentative (“Tim Draper?”) and does not publicly detail the basis for linking the wallet to Draper.
Draper continues to project Bitcoin at $250,000 within a year, a target he has repeatedly stated for years despite earlier misses.
The episode highlights the growing influence—and limitations—of blockchain analytics in linking real-world identities to on-chain activity.
Analytics ties a large transfer to “Tim Draper?”
The latest controversy began after blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain reported Thursday that a wallet it described as “possibly linked” to Tim Draper transferred 1,000 Bitcoin to Coinbase Prime.
Lookonchain’s report cited Arkham labeling and pointed to the transaction details through Arkham’s explorer. In the same breath, it also emphasized the attribution’s uncertainty—something that matters to investors because wallet-to-identity mapping is often probabilistic rather than definitive.
Arkham labels the relevant wallet as “Tim Draper?”, but the platform does not publicly explain the methodology or evidence behind the classification in the material provided here. Cointelegraph said it reached out to Arkham for clarification on its approach and whether other Draper-linked wallets exist; it had not received a response by publication.
For market participants, the practical takeaway is straightforward: on-chain movement alone does not establish ownership. Even when analytics teams infer connections using clustering heuristics, exchange interaction patterns, or historical ties, those links may remain contestable until verified through additional evidence.
What the transaction history suggests—and what it doesn’t
The case centers on a wallet’s interaction with Coinbase Prime over the past year, including a transfer of 1,000 BTC from Coinbase Prime on July 9, 2025. Arkham’s explorer indicates that this activity occurred when Bitcoin was trading around $115,880 per coin at the time, based on CoinGecko’s historical price chart.
While such exchange-linked movements are commonly interpreted as liquidity or operational behavior, they still do not confirm that the wallet belongs to a specific person. Coinbase Prime is widely used by institutions and high-net-worth entities, and large transfers can reflect a range of custody or trading workflows.
That distinction is crucial. Analytics may be able to show a pattern—such as repeated Coinbase Prime interactions—but proving that pattern belongs to a particular public figure usually requires more than address labeling.
Draper’s denial and his recurring $250,000 target
Draper’s response directly addresses the allegation: “Haven’t touched my BTC,” he told Cointelegraph. In the same statement, he reiterated that he still expects Bitcoin to reach $250,000 within one year.
Supporters of Draper’s long-range thesis may view the denial as a reminder that identity attributions are often uncertain. Critics, meanwhile, may argue that repeated high-profile predictions without timing accuracy weaken the credibility of specific milestones.
Either way, the $250,000 target is not new. The article notes Draper has held the same price target since at least 2018, initially expecting Bitcoin to reach that level by late 2022 or early 2023. According to CoinGecko, Bitcoin’s all-time high to date has been $126,080 on Oct. 6, 2025, and at the time of publication Bitcoin was trading around $62,530.
On the wider market side, other prominent figures continue to frame Bitcoin’s long-term potential differently. Blockstream CEO Adam Back has suggested Bitcoin could eventually reach a much broader range—from $500,000 to $1 million—arguing the timeline may be closer than many expect. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has also pointed to a scenario where Bitcoin rises significantly if institutional adoption accelerates, saying it could reach $700,000. Meanwhile, Peter Schiff has consistently criticized Bitcoin’s value proposition, arguing it could fall to zero.
How the market is pricing outcomes around 2026
Prediction markets offer a different lens on expectations. Polymarket’s “What price will Bitcoin hit in 2026?” event shows traders clustering the most likely outcomes between roughly $65,000 and $70,000, with bets concentrated near $68,000.
This distribution matters because it reflects what participants are willing to stake on in a near-term window, rather than long-horizon ideology. Draper’s $250,000-on-a-one-year view sits far outside that clustering—and that gap is likely to keep fueling debate around how different parts of the ecosystem frame risk, adoption, and timing.
Still, prediction markets can only tell you what the crowd prices today; they cannot explain why. When on-chain analytics stories and high-profile price calls collide, the resulting attention can blur signal and noise—especially when identity links remain uncertain.
Going forward, the key question is whether analytics providers can strengthen their wallet attribution with additional methodology transparency or corroborating evidence. Until then, readers should treat identity labels as leads—not proof—and watch for how exchanges, analytics platforms, and public figures respond when large transfers involving labeled wallets become public.
This article was originally published as Tim Draper Denies Bitcoin Transfer, Repeats $250K Price Call on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Speaking to Cointelegraph on Friday, Draper said he “Haven’t touched my BTC” and reaffirmed his $250,000 Bitcoin price expectation within one year. The exchange of claims underscores how quickly on-chain analytics are shaping public narratives around large transfers—and how difficult it can be to verify wallet ownership independently.
Key takeaways
Lookonchain said a wallet “possibly linked” to Tim Draper moved 1,000 BTC to Coinbase Prime, citing Arkham address labeling.
Draper directly denied any involvement, telling Cointelegraph he has not “touched” his BTC.
Arkham’s attribution is tentative (“Tim Draper?”) and does not publicly detail the basis for linking the wallet to Draper.
Draper continues to project Bitcoin at $250,000 within a year, a target he has repeatedly stated for years despite earlier misses.
The episode highlights the growing influence—and limitations—of blockchain analytics in linking real-world identities to on-chain activity.
Analytics ties a large transfer to “Tim Draper?”
The latest controversy began after blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain reported Thursday that a wallet it described as “possibly linked” to Tim Draper transferred 1,000 Bitcoin to Coinbase Prime.
Lookonchain’s report cited Arkham labeling and pointed to the transaction details through Arkham’s explorer. In the same breath, it also emphasized the attribution’s uncertainty—something that matters to investors because wallet-to-identity mapping is often probabilistic rather than definitive.
Arkham labels the relevant wallet as “Tim Draper?”, but the platform does not publicly explain the methodology or evidence behind the classification in the material provided here. Cointelegraph said it reached out to Arkham for clarification on its approach and whether other Draper-linked wallets exist; it had not received a response by publication.
For market participants, the practical takeaway is straightforward: on-chain movement alone does not establish ownership. Even when analytics teams infer connections using clustering heuristics, exchange interaction patterns, or historical ties, those links may remain contestable until verified through additional evidence.
What the transaction history suggests—and what it doesn’t
The case centers on a wallet’s interaction with Coinbase Prime over the past year, including a transfer of 1,000 BTC from Coinbase Prime on July 9, 2025. Arkham’s explorer indicates that this activity occurred when Bitcoin was trading around $115,880 per coin at the time, based on CoinGecko’s historical price chart.
While such exchange-linked movements are commonly interpreted as liquidity or operational behavior, they still do not confirm that the wallet belongs to a specific person. Coinbase Prime is widely used by institutions and high-net-worth entities, and large transfers can reflect a range of custody or trading workflows.
That distinction is crucial. Analytics may be able to show a pattern—such as repeated Coinbase Prime interactions—but proving that pattern belongs to a particular public figure usually requires more than address labeling.
Draper’s denial and his recurring $250,000 target
Draper’s response directly addresses the allegation: “Haven’t touched my BTC,” he told Cointelegraph. In the same statement, he reiterated that he still expects Bitcoin to reach $250,000 within one year.
Supporters of Draper’s long-range thesis may view the denial as a reminder that identity attributions are often uncertain. Critics, meanwhile, may argue that repeated high-profile predictions without timing accuracy weaken the credibility of specific milestones.
Either way, the $250,000 target is not new. The article notes Draper has held the same price target since at least 2018, initially expecting Bitcoin to reach that level by late 2022 or early 2023. According to CoinGecko, Bitcoin’s all-time high to date has been $126,080 on Oct. 6, 2025, and at the time of publication Bitcoin was trading around $62,530.
On the wider market side, other prominent figures continue to frame Bitcoin’s long-term potential differently. Blockstream CEO Adam Back has suggested Bitcoin could eventually reach a much broader range—from $500,000 to $1 million—arguing the timeline may be closer than many expect. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has also pointed to a scenario where Bitcoin rises significantly if institutional adoption accelerates, saying it could reach $700,000. Meanwhile, Peter Schiff has consistently criticized Bitcoin’s value proposition, arguing it could fall to zero.
How the market is pricing outcomes around 2026
Prediction markets offer a different lens on expectations. Polymarket’s “What price will Bitcoin hit in 2026?” event shows traders clustering the most likely outcomes between roughly $65,000 and $70,000, with bets concentrated near $68,000.
This distribution matters because it reflects what participants are willing to stake on in a near-term window, rather than long-horizon ideology. Draper’s $250,000-on-a-one-year view sits far outside that clustering—and that gap is likely to keep fueling debate around how different parts of the ecosystem frame risk, adoption, and timing.
Still, prediction markets can only tell you what the crowd prices today; they cannot explain why. When on-chain analytics stories and high-profile price calls collide, the resulting attention can blur signal and noise—especially when identity links remain uncertain.
Going forward, the key question is whether analytics providers can strengthen their wallet attribution with additional methodology transparency or corroborating evidence. Until then, readers should treat identity labels as leads—not proof—and watch for how exchanges, analytics platforms, and public figures respond when large transfers involving labeled wallets become public.
This article was originally published as Tim Draper Denies Bitcoin Transfer, Repeats $250K Price Call on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
18
Article
5 Japanese Crypto Kols YouTube Channels to FollowIf you are trying to learn about crypto in Japanese, YouTube is the best place to do it. Japan has one of the most active crypto communities in Asia, and most people here turn to YouTubers they trust for research, market analysis, and clear explanations far more than they turn to ads or news headlines. It helps that paid crypto ads are heavily restricted across Google and Meta in Japan, which has pushed independent creators to the center of how people find projects and figure out the market.
The tricky part is knowing who is actually worth your time. Crypto YouTube is crowded, and the quality runs the full range from genuinely useful to pure hype. So to save you the digging, here are five of the most-watched Japanese crypto channels in 2026, what each one is about, how they differ, and who each is right for, whether you are opening your first exchange account or fine-tuning a strategy you already have
The five Japanese crypto YouTube channels worth following in 2026 are Coin Exploration Club, CoinSensei JP, Learn Crypto Together, SatoshiLab Japan, and Moshin / ビットコイン. Here is what you get from each.
1. Coin Exploration Club
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Coin Exploration Club
Coin Exploration Club is one of the biggest and most beginner-friendly Japanese crypto channels around, and a great place to start if you are new. It covers weekly crypto news, introductions to trending tokens and projects, airdrop info, and simple tutorials on the practical stuff like signing up for an exchange and setting up a wallet.
The big draw is how approachable it is. The content is made for people who are curious about crypto but do not have the vocabulary for it yet, so things are explained from the ground up instead of assuming you already know the lingo. And because it posts weekly, you get a steady stream of updates without feeling buried, which is exactly what most people need in their first few months.
Focus: Weekly news, token and project introductions, airdrop guides, beginner tutorials Best for: Beginners who want regular news and easy, practical how-tos
2. CoinSensei JP
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: CoinSensei JP
CoinSensei JP means “Coin Teacher Japan,” and the name fits both the style and the schedule. It posts almost every day, which very few Japanese crypto channels manage to keep up, and covers Bitcoin, Ethereum, altcoin analysis, airdrop updates, and Web3 education in clear, easy Japanese.
That consistency is what makes it click. When a channel shows up in your feed nearly every day, it becomes part of your routine, and that daily drip is one of the best ways to build your understanding little by little instead of all at once. The teacher angle suits its beginner-friendly, low-jargon approach, so it is easy to keep up with even while you are still finding your feet.
Focus: Bitcoin and Ethereum analysis, altcoin breakdowns, airdrop info, Web3 education Best for: Beginners who want a daily habit and steady, easy-to-follow commentary
3. Learn Crypto Together (緒に学ぶクリプト)
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Learn Crypto Together
Learn Crypto Together, whose Japanese name 緒に学ぶクリプト means exactly that, is the smallest and newest channel on this list, and that is part of the charm. Where the bigger channels feel like polished broadcasts, this one feels more like learning alongside a friend, which some people connect with more easily.
It focuses on market analysis across the three coins most Japanese investors actually hold: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. As a viewer you get a closer, less crowded relationship with a creator who is earlier in their own journey, and that can make the whole thing feel more relatable than a slick channel with a huge audience.
Since it is newer and smaller, it is worth keeping the usual common sense in mind. Double-check claims yourself, and be careful with any links that try to pull you into private messaging groups until you have a good reason to trust the source.
Focus: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana market analysis in a casual, learn-together style Best for: Viewers who like following a smaller creator and want regular updates on the major coins
4. SatoshiLab Japan
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: SatoshiLab Japan
SatoshiLab Japan is one of the most complete Japanese crypto channels in 2026, and probably the best one if you want to learn how to actually think about crypto rather than just keep up with the headlines. The core is Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, and from there it branches into crypto news, market analysis, exchange reviews, hardware wallets, airdrop guides, DeFi, and wider Web3 topics, all in clear, well-organized Japanese.
What sets it apart is that it leans on research and patience instead of hype. It is built to work for everyone from total beginners to experienced traders, and the goal is to help you genuinely understand what you are looking at rather than chase every price move. That tends to leave you a lot more confident and a lot better informed.
It also keeps a clear disclaimer habit, openly reminding viewers to do their own research before making any decision. In a market that gets more scrutiny every year, that kind of honesty is a good sign you are watching someone who respects your judgment instead of trying to rush it.
Focus: BTC, ETH, and SOL analysis, crypto news, exchange and hardware wallet reviews, DeFi and Web3 education Best for: Beginners who want to build good habits, and intermediate viewers who want real depth
5. Moshin / ビットコイン
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Moshin ビットコイン
Moshin / ビットコイン is the most one-of-a-kind creator on this list. Most crypto channels open with charts and numbers, but Moshin opens with his own story, and that honesty has earned him one of the most loyal audiences in Japanese crypto YouTube. The channel is verified and has one of the biggest video libraries of any Japanese crypto creator, so there is plenty to dig through.
His story is a big reason people stick around. By his own account, he went from hitting financial rock bottom, to passing 100 million yen in unrealized gains in 2021, to losing it all by not taking profit, then rebuilding his approach in 2022 and becoming a 億り人 (someone with over 100 million yen in assets) again in 2024. Being that open about the failures as well as the wins is rare in this space, where most creators only show the good parts, and it is a big part of why people trust him on a personal level.
His motto, roughly “serious, sincere, humble,” runs through the whole channel. He talks about Bitcoin, the global economy, and Web3 in plain, down-to-earth language for people who are sick of jargon-heavy explainers. The thumbnails and titles are dramatic, which is just how the format works, so judge him on the analysis itself rather than the packaging.
Focus: Daily Bitcoin analysis, global economy commentary, Web3 updates, personal investing experience Best for: Viewers who want a daily market read and care more about authenticity than polish
What you will learn: Daily Bitcoin analysis, global economy and Web3 commentary, real personal investing experience Best for: Viewers who want a daily market pulse and value authenticity over polish
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Japanese crypto YouTube channel is best for beginners? CoinSensei JP and Coin Exploration Club both serve beginners well. CoinSensei JP posts frequently with accessible market commentary, while Coin Exploration Club focuses on project introductions and step-by-step tutorials. SatoshiLab Japan is also beginner-friendly and teaches better research habits.
Do I need to speak Japanese to follow these channels? These channels are in Japanese, so they are ideal for Japanese speakers and learners. If you do not speak Japanese, YouTube’s auto-translated captions can help, though some nuance in market analysis will be lost.
Which channel is best for daily Bitcoin analysis? Moshin / ビットコイン posts the most frequently, with daily Bitcoin and macro commentary from an active trader. It is the strongest pick if you want a daily market pulse.
Is crypto YouTube content financial advice? No. These channels are educational and informational. None of them, and this article does not, give personalized financial advice. Crypto is volatile and risky, so always do your own research before investing.
How do I choose the right channel for me? Match the channel to where you are. New to crypto? Start with Coin Exploration Club or CoinSensei JP. Want to learn how to research? SatoshiLab Japan. Want daily market reads with a personal voice? Moshin. Prefer a smaller, community-style channel? Learn Crypto Together.
Final Thoughts
Japanese crypto YouTube has grown well past the price-hype days, and these five channels together cover the whole learning curve. Coin Exploration Club and CoinSensei JP are perfect for getting started, SatoshiLab Japan teaches you how to research, Moshin gives you the daily market read, and Learn Crypto Together lets you grow alongside a smaller creator.
And if you are on the other side of the screen, looking to promote your own crypto project in Japan or work with Japanese influencers like the ones above, that is exactly what we do at Satoshi Consulting. We help projects break into the Japanese market the right way, with proper localization, the right creator partnerships, and campaigns built for how Japanese investors actually research and buy. Get in touch to talk through your project.
This article was originally published as 5 Japanese Crypto Kols YouTube Channels to Follow on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
5 Japanese Crypto Kols YouTube Channels to Follow
If you are trying to learn about crypto in Japanese, YouTube is the best place to do it. Japan has one of the most active crypto communities in Asia, and most people here turn to YouTubers they trust for research, market analysis, and clear explanations far more than they turn to ads or news headlines. It helps that paid crypto ads are heavily restricted across Google and Meta in Japan, which has pushed independent creators to the center of how people find projects and figure out the market.
The tricky part is knowing who is actually worth your time. Crypto YouTube is crowded, and the quality runs the full range from genuinely useful to pure hype. So to save you the digging, here are five of the most-watched Japanese crypto channels in 2026, what each one is about, how they differ, and who each is right for, whether you are opening your first exchange account or fine-tuning a strategy you already have
The five Japanese crypto YouTube channels worth following in 2026 are Coin Exploration Club, CoinSensei JP, Learn Crypto Together, SatoshiLab Japan, and Moshin / ビットコイン. Here is what you get from each.
1. Coin Exploration Club
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Coin Exploration Club
Coin Exploration Club is one of the biggest and most beginner-friendly Japanese crypto channels around, and a great place to start if you are new. It covers weekly crypto news, introductions to trending tokens and projects, airdrop info, and simple tutorials on the practical stuff like signing up for an exchange and setting up a wallet.
The big draw is how approachable it is. The content is made for people who are curious about crypto but do not have the vocabulary for it yet, so things are explained from the ground up instead of assuming you already know the lingo. And because it posts weekly, you get a steady stream of updates without feeling buried, which is exactly what most people need in their first few months.
Focus: Weekly news, token and project introductions, airdrop guides, beginner tutorials Best for: Beginners who want regular news and easy, practical how-tos
2. CoinSensei JP
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: CoinSensei JP
CoinSensei JP means “Coin Teacher Japan,” and the name fits both the style and the schedule. It posts almost every day, which very few Japanese crypto channels manage to keep up, and covers Bitcoin, Ethereum, altcoin analysis, airdrop updates, and Web3 education in clear, easy Japanese.
That consistency is what makes it click. When a channel shows up in your feed nearly every day, it becomes part of your routine, and that daily drip is one of the best ways to build your understanding little by little instead of all at once. The teacher angle suits its beginner-friendly, low-jargon approach, so it is easy to keep up with even while you are still finding your feet.
Focus: Bitcoin and Ethereum analysis, altcoin breakdowns, airdrop info, Web3 education Best for: Beginners who want a daily habit and steady, easy-to-follow commentary
3. Learn Crypto Together (緒に学ぶクリプト)
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Learn Crypto Together
Learn Crypto Together, whose Japanese name 緒に学ぶクリプト means exactly that, is the smallest and newest channel on this list, and that is part of the charm. Where the bigger channels feel like polished broadcasts, this one feels more like learning alongside a friend, which some people connect with more easily.
It focuses on market analysis across the three coins most Japanese investors actually hold: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. As a viewer you get a closer, less crowded relationship with a creator who is earlier in their own journey, and that can make the whole thing feel more relatable than a slick channel with a huge audience.
Since it is newer and smaller, it is worth keeping the usual common sense in mind. Double-check claims yourself, and be careful with any links that try to pull you into private messaging groups until you have a good reason to trust the source.
Focus: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana market analysis in a casual, learn-together style Best for: Viewers who like following a smaller creator and want regular updates on the major coins
4. SatoshiLab Japan
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: SatoshiLab Japan
SatoshiLab Japan is one of the most complete Japanese crypto channels in 2026, and probably the best one if you want to learn how to actually think about crypto rather than just keep up with the headlines. The core is Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, and from there it branches into crypto news, market analysis, exchange reviews, hardware wallets, airdrop guides, DeFi, and wider Web3 topics, all in clear, well-organized Japanese.
What sets it apart is that it leans on research and patience instead of hype. It is built to work for everyone from total beginners to experienced traders, and the goal is to help you genuinely understand what you are looking at rather than chase every price move. That tends to leave you a lot more confident and a lot better informed.
It also keeps a clear disclaimer habit, openly reminding viewers to do their own research before making any decision. In a market that gets more scrutiny every year, that kind of honesty is a good sign you are watching someone who respects your judgment instead of trying to rush it.
Focus: BTC, ETH, and SOL analysis, crypto news, exchange and hardware wallet reviews, DeFi and Web3 education Best for: Beginners who want to build good habits, and intermediate viewers who want real depth
5. Moshin / ビットコイン
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Moshin ビットコイン
Moshin / ビットコイン is the most one-of-a-kind creator on this list. Most crypto channels open with charts and numbers, but Moshin opens with his own story, and that honesty has earned him one of the most loyal audiences in Japanese crypto YouTube. The channel is verified and has one of the biggest video libraries of any Japanese crypto creator, so there is plenty to dig through.
His story is a big reason people stick around. By his own account, he went from hitting financial rock bottom, to passing 100 million yen in unrealized gains in 2021, to losing it all by not taking profit, then rebuilding his approach in 2022 and becoming a 億り人 (someone with over 100 million yen in assets) again in 2024. Being that open about the failures as well as the wins is rare in this space, where most creators only show the good parts, and it is a big part of why people trust him on a personal level.
His motto, roughly “serious, sincere, humble,” runs through the whole channel. He talks about Bitcoin, the global economy, and Web3 in plain, down-to-earth language for people who are sick of jargon-heavy explainers. The thumbnails and titles are dramatic, which is just how the format works, so judge him on the analysis itself rather than the packaging.
Focus: Daily Bitcoin analysis, global economy commentary, Web3 updates, personal investing experience Best for: Viewers who want a daily market read and care more about authenticity than polish
What you will learn: Daily Bitcoin analysis, global economy and Web3 commentary, real personal investing experience Best for: Viewers who want a daily market pulse and value authenticity over polish
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Japanese crypto YouTube channel is best for beginners? CoinSensei JP and Coin Exploration Club both serve beginners well. CoinSensei JP posts frequently with accessible market commentary, while Coin Exploration Club focuses on project introductions and step-by-step tutorials. SatoshiLab Japan is also beginner-friendly and teaches better research habits.
Do I need to speak Japanese to follow these channels? These channels are in Japanese, so they are ideal for Japanese speakers and learners. If you do not speak Japanese, YouTube’s auto-translated captions can help, though some nuance in market analysis will be lost.
Which channel is best for daily Bitcoin analysis? Moshin / ビットコイン posts the most frequently, with daily Bitcoin and macro commentary from an active trader. It is the strongest pick if you want a daily market pulse.
Is crypto YouTube content financial advice? No. These channels are educational and informational. None of them, and this article does not, give personalized financial advice. Crypto is volatile and risky, so always do your own research before investing.
How do I choose the right channel for me? Match the channel to where you are. New to crypto? Start with Coin Exploration Club or CoinSensei JP. Want to learn how to research? SatoshiLab Japan. Want daily market reads with a personal voice? Moshin. Prefer a smaller, community-style channel? Learn Crypto Together.
Final Thoughts
Japanese crypto YouTube has grown well past the price-hype days, and these five channels together cover the whole learning curve. Coin Exploration Club and CoinSensei JP are perfect for getting started, SatoshiLab Japan teaches you how to research, Moshin gives you the daily market read, and Learn Crypto Together lets you grow alongside a smaller creator.
And if you are on the other side of the screen, looking to promote your own crypto project in Japan or work with Japanese influencers like the ones above, that is exactly what we do at Satoshi Consulting. We help projects break into the Japanese market the right way, with proper localization, the right creator partnerships, and campaigns built for how Japanese investors actually research and buy. Get in touch to talk through your project.
This article was originally published as 5 Japanese Crypto Kols YouTube Channels to Follow on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The tricky part is knowing who is actually worth your time. Crypto YouTube is crowded, and the quality runs the full range from genuinely useful to pure hype. So to save you the digging, here are five of the most-watched Japanese crypto channels in 2026, what each one is about, how they differ, and who each is right for, whether you are opening your first exchange account or fine-tuning a strategy you already have
The five Japanese crypto YouTube channels worth following in 2026 are Coin Exploration Club, CoinSensei JP, Learn Crypto Together, SatoshiLab Japan, and Moshin / ビットコイン. Here is what you get from each.
1. Coin Exploration Club
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Coin Exploration Club
Coin Exploration Club is one of the biggest and most beginner-friendly Japanese crypto channels around, and a great place to start if you are new. It covers weekly crypto news, introductions to trending tokens and projects, airdrop info, and simple tutorials on the practical stuff like signing up for an exchange and setting up a wallet.
The big draw is how approachable it is. The content is made for people who are curious about crypto but do not have the vocabulary for it yet, so things are explained from the ground up instead of assuming you already know the lingo. And because it posts weekly, you get a steady stream of updates without feeling buried, which is exactly what most people need in their first few months.
Focus: Weekly news, token and project introductions, airdrop guides, beginner tutorials Best for: Beginners who want regular news and easy, practical how-tos
2. CoinSensei JP
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: CoinSensei JP
CoinSensei JP means “Coin Teacher Japan,” and the name fits both the style and the schedule. It posts almost every day, which very few Japanese crypto channels manage to keep up, and covers Bitcoin, Ethereum, altcoin analysis, airdrop updates, and Web3 education in clear, easy Japanese.
That consistency is what makes it click. When a channel shows up in your feed nearly every day, it becomes part of your routine, and that daily drip is one of the best ways to build your understanding little by little instead of all at once. The teacher angle suits its beginner-friendly, low-jargon approach, so it is easy to keep up with even while you are still finding your feet.
Focus: Bitcoin and Ethereum analysis, altcoin breakdowns, airdrop info, Web3 education Best for: Beginners who want a daily habit and steady, easy-to-follow commentary
3. Learn Crypto Together (緒に学ぶクリプト)
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Learn Crypto Together
Learn Crypto Together, whose Japanese name 緒に学ぶクリプト means exactly that, is the smallest and newest channel on this list, and that is part of the charm. Where the bigger channels feel like polished broadcasts, this one feels more like learning alongside a friend, which some people connect with more easily.
It focuses on market analysis across the three coins most Japanese investors actually hold: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. As a viewer you get a closer, less crowded relationship with a creator who is earlier in their own journey, and that can make the whole thing feel more relatable than a slick channel with a huge audience.
Since it is newer and smaller, it is worth keeping the usual common sense in mind. Double-check claims yourself, and be careful with any links that try to pull you into private messaging groups until you have a good reason to trust the source.
Focus: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana market analysis in a casual, learn-together style Best for: Viewers who like following a smaller creator and want regular updates on the major coins
4. SatoshiLab Japan
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: SatoshiLab Japan
SatoshiLab Japan is one of the most complete Japanese crypto channels in 2026, and probably the best one if you want to learn how to actually think about crypto rather than just keep up with the headlines. The core is Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, and from there it branches into crypto news, market analysis, exchange reviews, hardware wallets, airdrop guides, DeFi, and wider Web3 topics, all in clear, well-organized Japanese.
What sets it apart is that it leans on research and patience instead of hype. It is built to work for everyone from total beginners to experienced traders, and the goal is to help you genuinely understand what you are looking at rather than chase every price move. That tends to leave you a lot more confident and a lot better informed.
It also keeps a clear disclaimer habit, openly reminding viewers to do their own research before making any decision. In a market that gets more scrutiny every year, that kind of honesty is a good sign you are watching someone who respects your judgment instead of trying to rush it.
Focus: BTC, ETH, and SOL analysis, crypto news, exchange and hardware wallet reviews, DeFi and Web3 education Best for: Beginners who want to build good habits, and intermediate viewers who want real depth
5. Moshin / ビットコイン
5 Japanese Crypto Kols Youtube Channels To Follow
Channel: Moshin ビットコイン
Moshin / ビットコイン is the most one-of-a-kind creator on this list. Most crypto channels open with charts and numbers, but Moshin opens with his own story, and that honesty has earned him one of the most loyal audiences in Japanese crypto YouTube. The channel is verified and has one of the biggest video libraries of any Japanese crypto creator, so there is plenty to dig through.
His story is a big reason people stick around. By his own account, he went from hitting financial rock bottom, to passing 100 million yen in unrealized gains in 2021, to losing it all by not taking profit, then rebuilding his approach in 2022 and becoming a 億り人 (someone with over 100 million yen in assets) again in 2024. Being that open about the failures as well as the wins is rare in this space, where most creators only show the good parts, and it is a big part of why people trust him on a personal level.
His motto, roughly “serious, sincere, humble,” runs through the whole channel. He talks about Bitcoin, the global economy, and Web3 in plain, down-to-earth language for people who are sick of jargon-heavy explainers. The thumbnails and titles are dramatic, which is just how the format works, so judge him on the analysis itself rather than the packaging.
Focus: Daily Bitcoin analysis, global economy commentary, Web3 updates, personal investing experience Best for: Viewers who want a daily market read and care more about authenticity than polish
What you will learn: Daily Bitcoin analysis, global economy and Web3 commentary, real personal investing experience Best for: Viewers who want a daily market pulse and value authenticity over polish
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Japanese crypto YouTube channel is best for beginners? CoinSensei JP and Coin Exploration Club both serve beginners well. CoinSensei JP posts frequently with accessible market commentary, while Coin Exploration Club focuses on project introductions and step-by-step tutorials. SatoshiLab Japan is also beginner-friendly and teaches better research habits.
Do I need to speak Japanese to follow these channels? These channels are in Japanese, so they are ideal for Japanese speakers and learners. If you do not speak Japanese, YouTube’s auto-translated captions can help, though some nuance in market analysis will be lost.
Which channel is best for daily Bitcoin analysis? Moshin / ビットコイン posts the most frequently, with daily Bitcoin and macro commentary from an active trader. It is the strongest pick if you want a daily market pulse.
Is crypto YouTube content financial advice? No. These channels are educational and informational. None of them, and this article does not, give personalized financial advice. Crypto is volatile and risky, so always do your own research before investing.
How do I choose the right channel for me? Match the channel to where you are. New to crypto? Start with Coin Exploration Club or CoinSensei JP. Want to learn how to research? SatoshiLab Japan. Want daily market reads with a personal voice? Moshin. Prefer a smaller, community-style channel? Learn Crypto Together.
Final Thoughts
Japanese crypto YouTube has grown well past the price-hype days, and these five channels together cover the whole learning curve. Coin Exploration Club and CoinSensei JP are perfect for getting started, SatoshiLab Japan teaches you how to research, Moshin gives you the daily market read, and Learn Crypto Together lets you grow alongside a smaller creator.
And if you are on the other side of the screen, looking to promote your own crypto project in Japan or work with Japanese influencers like the ones above, that is exactly what we do at Satoshi Consulting. We help projects break into the Japanese market the right way, with proper localization, the right creator partnerships, and campaigns built for how Japanese investors actually research and buy. Get in touch to talk through your project.
This article was originally published as 5 Japanese Crypto Kols YouTube Channels to Follow on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
238
Article
ESMA Finds Many Prediction Market Contracts Already Covered by EU RulesEuropean regulators are warning that many “prediction market” products can fall under existing rules for binary options—even when providers frame them as event contracts rather than financial wagers. In a public statement issued this Friday, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) reminded firms that regulatory classification depends primarily on contract design, not on marketing language.
Meanwhile, the legal fight over prediction markets is intensifying in the United States, where state gaming authorities and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) disagree over whether these offerings should be treated as gambling or as federally regulated derivatives. The parallel developments highlight how quickly prediction market platforms are colliding with established financial services and gaming frameworks.
Key takeaways
ESMA says event contracts can already be caught by binary options restrictions if they meet the definition of a financial instrument.
ESMA emphasizes that the assessment is based on contract characteristics—binary outcomes and fixed payouts are likely to trigger the rules.
Offering qualifying event contracts to professional or institutional clients may still require authorization under MiFID II, ESMA cautions.
In the US, a growing split between state regulators and the CFTC continues to drive litigation involving major prediction market platforms.
ESMA’s warning: marketing won’t change regulatory classification
ESMA’s statement clarifies that firms cannot bypass financial regulation by rebranding binary-like products as “event contracts.” The regulator pointed out that contracts meeting the definition of financial instruments are already prohibited from being marketed, distributed, or sold to retail investors under national measures implementing ESMA’s 2018 restrictions on binary options.
Importantly, ESMA says providers should not expect outcomes to hinge on how products are described to the public. Instead, regulators will look at the underlying terms and structure of the contract itself. ESMA noted that event contracts featuring binary outcomes and fixed payouts are particularly likely to qualify as financial instruments subject to the restrictions.
ESMA also underscored that the question of authorization does not disappear when retail customers are excluded. Even when a firm limits access to professional or institutional clients, ESMA says offering event contracts that qualify still requires authorization under the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).
According to ESMA, the reminder does not introduce new rules. The agency said it issued the warning after observing increased offerings of event contracts and noting the rapid growth of prediction markets. While ESMA’s intervention is framed as an enforcement clarification, its message is direct: where products resemble binary options in substance, the existing compliance and marketing limits from 2018 can be triggered.
ESMA’s public statement is available via the regulator’s website: ESMA35-243228190-8148 Public Statement on the application of the national product intervention measures on binary options to event contracts.
Why this matters for prediction market operators in Europe
For prediction market platforms operating in the EU, ESMA’s key practical implication is that product design and payoff mechanics are likely to be the deciding factors for compliance. Providers that market contracts as “event exposure” rather than as wagers may still face restrictions if contract terms align with binary option characteristics.
That matters because the boundary between “financial instrument” and “permitted market activity” can be narrow. ESMA’s framing suggests that firms should review how settlement works (binary resolution), how payouts are determined (fixed payouts), and how investor access is structured (retail versus professional/institutional). Where those elements resemble a binary outcome with pre-defined payoff mechanics, the products may fall under measures already implemented by EU member states.
While ESMA did not claim the rules are new, its intervention signals an enforcement posture: firms should expect regulators to treat nomenclature as secondary and to focus on contract substance. In practice, this can affect go-to-market strategy, client eligibility, and authorization planning under MiFID II.
US courts and regulators: states versus the CFTC
Across the Atlantic, prediction markets are caught in a different conflict—one tied to jurisdiction. The ongoing dispute pits state gaming regulators against the CFTC, with each side offering a distinct legal characterization of event contracts.
According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, by March authorities in 11 states had taken legal or regulatory action against platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket. Nevada was reported as the first state to temporarily block Kalshi’s operations, while Arizona brought criminal charges alleging Kalshi was running an illegal gambling business.
In April, the CFTC asserted what it described as “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. The agency argued that Congress entrusted it with sole authority to regulate commodity derivatives markets, including event contracts, and it said it had sued several states and filed court briefs supporting platforms such as Kalshi. The relevant announcement is posted on the CFTC website: CFTC.gov press release.
Litigation escalates, and pressure grows for federal clarification
As the federal-state standoff continues, the legal momentum has not gone quiet. On June 30, a Massachusetts judge reportedly allowed state authorities to file an amended complaint in an ongoing lawsuit accusing Kalshi’s sports-event contracts of constituting illegal gambling under state law. Earlier coverage also highlighted how the litigation expanded as regulators sought to push the case forward under state gambling statutes.
The dispute has also drawn calls for legislative intervention. Last month, the Indian Gaming Association and American Gaming Association—along with tribal and labor groups—urged lawmakers to amend the CLARITY Act. Their position, as described in Cointelegraph coverage, is that sports-related event contracts on prediction market platforms should be explicitly prohibited, arguing they fall outside the CFTC’s authority and should remain subject to state gambling laws. The push reflects a broader attempt to resolve the uncertainty created by competing interpretations of federal versus state oversight.
Some legal experts expect the outcome to depend on how courts ultimately reconcile the federal CFTC role with state gaming authority. Cointelegraph previously noted that the growing conflict could be decided by the US Supreme Court, underscoring that the issue may reach the highest level rather than being settled through routine regulatory filings.
What to watch next
In Europe, the most immediate signal is ESMA’s insistence that contract structure—not marketing labels—will determine whether event contracts are treated like binary options and whether MiFID II authorization is required. In the US, the next developments likely hinge on how courts handle jurisdiction and whether federal legislation steps in to reduce the split between state enforcement and the CFTC’s claimed authority.
This article was originally published as ESMA Finds Many Prediction Market Contracts Already Covered by EU Rules on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
ESMA Finds Many Prediction Market Contracts Already Covered by EU Rules
European regulators are warning that many “prediction market” products can fall under existing rules for binary options—even when providers frame them as event contracts rather than financial wagers. In a public statement issued this Friday, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) reminded firms that regulatory classification depends primarily on contract design, not on marketing language.
Meanwhile, the legal fight over prediction markets is intensifying in the United States, where state gaming authorities and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) disagree over whether these offerings should be treated as gambling or as federally regulated derivatives. The parallel developments highlight how quickly prediction market platforms are colliding with established financial services and gaming frameworks.
Key takeaways
ESMA says event contracts can already be caught by binary options restrictions if they meet the definition of a financial instrument.
ESMA emphasizes that the assessment is based on contract characteristics—binary outcomes and fixed payouts are likely to trigger the rules.
Offering qualifying event contracts to professional or institutional clients may still require authorization under MiFID II, ESMA cautions.
In the US, a growing split between state regulators and the CFTC continues to drive litigation involving major prediction market platforms.
ESMA’s warning: marketing won’t change regulatory classification
ESMA’s statement clarifies that firms cannot bypass financial regulation by rebranding binary-like products as “event contracts.” The regulator pointed out that contracts meeting the definition of financial instruments are already prohibited from being marketed, distributed, or sold to retail investors under national measures implementing ESMA’s 2018 restrictions on binary options.
Importantly, ESMA says providers should not expect outcomes to hinge on how products are described to the public. Instead, regulators will look at the underlying terms and structure of the contract itself. ESMA noted that event contracts featuring binary outcomes and fixed payouts are particularly likely to qualify as financial instruments subject to the restrictions.
ESMA also underscored that the question of authorization does not disappear when retail customers are excluded. Even when a firm limits access to professional or institutional clients, ESMA says offering event contracts that qualify still requires authorization under the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).
According to ESMA, the reminder does not introduce new rules. The agency said it issued the warning after observing increased offerings of event contracts and noting the rapid growth of prediction markets. While ESMA’s intervention is framed as an enforcement clarification, its message is direct: where products resemble binary options in substance, the existing compliance and marketing limits from 2018 can be triggered.
ESMA’s public statement is available via the regulator’s website: ESMA35-243228190-8148 Public Statement on the application of the national product intervention measures on binary options to event contracts.
Why this matters for prediction market operators in Europe
For prediction market platforms operating in the EU, ESMA’s key practical implication is that product design and payoff mechanics are likely to be the deciding factors for compliance. Providers that market contracts as “event exposure” rather than as wagers may still face restrictions if contract terms align with binary option characteristics.
That matters because the boundary between “financial instrument” and “permitted market activity” can be narrow. ESMA’s framing suggests that firms should review how settlement works (binary resolution), how payouts are determined (fixed payouts), and how investor access is structured (retail versus professional/institutional). Where those elements resemble a binary outcome with pre-defined payoff mechanics, the products may fall under measures already implemented by EU member states.
While ESMA did not claim the rules are new, its intervention signals an enforcement posture: firms should expect regulators to treat nomenclature as secondary and to focus on contract substance. In practice, this can affect go-to-market strategy, client eligibility, and authorization planning under MiFID II.
US courts and regulators: states versus the CFTC
Across the Atlantic, prediction markets are caught in a different conflict—one tied to jurisdiction. The ongoing dispute pits state gaming regulators against the CFTC, with each side offering a distinct legal characterization of event contracts.
According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, by March authorities in 11 states had taken legal or regulatory action against platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket. Nevada was reported as the first state to temporarily block Kalshi’s operations, while Arizona brought criminal charges alleging Kalshi was running an illegal gambling business.
In April, the CFTC asserted what it described as “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. The agency argued that Congress entrusted it with sole authority to regulate commodity derivatives markets, including event contracts, and it said it had sued several states and filed court briefs supporting platforms such as Kalshi. The relevant announcement is posted on the CFTC website: CFTC.gov press release.
Litigation escalates, and pressure grows for federal clarification
As the federal-state standoff continues, the legal momentum has not gone quiet. On June 30, a Massachusetts judge reportedly allowed state authorities to file an amended complaint in an ongoing lawsuit accusing Kalshi’s sports-event contracts of constituting illegal gambling under state law. Earlier coverage also highlighted how the litigation expanded as regulators sought to push the case forward under state gambling statutes.
The dispute has also drawn calls for legislative intervention. Last month, the Indian Gaming Association and American Gaming Association—along with tribal and labor groups—urged lawmakers to amend the CLARITY Act. Their position, as described in Cointelegraph coverage, is that sports-related event contracts on prediction market platforms should be explicitly prohibited, arguing they fall outside the CFTC’s authority and should remain subject to state gambling laws. The push reflects a broader attempt to resolve the uncertainty created by competing interpretations of federal versus state oversight.
Some legal experts expect the outcome to depend on how courts ultimately reconcile the federal CFTC role with state gaming authority. Cointelegraph previously noted that the growing conflict could be decided by the US Supreme Court, underscoring that the issue may reach the highest level rather than being settled through routine regulatory filings.
What to watch next
In Europe, the most immediate signal is ESMA’s insistence that contract structure—not marketing labels—will determine whether event contracts are treated like binary options and whether MiFID II authorization is required. In the US, the next developments likely hinge on how courts handle jurisdiction and whether federal legislation steps in to reduce the split between state enforcement and the CFTC’s claimed authority.
This article was originally published as ESMA Finds Many Prediction Market Contracts Already Covered by EU Rules on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Meanwhile, the legal fight over prediction markets is intensifying in the United States, where state gaming authorities and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) disagree over whether these offerings should be treated as gambling or as federally regulated derivatives. The parallel developments highlight how quickly prediction market platforms are colliding with established financial services and gaming frameworks.
Key takeaways
ESMA says event contracts can already be caught by binary options restrictions if they meet the definition of a financial instrument.
ESMA emphasizes that the assessment is based on contract characteristics—binary outcomes and fixed payouts are likely to trigger the rules.
Offering qualifying event contracts to professional or institutional clients may still require authorization under MiFID II, ESMA cautions.
In the US, a growing split between state regulators and the CFTC continues to drive litigation involving major prediction market platforms.
ESMA’s warning: marketing won’t change regulatory classification
ESMA’s statement clarifies that firms cannot bypass financial regulation by rebranding binary-like products as “event contracts.” The regulator pointed out that contracts meeting the definition of financial instruments are already prohibited from being marketed, distributed, or sold to retail investors under national measures implementing ESMA’s 2018 restrictions on binary options.
Importantly, ESMA says providers should not expect outcomes to hinge on how products are described to the public. Instead, regulators will look at the underlying terms and structure of the contract itself. ESMA noted that event contracts featuring binary outcomes and fixed payouts are particularly likely to qualify as financial instruments subject to the restrictions.
ESMA also underscored that the question of authorization does not disappear when retail customers are excluded. Even when a firm limits access to professional or institutional clients, ESMA says offering event contracts that qualify still requires authorization under the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).
According to ESMA, the reminder does not introduce new rules. The agency said it issued the warning after observing increased offerings of event contracts and noting the rapid growth of prediction markets. While ESMA’s intervention is framed as an enforcement clarification, its message is direct: where products resemble binary options in substance, the existing compliance and marketing limits from 2018 can be triggered.
ESMA’s public statement is available via the regulator’s website: ESMA35-243228190-8148 Public Statement on the application of the national product intervention measures on binary options to event contracts.
Why this matters for prediction market operators in Europe
For prediction market platforms operating in the EU, ESMA’s key practical implication is that product design and payoff mechanics are likely to be the deciding factors for compliance. Providers that market contracts as “event exposure” rather than as wagers may still face restrictions if contract terms align with binary option characteristics.
That matters because the boundary between “financial instrument” and “permitted market activity” can be narrow. ESMA’s framing suggests that firms should review how settlement works (binary resolution), how payouts are determined (fixed payouts), and how investor access is structured (retail versus professional/institutional). Where those elements resemble a binary outcome with pre-defined payoff mechanics, the products may fall under measures already implemented by EU member states.
While ESMA did not claim the rules are new, its intervention signals an enforcement posture: firms should expect regulators to treat nomenclature as secondary and to focus on contract substance. In practice, this can affect go-to-market strategy, client eligibility, and authorization planning under MiFID II.
US courts and regulators: states versus the CFTC
Across the Atlantic, prediction markets are caught in a different conflict—one tied to jurisdiction. The ongoing dispute pits state gaming regulators against the CFTC, with each side offering a distinct legal characterization of event contracts.
According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, by March authorities in 11 states had taken legal or regulatory action against platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket. Nevada was reported as the first state to temporarily block Kalshi’s operations, while Arizona brought criminal charges alleging Kalshi was running an illegal gambling business.
In April, the CFTC asserted what it described as “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. The agency argued that Congress entrusted it with sole authority to regulate commodity derivatives markets, including event contracts, and it said it had sued several states and filed court briefs supporting platforms such as Kalshi. The relevant announcement is posted on the CFTC website: CFTC.gov press release.
Litigation escalates, and pressure grows for federal clarification
As the federal-state standoff continues, the legal momentum has not gone quiet. On June 30, a Massachusetts judge reportedly allowed state authorities to file an amended complaint in an ongoing lawsuit accusing Kalshi’s sports-event contracts of constituting illegal gambling under state law. Earlier coverage also highlighted how the litigation expanded as regulators sought to push the case forward under state gambling statutes.
The dispute has also drawn calls for legislative intervention. Last month, the Indian Gaming Association and American Gaming Association—along with tribal and labor groups—urged lawmakers to amend the CLARITY Act. Their position, as described in Cointelegraph coverage, is that sports-related event contracts on prediction market platforms should be explicitly prohibited, arguing they fall outside the CFTC’s authority and should remain subject to state gambling laws. The push reflects a broader attempt to resolve the uncertainty created by competing interpretations of federal versus state oversight.
Some legal experts expect the outcome to depend on how courts ultimately reconcile the federal CFTC role with state gaming authority. Cointelegraph previously noted that the growing conflict could be decided by the US Supreme Court, underscoring that the issue may reach the highest level rather than being settled through routine regulatory filings.
What to watch next
In Europe, the most immediate signal is ESMA’s insistence that contract structure—not marketing labels—will determine whether event contracts are treated like binary options and whether MiFID II authorization is required. In the US, the next developments likely hinge on how courts handle jurisdiction and whether federal legislation steps in to reduce the split between state enforcement and the CFTC’s claimed authority.
This article was originally published as ESMA Finds Many Prediction Market Contracts Already Covered by EU Rules on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
19
Article
US Law Enforcement Group Withdraws Objections to CLARITY Act: ReportThe United States’ Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) says it has dropped its opposition to the CLARITY Act, shifting to a “neutral” position after lawmakers addressed concerns it raised in an earlier submission. In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said revisions to the bill addressed issues it flagged around Section 604.
That change matters for the CLARITY Act’s momentum because the bill has bipartisan backing but has faced delays in the Senate. Its progress has been repeatedly constrained by banking-industry objections, particularly around how stablecoin-related products could affect traditional deposits and broader financial stability.
Key takeaways
The MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral stance after concerns about Section 604 were addressed.
Section 604 is tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is intended to limit developer liability for illicit activity committed by platform users.
MCSA previously argued that the provision could be exploited by criminals and complicate law enforcement investigations.
Despite the shift, the MCSA says it wants additional amendments—specifically to involve state law enforcement in a Treasury study under Section 309.
Even with clearer law-enforcement buy-in, the Senate timeline remains uncertain due to objections from banking groups, particularly over stablecoin yield.
MCSA shifts stance after Section 604 concerns are addressed
According to the letter referenced in public reporting, the MCSA told Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren that its position changed to “neutral” following responses to its May 14 concerns about Section 604. The provision is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is designed to protect developers from liability for illicit activity that occurs through users on decentralized platforms.
The MCSA’s earlier opposition centered on the risk that Section 604 could be leveraged as a loophole. In its view, criminals might structure behavior around that liability framework in a way that makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate crypto-related offenses.
While the bill’s supporters emphasize clearer rules for decentralized technology, the MCSA’s reversal signals that at least one major law-enforcement coalition believes the revised approach is workable—though it still wants improvements rather than unconditional support.
Why the CLARITY Act has stalled in the Senate
Although the CLARITY Act has bipartisan support, its route through the Senate has been largely blocked. Reporting cited in the source highlights that banking groups have sought limits on stablecoin yield, arguing that the practice can resemble an unregulated deposit product.
That argument, according to the cited coverage, is rooted in potential knock-on effects for traditional banking systems, including the prospect of large outflows if consumers treat yield-bearing stablecoin products as a substitute for bank deposits.
The legislation has been waiting for a full Senate vote since the Senate Banking Committee advanced it in May, with the bill passed mostly along party lines. That combination—committee approval without broader clearance—has left the bill dependent on additional negotiations and political timing.
Advocates have recently renewed pressure for floor consideration, aiming for passage and signature into law before the November midterm elections. Earlier coverage noted that senators backing the bill are pushing for a vote this month, framing it as a window where the bill could clear the remaining procedural hurdle.
Law enforcement still asks for changes: state involvement in Treasury study
Even with the updated position, the MCSA said it wants amendments to the CLARITY Act. Its latest request focuses on Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks. The MCSA specifically wants state law enforcement included within that framework.
MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should ensure that law enforcement has the training, technology, and resources needed to handle crimes enabled by digital assets. His remarks, as quoted, emphasized that state and local agencies investigate a wide range of offenses—from fraud and narcotics trafficking to ransomware, child exploitation, and terrorism financing—where investigators must be able to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.
“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”
From an investor and industry standpoint, this is more than an internal law-enforcement preference. If the CLARITY Act is intended to provide regulatory certainty while supporting enforcement capacity, then bringing state agencies into the Treasury’s research obligations could affect how risk assessments are conducted and how operational guidance is developed for regulators and policing bodies.
What happens next after the MCSA’s “neutral” shift
The MCSA’s decision to drop opposition may reduce one of the more politically visible sources of resistance to the bill, which supporters have described as a meaningful roadblock. However, the broader timeline still appears tied to unresolved concerns—especially from banking groups regarding stablecoin yield and its relationship to deposit-like products.
With advocates pushing for a Senate vote in the near term, readers should watch whether the amended language addressing Section 604 is treated as sufficient by additional stakeholders, and whether Section 309’s scope is adjusted to include state law enforcement before any floor action.
This article was originally published as US Law Enforcement Group Withdraws Objections to CLARITY Act: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
US Law Enforcement Group Withdraws Objections to CLARITY Act: Report
The United States’ Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) says it has dropped its opposition to the CLARITY Act, shifting to a “neutral” position after lawmakers addressed concerns it raised in an earlier submission. In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said revisions to the bill addressed issues it flagged around Section 604.
That change matters for the CLARITY Act’s momentum because the bill has bipartisan backing but has faced delays in the Senate. Its progress has been repeatedly constrained by banking-industry objections, particularly around how stablecoin-related products could affect traditional deposits and broader financial stability.
Key takeaways
The MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral stance after concerns about Section 604 were addressed.
Section 604 is tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is intended to limit developer liability for illicit activity committed by platform users.
MCSA previously argued that the provision could be exploited by criminals and complicate law enforcement investigations.
Despite the shift, the MCSA says it wants additional amendments—specifically to involve state law enforcement in a Treasury study under Section 309.
Even with clearer law-enforcement buy-in, the Senate timeline remains uncertain due to objections from banking groups, particularly over stablecoin yield.
MCSA shifts stance after Section 604 concerns are addressed
According to the letter referenced in public reporting, the MCSA told Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren that its position changed to “neutral” following responses to its May 14 concerns about Section 604. The provision is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is designed to protect developers from liability for illicit activity that occurs through users on decentralized platforms.
The MCSA’s earlier opposition centered on the risk that Section 604 could be leveraged as a loophole. In its view, criminals might structure behavior around that liability framework in a way that makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate crypto-related offenses.
While the bill’s supporters emphasize clearer rules for decentralized technology, the MCSA’s reversal signals that at least one major law-enforcement coalition believes the revised approach is workable—though it still wants improvements rather than unconditional support.
Why the CLARITY Act has stalled in the Senate
Although the CLARITY Act has bipartisan support, its route through the Senate has been largely blocked. Reporting cited in the source highlights that banking groups have sought limits on stablecoin yield, arguing that the practice can resemble an unregulated deposit product.
That argument, according to the cited coverage, is rooted in potential knock-on effects for traditional banking systems, including the prospect of large outflows if consumers treat yield-bearing stablecoin products as a substitute for bank deposits.
The legislation has been waiting for a full Senate vote since the Senate Banking Committee advanced it in May, with the bill passed mostly along party lines. That combination—committee approval without broader clearance—has left the bill dependent on additional negotiations and political timing.
Advocates have recently renewed pressure for floor consideration, aiming for passage and signature into law before the November midterm elections. Earlier coverage noted that senators backing the bill are pushing for a vote this month, framing it as a window where the bill could clear the remaining procedural hurdle.
Law enforcement still asks for changes: state involvement in Treasury study
Even with the updated position, the MCSA said it wants amendments to the CLARITY Act. Its latest request focuses on Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks. The MCSA specifically wants state law enforcement included within that framework.
MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should ensure that law enforcement has the training, technology, and resources needed to handle crimes enabled by digital assets. His remarks, as quoted, emphasized that state and local agencies investigate a wide range of offenses—from fraud and narcotics trafficking to ransomware, child exploitation, and terrorism financing—where investigators must be able to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.
“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”
From an investor and industry standpoint, this is more than an internal law-enforcement preference. If the CLARITY Act is intended to provide regulatory certainty while supporting enforcement capacity, then bringing state agencies into the Treasury’s research obligations could affect how risk assessments are conducted and how operational guidance is developed for regulators and policing bodies.
What happens next after the MCSA’s “neutral” shift
The MCSA’s decision to drop opposition may reduce one of the more politically visible sources of resistance to the bill, which supporters have described as a meaningful roadblock. However, the broader timeline still appears tied to unresolved concerns—especially from banking groups regarding stablecoin yield and its relationship to deposit-like products.
With advocates pushing for a Senate vote in the near term, readers should watch whether the amended language addressing Section 604 is treated as sufficient by additional stakeholders, and whether Section 309’s scope is adjusted to include state law enforcement before any floor action.
This article was originally published as US Law Enforcement Group Withdraws Objections to CLARITY Act: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
That change matters for the CLARITY Act’s momentum because the bill has bipartisan backing but has faced delays in the Senate. Its progress has been repeatedly constrained by banking-industry objections, particularly around how stablecoin-related products could affect traditional deposits and broader financial stability.
Key takeaways
The MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral stance after concerns about Section 604 were addressed.
Section 604 is tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is intended to limit developer liability for illicit activity committed by platform users.
MCSA previously argued that the provision could be exploited by criminals and complicate law enforcement investigations.
Despite the shift, the MCSA says it wants additional amendments—specifically to involve state law enforcement in a Treasury study under Section 309.
Even with clearer law-enforcement buy-in, the Senate timeline remains uncertain due to objections from banking groups, particularly over stablecoin yield.
MCSA shifts stance after Section 604 concerns are addressed
According to the letter referenced in public reporting, the MCSA told Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren that its position changed to “neutral” following responses to its May 14 concerns about Section 604. The provision is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is designed to protect developers from liability for illicit activity that occurs through users on decentralized platforms.
The MCSA’s earlier opposition centered on the risk that Section 604 could be leveraged as a loophole. In its view, criminals might structure behavior around that liability framework in a way that makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate crypto-related offenses.
While the bill’s supporters emphasize clearer rules for decentralized technology, the MCSA’s reversal signals that at least one major law-enforcement coalition believes the revised approach is workable—though it still wants improvements rather than unconditional support.
Why the CLARITY Act has stalled in the Senate
Although the CLARITY Act has bipartisan support, its route through the Senate has been largely blocked. Reporting cited in the source highlights that banking groups have sought limits on stablecoin yield, arguing that the practice can resemble an unregulated deposit product.
That argument, according to the cited coverage, is rooted in potential knock-on effects for traditional banking systems, including the prospect of large outflows if consumers treat yield-bearing stablecoin products as a substitute for bank deposits.
The legislation has been waiting for a full Senate vote since the Senate Banking Committee advanced it in May, with the bill passed mostly along party lines. That combination—committee approval without broader clearance—has left the bill dependent on additional negotiations and political timing.
Advocates have recently renewed pressure for floor consideration, aiming for passage and signature into law before the November midterm elections. Earlier coverage noted that senators backing the bill are pushing for a vote this month, framing it as a window where the bill could clear the remaining procedural hurdle.
Law enforcement still asks for changes: state involvement in Treasury study
Even with the updated position, the MCSA said it wants amendments to the CLARITY Act. Its latest request focuses on Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks. The MCSA specifically wants state law enforcement included within that framework.
MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should ensure that law enforcement has the training, technology, and resources needed to handle crimes enabled by digital assets. His remarks, as quoted, emphasized that state and local agencies investigate a wide range of offenses—from fraud and narcotics trafficking to ransomware, child exploitation, and terrorism financing—where investigators must be able to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.
“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”
From an investor and industry standpoint, this is more than an internal law-enforcement preference. If the CLARITY Act is intended to provide regulatory certainty while supporting enforcement capacity, then bringing state agencies into the Treasury’s research obligations could affect how risk assessments are conducted and how operational guidance is developed for regulators and policing bodies.
What happens next after the MCSA’s “neutral” shift
The MCSA’s decision to drop opposition may reduce one of the more politically visible sources of resistance to the bill, which supporters have described as a meaningful roadblock. However, the broader timeline still appears tied to unresolved concerns—especially from banking groups regarding stablecoin yield and its relationship to deposit-like products.
With advocates pushing for a Senate vote in the near term, readers should watch whether the amended language addressing Section 604 is treated as sufficient by additional stakeholders, and whether Section 309’s scope is adjusted to include state law enforcement before any floor action.
This article was originally published as US Law Enforcement Group Withdraws Objections to CLARITY Act: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
1
32
Article
US Law Enforcement Drops Objections to CLARITY Act, Report SaysThe Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) has dropped its opposition to the proposed CLARITY Act, shifting its position to “neutral” after lawmakers addressed concerns it raised in an earlier letter about how the bill could affect illicit finance investigations.
In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said its stance changed after revisions addressing its objections to Section 604, a provision tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. The development removes a key resistance point from law enforcement stakeholders that had been flagged as a hurdle for the bill’s progress through the Senate.
Key takeaways
MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral position after concerns raised in a May 14 letter about Section 604 were addressed.
Section 604 is intended to protect blockchain and decentralized platform developers from liability for illicit activity committed by users.
MCSA previously argued the provision could be exploited by criminals, complicating law enforcement investigations into crypto-related crimes.
The CLARITY Act still faces delays in the Senate, with banking groups reportedly pushing to limit stablecoin yield arrangements.
MCSA says it still wants changes—particularly to include state law enforcement in a Section 309 Treasury study of DeFi and illicit finance risks.
Why MCSA’s position shift matters for Senate momentum
Although the CLARITY Act has drawn bipartisan backing, its path to enactment has been slowed. Senators have had to balance support for clearer rules for blockchain and decentralized finance with objections from segments of the financial industry, especially around stablecoin-linked products.
Against that backdrop, MCSA’s shift is notable because it directly concerns the enforcement community—an area where legislators often expect operational consequences to be scrutinized. In its earlier stance, MCSA said Section 604 could create a loophole for bad actors, potentially making it harder for law enforcement to investigate criminal activity facilitated through crypto systems.
By describing its new posture as “neutral,” the group is signaling that revised bill language (or interpretive clarifications) has reduced enough of its concern that it no longer believes the provision should face outright resistance from sheriffs’ leadership.
What Section 604 does—and what law enforcement worried about
Section 604 is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act embedded within the broader CLARITY Act. The provision aims to provide developers with regulatory certainty by limiting liability for illicit activity carried out by users on decentralized platforms.
In its May 14 letter, MCSA argued that this protection could be turned into a shield by criminals, enabling misuse without sufficient accountability and thereby complicating investigative work. That concern reflects a broader tension at the heart of many crypto compliance debates: striking a balance between preventing user harm and avoiding rules that inadvertently discourage legitimate development or overreach into decentralized systems.
According to MCSA’s Friday letter, the group’s earlier objections were addressed—enough for it to move to neutrality—suggesting lawmakers incorporated changes related to how Section 604 would operate in practice.
Stablecoin yield concerns remain a major drag on passage
Even as the CLARITY Act retains political support, the bill’s Senate timeline has been affected by resistance tied to stablecoin structures. The bill has largely been stalled by banking groups seeking restrictions on stablecoin yield, which they argue functions like an unregulated deposit product.
As characterized in earlier reporting, critics of yield-bearing stablecoins warn that such arrangements could lead to large-scale outflows from the traditional banking system, potentially reaching “trillions of dollars,” though the exact magnitude is framed as an industry concern rather than a specific forecast tied to the act itself.
The CLARITY Act has been waiting for a full Senate vote since May, when the Senate Banking Committee advanced it largely along party lines. That bottleneck means the bill’s prospects are still highly sensitive to how other constituencies—beyond developers and enforcement—view the practical effects of the proposed compliance regime.
Law enforcement support grows, but MCSA wants further amendments
MCSA’s change in stance is not the end of its engagement with the bill. The group said it still wants modifications to Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks.
Specifically, MCSA asked that state law enforcement be included in the section. The group’s position underscores how compliance studies and policy implementation often run into real-world capacity gaps: even well-designed legal frameworks can underperform if enforcement agencies lack the tools, training, and partnerships needed to act on the intelligence they receive.
In its letter, MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should provide the training, technology, and resources required to investigate increasingly sophisticated digital asset-enabled crimes. He pointed to a range of alleged criminal activity, including fraud, narcotics trafficking, ransomware, child exploitation, terrorism financing, and other offenses.
“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”
That emphasis highlights a key reason the law enforcement community continues to matter in the crypto policy conversation: not just whether legislation creates clearer responsibilities, but whether it is matched by implementation capacity at the local and state level.
What could happen next
With MCSA moving off opposition, the immediate “roadblock” narrative around enforcement stakeholders appears to be easing, but the CLARITY Act still depends on Senate scheduling and on overcoming financial-industry objections—especially around stablecoin yield. Investors and builders should watch whether the bill’s remaining concerns narrow enough to clear a full vote, and whether Section 309 modifications addressing state law enforcement involvement gain traction as lawmakers try to finalize the measure.
This article was originally published as US Law Enforcement Drops Objections to CLARITY Act, Report Says on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
US Law Enforcement Drops Objections to CLARITY Act, Report Says
The Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) has dropped its opposition to the proposed CLARITY Act, shifting its position to “neutral” after lawmakers addressed concerns it raised in an earlier letter about how the bill could affect illicit finance investigations.
In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said its stance changed after revisions addressing its objections to Section 604, a provision tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. The development removes a key resistance point from law enforcement stakeholders that had been flagged as a hurdle for the bill’s progress through the Senate.
Key takeaways
MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral position after concerns raised in a May 14 letter about Section 604 were addressed.
Section 604 is intended to protect blockchain and decentralized platform developers from liability for illicit activity committed by users.
MCSA previously argued the provision could be exploited by criminals, complicating law enforcement investigations into crypto-related crimes.
The CLARITY Act still faces delays in the Senate, with banking groups reportedly pushing to limit stablecoin yield arrangements.
MCSA says it still wants changes—particularly to include state law enforcement in a Section 309 Treasury study of DeFi and illicit finance risks.
Why MCSA’s position shift matters for Senate momentum
Although the CLARITY Act has drawn bipartisan backing, its path to enactment has been slowed. Senators have had to balance support for clearer rules for blockchain and decentralized finance with objections from segments of the financial industry, especially around stablecoin-linked products.
Against that backdrop, MCSA’s shift is notable because it directly concerns the enforcement community—an area where legislators often expect operational consequences to be scrutinized. In its earlier stance, MCSA said Section 604 could create a loophole for bad actors, potentially making it harder for law enforcement to investigate criminal activity facilitated through crypto systems.
By describing its new posture as “neutral,” the group is signaling that revised bill language (or interpretive clarifications) has reduced enough of its concern that it no longer believes the provision should face outright resistance from sheriffs’ leadership.
What Section 604 does—and what law enforcement worried about
Section 604 is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act embedded within the broader CLARITY Act. The provision aims to provide developers with regulatory certainty by limiting liability for illicit activity carried out by users on decentralized platforms.
In its May 14 letter, MCSA argued that this protection could be turned into a shield by criminals, enabling misuse without sufficient accountability and thereby complicating investigative work. That concern reflects a broader tension at the heart of many crypto compliance debates: striking a balance between preventing user harm and avoiding rules that inadvertently discourage legitimate development or overreach into decentralized systems.
According to MCSA’s Friday letter, the group’s earlier objections were addressed—enough for it to move to neutrality—suggesting lawmakers incorporated changes related to how Section 604 would operate in practice.
Stablecoin yield concerns remain a major drag on passage
Even as the CLARITY Act retains political support, the bill’s Senate timeline has been affected by resistance tied to stablecoin structures. The bill has largely been stalled by banking groups seeking restrictions on stablecoin yield, which they argue functions like an unregulated deposit product.
As characterized in earlier reporting, critics of yield-bearing stablecoins warn that such arrangements could lead to large-scale outflows from the traditional banking system, potentially reaching “trillions of dollars,” though the exact magnitude is framed as an industry concern rather than a specific forecast tied to the act itself.
The CLARITY Act has been waiting for a full Senate vote since May, when the Senate Banking Committee advanced it largely along party lines. That bottleneck means the bill’s prospects are still highly sensitive to how other constituencies—beyond developers and enforcement—view the practical effects of the proposed compliance regime.
Law enforcement support grows, but MCSA wants further amendments
MCSA’s change in stance is not the end of its engagement with the bill. The group said it still wants modifications to Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks.
Specifically, MCSA asked that state law enforcement be included in the section. The group’s position underscores how compliance studies and policy implementation often run into real-world capacity gaps: even well-designed legal frameworks can underperform if enforcement agencies lack the tools, training, and partnerships needed to act on the intelligence they receive.
In its letter, MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should provide the training, technology, and resources required to investigate increasingly sophisticated digital asset-enabled crimes. He pointed to a range of alleged criminal activity, including fraud, narcotics trafficking, ransomware, child exploitation, terrorism financing, and other offenses.
“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”
That emphasis highlights a key reason the law enforcement community continues to matter in the crypto policy conversation: not just whether legislation creates clearer responsibilities, but whether it is matched by implementation capacity at the local and state level.
What could happen next
With MCSA moving off opposition, the immediate “roadblock” narrative around enforcement stakeholders appears to be easing, but the CLARITY Act still depends on Senate scheduling and on overcoming financial-industry objections—especially around stablecoin yield. Investors and builders should watch whether the bill’s remaining concerns narrow enough to clear a full vote, and whether Section 309 modifications addressing state law enforcement involvement gain traction as lawmakers try to finalize the measure.
This article was originally published as US Law Enforcement Drops Objections to CLARITY Act, Report Says on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said its stance changed after revisions addressing its objections to Section 604, a provision tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. The development removes a key resistance point from law enforcement stakeholders that had been flagged as a hurdle for the bill’s progress through the Senate.
Key takeaways
MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral position after concerns raised in a May 14 letter about Section 604 were addressed.
Section 604 is intended to protect blockchain and decentralized platform developers from liability for illicit activity committed by users.
MCSA previously argued the provision could be exploited by criminals, complicating law enforcement investigations into crypto-related crimes.
The CLARITY Act still faces delays in the Senate, with banking groups reportedly pushing to limit stablecoin yield arrangements.
MCSA says it still wants changes—particularly to include state law enforcement in a Section 309 Treasury study of DeFi and illicit finance risks.
Why MCSA’s position shift matters for Senate momentum
Although the CLARITY Act has drawn bipartisan backing, its path to enactment has been slowed. Senators have had to balance support for clearer rules for blockchain and decentralized finance with objections from segments of the financial industry, especially around stablecoin-linked products.
Against that backdrop, MCSA’s shift is notable because it directly concerns the enforcement community—an area where legislators often expect operational consequences to be scrutinized. In its earlier stance, MCSA said Section 604 could create a loophole for bad actors, potentially making it harder for law enforcement to investigate criminal activity facilitated through crypto systems.
By describing its new posture as “neutral,” the group is signaling that revised bill language (or interpretive clarifications) has reduced enough of its concern that it no longer believes the provision should face outright resistance from sheriffs’ leadership.
What Section 604 does—and what law enforcement worried about
Section 604 is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act embedded within the broader CLARITY Act. The provision aims to provide developers with regulatory certainty by limiting liability for illicit activity carried out by users on decentralized platforms.
In its May 14 letter, MCSA argued that this protection could be turned into a shield by criminals, enabling misuse without sufficient accountability and thereby complicating investigative work. That concern reflects a broader tension at the heart of many crypto compliance debates: striking a balance between preventing user harm and avoiding rules that inadvertently discourage legitimate development or overreach into decentralized systems.
According to MCSA’s Friday letter, the group’s earlier objections were addressed—enough for it to move to neutrality—suggesting lawmakers incorporated changes related to how Section 604 would operate in practice.
Stablecoin yield concerns remain a major drag on passage
Even as the CLARITY Act retains political support, the bill’s Senate timeline has been affected by resistance tied to stablecoin structures. The bill has largely been stalled by banking groups seeking restrictions on stablecoin yield, which they argue functions like an unregulated deposit product.
As characterized in earlier reporting, critics of yield-bearing stablecoins warn that such arrangements could lead to large-scale outflows from the traditional banking system, potentially reaching “trillions of dollars,” though the exact magnitude is framed as an industry concern rather than a specific forecast tied to the act itself.
The CLARITY Act has been waiting for a full Senate vote since May, when the Senate Banking Committee advanced it largely along party lines. That bottleneck means the bill’s prospects are still highly sensitive to how other constituencies—beyond developers and enforcement—view the practical effects of the proposed compliance regime.
Law enforcement support grows, but MCSA wants further amendments
MCSA’s change in stance is not the end of its engagement with the bill. The group said it still wants modifications to Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks.
Specifically, MCSA asked that state law enforcement be included in the section. The group’s position underscores how compliance studies and policy implementation often run into real-world capacity gaps: even well-designed legal frameworks can underperform if enforcement agencies lack the tools, training, and partnerships needed to act on the intelligence they receive.
In its letter, MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should provide the training, technology, and resources required to investigate increasingly sophisticated digital asset-enabled crimes. He pointed to a range of alleged criminal activity, including fraud, narcotics trafficking, ransomware, child exploitation, terrorism financing, and other offenses.
“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”
That emphasis highlights a key reason the law enforcement community continues to matter in the crypto policy conversation: not just whether legislation creates clearer responsibilities, but whether it is matched by implementation capacity at the local and state level.
What could happen next
With MCSA moving off opposition, the immediate “roadblock” narrative around enforcement stakeholders appears to be easing, but the CLARITY Act still depends on Senate scheduling and on overcoming financial-industry objections—especially around stablecoin yield. Investors and builders should watch whether the bill’s remaining concerns narrow enough to clear a full vote, and whether Section 309 modifications addressing state law enforcement involvement gain traction as lawmakers try to finalize the measure.
This article was originally published as US Law Enforcement Drops Objections to CLARITY Act, Report Says on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
25
Article
Bitcoin and Ether Rally as Fear Eases and Spot ETF Demand ReturnsBitcoin’s rebound this week underscored how quickly market sentiment can shift: after trading near a 21-month low, BTC rallied on July 3 toward the $63,000 area, while Ether outpaced the broader complex to push toward $1,775. The move came despite a still-dark sentiment backdrop, with the Crypto Fear & Greed Index registering “Extreme Fear” at 11 out of 100.
That disconnect—an index signaling near-panic while price action turns constructive—became more interesting after data showed a notable change in US spot Bitcoin ETF flows. According to SoSoValue, July 2 saw net inflows of $221.7 million into US spot Bitcoin ETFs, their largest single-day inflow since early May and a break from 10 straight days of outflows.
Key takeaways
BTC recovered toward $63,000 on July 3 and Ether moved to about $1,775 after both hit fresh weakness earlier in the week.
Crypto Fear & Greed showed “Extreme Fear” (11/100), even as spot ETF inflows turned positive on July 2.
SoSoValue data points to a sharp reversal in ETF demand, with $221.7 million net inflows on the day.
Derivatives indicators—positive funding for eight straight days and rising open interest—suggest leverage is building even as price has not fully trended.
Near-term levels to watch include BTC holding around $61,000 and potential follow-through above $62,500 during thinner holiday-weekend trading.
Fear gauge vs. improving ETF demand
The “Extreme Fear” reading matters because it often reflects a market that is either under-allocating to risk or actively de-risking. Yet Friday’s bullish price activity suggests that, at least for some investors, the fear signal may have begun to lose effectiveness as buyers returned.
One concrete reason for that improvement is the ETF flow reversal. According to SoSoValue, the $221.7 million net inflow on July 2 stands out not only for its size, but for what it ended: 10 consecutive days of outflows. In practice, ETF flows can act as a steady channel for fresh spot demand, and a single-day reversal can sometimes be the first sign of a broader turn—though it is not, by itself, proof that a sustained trend has formed.
For traders, the key question is whether ETF buying holds up beyond one session. If inflows remain consistent, it strengthens the case that the market’s earlier drawdown was being countered by institutional-style accumulation. If inflows fade quickly, the rally could be more prone to reversal, especially given how low sentiment already is.
Derivatives: leverage is growing, but that can cut both ways
Spot data and ETF flows are only part of the picture. Futures and margin conditions can amplify moves—and also reveal when positioning is becoming fragile.
According to figures cited from Hyblock, funding rates have stayed positive for the past eight days and have climbed during that stretch. Funding is the periodic payment between traders who are effectively betting in opposite directions; persistent positivity typically signals that the market is leaning toward higher prices, with longs paying shorts.
Hyblock data also indicates that the total amount of outstanding leveraged Bitcoin positions is near its highest level over the past several days, even while price action has mostly moved sideways. This combination—leverage building up without a clear upward trend—has historically been a caution sign. The risk is that if the market fails to push higher soon, highly leveraged positions can become vulnerable to liquidation cascades, turning a choppy market into a fast reversal.
In other words, derivatives are confirming interest on the long side, but they are also raising the stakes if follow-through does not arrive quickly.
What to watch in the next sessions
With the rally gaining traction, near-term technical reference points have regained importance. One level highlighted is whether BTC can hold above roughly $61,000, where a large cluster of leveraged buy positions sits. When leverage is concentrated at a specific price zone, that area can act as a support “magnet” during turbulence—either absorbing weakness if buyers defend, or triggering stop-and-liquidation activity if it breaks.
On the upside, another threshold to monitor is a move back above $62,500. The logic is tied to positioning: returning above that level could bring BTC closer to price areas where leveraged shorts become more exposed. If spot ETF buying continues while funding remains constructive, it can reinforce the pattern seen over the preceding days.
Even with these bullish triggers, the broader market read described in the underlying data is mixed rather than uniformly bullish. Spot ETF inflows and the rebound in prices suggest sentiment may be improving faster than the Fear & Greed number implies. But when the market is as fearful as reflected by “Extreme Fear” and leverage is already elevated, the environment tends to be more fragile than it would be after a more orderly, less-positioned rally.
Compounding that uncertainty is the calendar. The upcoming US holiday-weekend stretch typically brings thinner trading conditions, which can reduce liquidity and increase the odds that price moves overshoot in either direction.
Closing perspective
Investors and traders should watch whether the July 2 ETF inflow becomes the start of a sustained bid, and whether BTC can hold the ~$61,000 support zone or reclaim ~$62,500 before liquidity thins further. The next few sessions will reveal whether this is a durable shift away from extreme fear—or a short-lived bounce amplified by improving flows and crowded leverage.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin and Ether Rally as Fear Eases and Spot ETF Demand Returns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bitcoin and Ether Rally as Fear Eases and Spot ETF Demand Returns
Bitcoin’s rebound this week underscored how quickly market sentiment can shift: after trading near a 21-month low, BTC rallied on July 3 toward the $63,000 area, while Ether outpaced the broader complex to push toward $1,775. The move came despite a still-dark sentiment backdrop, with the Crypto Fear & Greed Index registering “Extreme Fear” at 11 out of 100.
That disconnect—an index signaling near-panic while price action turns constructive—became more interesting after data showed a notable change in US spot Bitcoin ETF flows. According to SoSoValue, July 2 saw net inflows of $221.7 million into US spot Bitcoin ETFs, their largest single-day inflow since early May and a break from 10 straight days of outflows.
Key takeaways
BTC recovered toward $63,000 on July 3 and Ether moved to about $1,775 after both hit fresh weakness earlier in the week.
Crypto Fear & Greed showed “Extreme Fear” (11/100), even as spot ETF inflows turned positive on July 2.
SoSoValue data points to a sharp reversal in ETF demand, with $221.7 million net inflows on the day.
Derivatives indicators—positive funding for eight straight days and rising open interest—suggest leverage is building even as price has not fully trended.
Near-term levels to watch include BTC holding around $61,000 and potential follow-through above $62,500 during thinner holiday-weekend trading.
Fear gauge vs. improving ETF demand
The “Extreme Fear” reading matters because it often reflects a market that is either under-allocating to risk or actively de-risking. Yet Friday’s bullish price activity suggests that, at least for some investors, the fear signal may have begun to lose effectiveness as buyers returned.
One concrete reason for that improvement is the ETF flow reversal. According to SoSoValue, the $221.7 million net inflow on July 2 stands out not only for its size, but for what it ended: 10 consecutive days of outflows. In practice, ETF flows can act as a steady channel for fresh spot demand, and a single-day reversal can sometimes be the first sign of a broader turn—though it is not, by itself, proof that a sustained trend has formed.
For traders, the key question is whether ETF buying holds up beyond one session. If inflows remain consistent, it strengthens the case that the market’s earlier drawdown was being countered by institutional-style accumulation. If inflows fade quickly, the rally could be more prone to reversal, especially given how low sentiment already is.
Derivatives: leverage is growing, but that can cut both ways
Spot data and ETF flows are only part of the picture. Futures and margin conditions can amplify moves—and also reveal when positioning is becoming fragile.
According to figures cited from Hyblock, funding rates have stayed positive for the past eight days and have climbed during that stretch. Funding is the periodic payment between traders who are effectively betting in opposite directions; persistent positivity typically signals that the market is leaning toward higher prices, with longs paying shorts.
Hyblock data also indicates that the total amount of outstanding leveraged Bitcoin positions is near its highest level over the past several days, even while price action has mostly moved sideways. This combination—leverage building up without a clear upward trend—has historically been a caution sign. The risk is that if the market fails to push higher soon, highly leveraged positions can become vulnerable to liquidation cascades, turning a choppy market into a fast reversal.
In other words, derivatives are confirming interest on the long side, but they are also raising the stakes if follow-through does not arrive quickly.
What to watch in the next sessions
With the rally gaining traction, near-term technical reference points have regained importance. One level highlighted is whether BTC can hold above roughly $61,000, where a large cluster of leveraged buy positions sits. When leverage is concentrated at a specific price zone, that area can act as a support “magnet” during turbulence—either absorbing weakness if buyers defend, or triggering stop-and-liquidation activity if it breaks.
On the upside, another threshold to monitor is a move back above $62,500. The logic is tied to positioning: returning above that level could bring BTC closer to price areas where leveraged shorts become more exposed. If spot ETF buying continues while funding remains constructive, it can reinforce the pattern seen over the preceding days.
Even with these bullish triggers, the broader market read described in the underlying data is mixed rather than uniformly bullish. Spot ETF inflows and the rebound in prices suggest sentiment may be improving faster than the Fear & Greed number implies. But when the market is as fearful as reflected by “Extreme Fear” and leverage is already elevated, the environment tends to be more fragile than it would be after a more orderly, less-positioned rally.
Compounding that uncertainty is the calendar. The upcoming US holiday-weekend stretch typically brings thinner trading conditions, which can reduce liquidity and increase the odds that price moves overshoot in either direction.
Closing perspective
Investors and traders should watch whether the July 2 ETF inflow becomes the start of a sustained bid, and whether BTC can hold the ~$61,000 support zone or reclaim ~$62,500 before liquidity thins further. The next few sessions will reveal whether this is a durable shift away from extreme fear—or a short-lived bounce amplified by improving flows and crowded leverage.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin and Ether Rally as Fear Eases and Spot ETF Demand Returns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
That disconnect—an index signaling near-panic while price action turns constructive—became more interesting after data showed a notable change in US spot Bitcoin ETF flows. According to SoSoValue, July 2 saw net inflows of $221.7 million into US spot Bitcoin ETFs, their largest single-day inflow since early May and a break from 10 straight days of outflows.
Key takeaways
BTC recovered toward $63,000 on July 3 and Ether moved to about $1,775 after both hit fresh weakness earlier in the week.
Crypto Fear & Greed showed “Extreme Fear” (11/100), even as spot ETF inflows turned positive on July 2.
SoSoValue data points to a sharp reversal in ETF demand, with $221.7 million net inflows on the day.
Derivatives indicators—positive funding for eight straight days and rising open interest—suggest leverage is building even as price has not fully trended.
Near-term levels to watch include BTC holding around $61,000 and potential follow-through above $62,500 during thinner holiday-weekend trading.
Fear gauge vs. improving ETF demand
The “Extreme Fear” reading matters because it often reflects a market that is either under-allocating to risk or actively de-risking. Yet Friday’s bullish price activity suggests that, at least for some investors, the fear signal may have begun to lose effectiveness as buyers returned.
One concrete reason for that improvement is the ETF flow reversal. According to SoSoValue, the $221.7 million net inflow on July 2 stands out not only for its size, but for what it ended: 10 consecutive days of outflows. In practice, ETF flows can act as a steady channel for fresh spot demand, and a single-day reversal can sometimes be the first sign of a broader turn—though it is not, by itself, proof that a sustained trend has formed.
For traders, the key question is whether ETF buying holds up beyond one session. If inflows remain consistent, it strengthens the case that the market’s earlier drawdown was being countered by institutional-style accumulation. If inflows fade quickly, the rally could be more prone to reversal, especially given how low sentiment already is.
Derivatives: leverage is growing, but that can cut both ways
Spot data and ETF flows are only part of the picture. Futures and margin conditions can amplify moves—and also reveal when positioning is becoming fragile.
According to figures cited from Hyblock, funding rates have stayed positive for the past eight days and have climbed during that stretch. Funding is the periodic payment between traders who are effectively betting in opposite directions; persistent positivity typically signals that the market is leaning toward higher prices, with longs paying shorts.
Hyblock data also indicates that the total amount of outstanding leveraged Bitcoin positions is near its highest level over the past several days, even while price action has mostly moved sideways. This combination—leverage building up without a clear upward trend—has historically been a caution sign. The risk is that if the market fails to push higher soon, highly leveraged positions can become vulnerable to liquidation cascades, turning a choppy market into a fast reversal.
In other words, derivatives are confirming interest on the long side, but they are also raising the stakes if follow-through does not arrive quickly.
What to watch in the next sessions
With the rally gaining traction, near-term technical reference points have regained importance. One level highlighted is whether BTC can hold above roughly $61,000, where a large cluster of leveraged buy positions sits. When leverage is concentrated at a specific price zone, that area can act as a support “magnet” during turbulence—either absorbing weakness if buyers defend, or triggering stop-and-liquidation activity if it breaks.
On the upside, another threshold to monitor is a move back above $62,500. The logic is tied to positioning: returning above that level could bring BTC closer to price areas where leveraged shorts become more exposed. If spot ETF buying continues while funding remains constructive, it can reinforce the pattern seen over the preceding days.
Even with these bullish triggers, the broader market read described in the underlying data is mixed rather than uniformly bullish. Spot ETF inflows and the rebound in prices suggest sentiment may be improving faster than the Fear & Greed number implies. But when the market is as fearful as reflected by “Extreme Fear” and leverage is already elevated, the environment tends to be more fragile than it would be after a more orderly, less-positioned rally.
Compounding that uncertainty is the calendar. The upcoming US holiday-weekend stretch typically brings thinner trading conditions, which can reduce liquidity and increase the odds that price moves overshoot in either direction.
Closing perspective
Investors and traders should watch whether the July 2 ETF inflow becomes the start of a sustained bid, and whether BTC can hold the ~$61,000 support zone or reclaim ~$62,500 before liquidity thins further. The next few sessions will reveal whether this is a durable shift away from extreme fear—or a short-lived bounce amplified by improving flows and crowded leverage.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin and Ether Rally as Fear Eases and Spot ETF Demand Returns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
214
Article
Trump Says $1.4B Crypto Gains Are Fine Despite In-Office ClaimsU.S. President Donald Trump has pushed back against criticism over his 2025 financial disclosures, telling CNBC that there was “nothing illegal” and “nothing wrong” with profiting from crypto-related investments while in office. In the interview, Trump also suggested that other parties were responsible for certain investment activity, adding that he did not “even know who they are,” an answer that did not directly address conflict-of-interest concerns.
The comments came after the U.S. Office of Government Ethics released Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure report, which shows he received more than $2 billion from business and investment holdings during the year, with roughly $1.4 billion tied to crypto ventures. Advocacy groups have argued that such earnings create incentives to shape policy in ways that benefit related projects.
Key takeaways
Trump told CNBC he saw “nothing illegal” in profiting from crypto investments while president, even as critics highlighted potential conflicts.
The 2025 disclosure report from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics ties about $1.4 billion of Trump’s income to crypto-related activity.
Disclosure breakdown cited in the report includes $636 million from a memecoin, $588 million from World Liberty, and $197 million connected to equity in a stablecoin venture.
Public Citizen says crypto-linked contributors have put $189 million into the 2026 U.S. election cycle as of June.
What Trump said after the disclosure release
During a Thursday appearance on CNBC with Joe Kernen, Trump responded to questions surrounding the 2025 financial disclosures. He maintained that profiting from crypto investments as president was not improper, framing the controversy as baseless.
When pressed on the issue of who managed or executed the investments, Trump did not provide a straightforward explanation of how he handled potential conflicts. Instead, he argued that others were responsible for the investments and said he did not know the people involved, leaving open key questions that critics say are central to public trust.
Trump’s remarks followed the release of his 2025 disclosure report by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, an agency responsible for collecting and publishing high-level financial information from top federal officials.
How the 2025 figures connect to crypto projects
According to coverage of the filing, Trump reported more than $2 billion in income from his businesses and investments in 2025, with about $1.4 billion connected to crypto-related activities. Among the crypto-linked components cited were his memecoin, the family platform World Liberty Financial, and an equity stake associated with a stablecoin venture.
Specifically, the crypto-related totals described include approximately $636 million generated by his memecoin, about $588 million from World Liberty sales, and roughly $197 million from equity in a stablecoin venture. Together, these figures form the bulk of the reported $1.4 billion crypto-related income highlighted by critics.
Advocacy organizations have characterized these investments as a form of “grift,” arguing that political influence—whether direct or indirect—could advantage projects tied to Trump and his family. One such critique referenced in the reporting linked the donations and leverage question to proposed legislative efforts, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
Earlier reporting on the disclosure emphasized the scale of the crypto-linked earnings and the overlap with areas where U.S. policy could affect digital asset markets.
From skepticism to industry alignment
Trump’s evolving posture toward crypto has been a defining theme of the past several years. In the wake of his first term, he had referred to Bitcoin as a “scam.” However, in the period leading up to the 2024 election, he increasingly associated himself with high-profile crypto figures and industry executives.
As described in the reporting, the shift included engagement with Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, alongside relationships with executives from mining companies and crypto exchanges. During that same broader period, Trump launched a memecoin known as Official Trump (TRUMP), while his family’s involvement with World Liberty and American Bitcoin placed additional attention on crypto-native business activity.
The contrast between earlier skepticism and later engagement is central to why the disclosure controversy has attracted significant attention: critics argue the president’s financial exposure to crypto projects makes it harder to separate policy decisions from personal or business incentives.
Election spending: crypto money looks set to stay active in 2026
The controversy over Trump’s disclosures arrives amid evidence that crypto-related money is becoming a fixture of U.S. electoral spending. After digital asset firms and figures reportedly spent $170 million to support “pro-crypto” candidates to Congress in 2024, political action committees and aligned organizations appear to be applying a similar approach for 2026.
According to Public Citizen, companies and individuals tied to the crypto industry contributed $189 million to this year’s election cycle as of June. Public Citizen also reported that the $189 million figure makes up most of $294 million spent so far by crypto, AI, Big Tech, and online betting companies to support or oppose politicians.
With Trump’s term ending in January 2029, the current political landscape matters for more than symbolic scrutiny: all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 seats in the Senate are up for election in 2026. For digital asset firms, stablecoins, exchanges, miners, and token issuers, legislative outcomes in the next cycle could shape compliance rules, market structure, and the pace of regulatory clarity.
Related coverage pointed to how these spending patterns reflect a sustained effort to influence policy direction during election years.
Pressure and counterpressure from within Trump’s orbit
Criticism is not limited to advocacy groups outside Trump’s circle. In comments relayed from a Friday interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Mary Trump—his niece—accused him of pushing boundaries and argued that people could evade consequences due to the president’s use of the presidential pardon power.
While her remarks were not directly focused on the legal interpretation of financial disclosure rules, they underscore the broader narrative opponents are advancing: that public officials with substantial financial exposure to crypto-related enterprises face intensified scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest and the consequences for those who invest based on political proximity.
What to watch next
As scrutiny continues, the next signals to monitor are how regulators and watchdogs interpret the disclosure details in the context of federal ethics rules, and whether the 2026 election cycle brings additional policy movement on digital assets—especially in areas that intersect with stablecoins, token issuance, and broader market structure.
This article was originally published as Trump Says $1.4B Crypto Gains Are Fine Despite In-Office Claims on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Trump Says $1.4B Crypto Gains Are Fine Despite In-Office Claims
U.S. President Donald Trump has pushed back against criticism over his 2025 financial disclosures, telling CNBC that there was “nothing illegal” and “nothing wrong” with profiting from crypto-related investments while in office. In the interview, Trump also suggested that other parties were responsible for certain investment activity, adding that he did not “even know who they are,” an answer that did not directly address conflict-of-interest concerns.
The comments came after the U.S. Office of Government Ethics released Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure report, which shows he received more than $2 billion from business and investment holdings during the year, with roughly $1.4 billion tied to crypto ventures. Advocacy groups have argued that such earnings create incentives to shape policy in ways that benefit related projects.
Key takeaways
Trump told CNBC he saw “nothing illegal” in profiting from crypto investments while president, even as critics highlighted potential conflicts.
The 2025 disclosure report from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics ties about $1.4 billion of Trump’s income to crypto-related activity.
Disclosure breakdown cited in the report includes $636 million from a memecoin, $588 million from World Liberty, and $197 million connected to equity in a stablecoin venture.
Public Citizen says crypto-linked contributors have put $189 million into the 2026 U.S. election cycle as of June.
What Trump said after the disclosure release
During a Thursday appearance on CNBC with Joe Kernen, Trump responded to questions surrounding the 2025 financial disclosures. He maintained that profiting from crypto investments as president was not improper, framing the controversy as baseless.
When pressed on the issue of who managed or executed the investments, Trump did not provide a straightforward explanation of how he handled potential conflicts. Instead, he argued that others were responsible for the investments and said he did not know the people involved, leaving open key questions that critics say are central to public trust.
Trump’s remarks followed the release of his 2025 disclosure report by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, an agency responsible for collecting and publishing high-level financial information from top federal officials.
How the 2025 figures connect to crypto projects
According to coverage of the filing, Trump reported more than $2 billion in income from his businesses and investments in 2025, with about $1.4 billion connected to crypto-related activities. Among the crypto-linked components cited were his memecoin, the family platform World Liberty Financial, and an equity stake associated with a stablecoin venture.
Specifically, the crypto-related totals described include approximately $636 million generated by his memecoin, about $588 million from World Liberty sales, and roughly $197 million from equity in a stablecoin venture. Together, these figures form the bulk of the reported $1.4 billion crypto-related income highlighted by critics.
Advocacy organizations have characterized these investments as a form of “grift,” arguing that political influence—whether direct or indirect—could advantage projects tied to Trump and his family. One such critique referenced in the reporting linked the donations and leverage question to proposed legislative efforts, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
Earlier reporting on the disclosure emphasized the scale of the crypto-linked earnings and the overlap with areas where U.S. policy could affect digital asset markets.
From skepticism to industry alignment
Trump’s evolving posture toward crypto has been a defining theme of the past several years. In the wake of his first term, he had referred to Bitcoin as a “scam.” However, in the period leading up to the 2024 election, he increasingly associated himself with high-profile crypto figures and industry executives.
As described in the reporting, the shift included engagement with Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, alongside relationships with executives from mining companies and crypto exchanges. During that same broader period, Trump launched a memecoin known as Official Trump (TRUMP), while his family’s involvement with World Liberty and American Bitcoin placed additional attention on crypto-native business activity.
The contrast between earlier skepticism and later engagement is central to why the disclosure controversy has attracted significant attention: critics argue the president’s financial exposure to crypto projects makes it harder to separate policy decisions from personal or business incentives.
Election spending: crypto money looks set to stay active in 2026
The controversy over Trump’s disclosures arrives amid evidence that crypto-related money is becoming a fixture of U.S. electoral spending. After digital asset firms and figures reportedly spent $170 million to support “pro-crypto” candidates to Congress in 2024, political action committees and aligned organizations appear to be applying a similar approach for 2026.
According to Public Citizen, companies and individuals tied to the crypto industry contributed $189 million to this year’s election cycle as of June. Public Citizen also reported that the $189 million figure makes up most of $294 million spent so far by crypto, AI, Big Tech, and online betting companies to support or oppose politicians.
With Trump’s term ending in January 2029, the current political landscape matters for more than symbolic scrutiny: all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 seats in the Senate are up for election in 2026. For digital asset firms, stablecoins, exchanges, miners, and token issuers, legislative outcomes in the next cycle could shape compliance rules, market structure, and the pace of regulatory clarity.
Related coverage pointed to how these spending patterns reflect a sustained effort to influence policy direction during election years.
Pressure and counterpressure from within Trump’s orbit
Criticism is not limited to advocacy groups outside Trump’s circle. In comments relayed from a Friday interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Mary Trump—his niece—accused him of pushing boundaries and argued that people could evade consequences due to the president’s use of the presidential pardon power.
While her remarks were not directly focused on the legal interpretation of financial disclosure rules, they underscore the broader narrative opponents are advancing: that public officials with substantial financial exposure to crypto-related enterprises face intensified scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest and the consequences for those who invest based on political proximity.
What to watch next
As scrutiny continues, the next signals to monitor are how regulators and watchdogs interpret the disclosure details in the context of federal ethics rules, and whether the 2026 election cycle brings additional policy movement on digital assets—especially in areas that intersect with stablecoins, token issuance, and broader market structure.
This article was originally published as Trump Says $1.4B Crypto Gains Are Fine Despite In-Office Claims on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The comments came after the U.S. Office of Government Ethics released Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure report, which shows he received more than $2 billion from business and investment holdings during the year, with roughly $1.4 billion tied to crypto ventures. Advocacy groups have argued that such earnings create incentives to shape policy in ways that benefit related projects.
Key takeaways
Trump told CNBC he saw “nothing illegal” in profiting from crypto investments while president, even as critics highlighted potential conflicts.
The 2025 disclosure report from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics ties about $1.4 billion of Trump’s income to crypto-related activity.
Disclosure breakdown cited in the report includes $636 million from a memecoin, $588 million from World Liberty, and $197 million connected to equity in a stablecoin venture.
Public Citizen says crypto-linked contributors have put $189 million into the 2026 U.S. election cycle as of June.
What Trump said after the disclosure release
During a Thursday appearance on CNBC with Joe Kernen, Trump responded to questions surrounding the 2025 financial disclosures. He maintained that profiting from crypto investments as president was not improper, framing the controversy as baseless.
When pressed on the issue of who managed or executed the investments, Trump did not provide a straightforward explanation of how he handled potential conflicts. Instead, he argued that others were responsible for the investments and said he did not know the people involved, leaving open key questions that critics say are central to public trust.
Trump’s remarks followed the release of his 2025 disclosure report by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, an agency responsible for collecting and publishing high-level financial information from top federal officials.
How the 2025 figures connect to crypto projects
According to coverage of the filing, Trump reported more than $2 billion in income from his businesses and investments in 2025, with about $1.4 billion connected to crypto-related activities. Among the crypto-linked components cited were his memecoin, the family platform World Liberty Financial, and an equity stake associated with a stablecoin venture.
Specifically, the crypto-related totals described include approximately $636 million generated by his memecoin, about $588 million from World Liberty sales, and roughly $197 million from equity in a stablecoin venture. Together, these figures form the bulk of the reported $1.4 billion crypto-related income highlighted by critics.
Advocacy organizations have characterized these investments as a form of “grift,” arguing that political influence—whether direct or indirect—could advantage projects tied to Trump and his family. One such critique referenced in the reporting linked the donations and leverage question to proposed legislative efforts, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
Earlier reporting on the disclosure emphasized the scale of the crypto-linked earnings and the overlap with areas where U.S. policy could affect digital asset markets.
From skepticism to industry alignment
Trump’s evolving posture toward crypto has been a defining theme of the past several years. In the wake of his first term, he had referred to Bitcoin as a “scam.” However, in the period leading up to the 2024 election, he increasingly associated himself with high-profile crypto figures and industry executives.
As described in the reporting, the shift included engagement with Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, alongside relationships with executives from mining companies and crypto exchanges. During that same broader period, Trump launched a memecoin known as Official Trump (TRUMP), while his family’s involvement with World Liberty and American Bitcoin placed additional attention on crypto-native business activity.
The contrast between earlier skepticism and later engagement is central to why the disclosure controversy has attracted significant attention: critics argue the president’s financial exposure to crypto projects makes it harder to separate policy decisions from personal or business incentives.
Election spending: crypto money looks set to stay active in 2026
The controversy over Trump’s disclosures arrives amid evidence that crypto-related money is becoming a fixture of U.S. electoral spending. After digital asset firms and figures reportedly spent $170 million to support “pro-crypto” candidates to Congress in 2024, political action committees and aligned organizations appear to be applying a similar approach for 2026.
According to Public Citizen, companies and individuals tied to the crypto industry contributed $189 million to this year’s election cycle as of June. Public Citizen also reported that the $189 million figure makes up most of $294 million spent so far by crypto, AI, Big Tech, and online betting companies to support or oppose politicians.
With Trump’s term ending in January 2029, the current political landscape matters for more than symbolic scrutiny: all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 seats in the Senate are up for election in 2026. For digital asset firms, stablecoins, exchanges, miners, and token issuers, legislative outcomes in the next cycle could shape compliance rules, market structure, and the pace of regulatory clarity.
Related coverage pointed to how these spending patterns reflect a sustained effort to influence policy direction during election years.
Pressure and counterpressure from within Trump’s orbit
Criticism is not limited to advocacy groups outside Trump’s circle. In comments relayed from a Friday interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Mary Trump—his niece—accused him of pushing boundaries and argued that people could evade consequences due to the president’s use of the presidential pardon power.
While her remarks were not directly focused on the legal interpretation of financial disclosure rules, they underscore the broader narrative opponents are advancing: that public officials with substantial financial exposure to crypto-related enterprises face intensified scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest and the consequences for those who invest based on political proximity.
What to watch next
As scrutiny continues, the next signals to monitor are how regulators and watchdogs interpret the disclosure details in the context of federal ethics rules, and whether the 2026 election cycle brings additional policy movement on digital assets—especially in areas that intersect with stablecoins, token issuance, and broader market structure.
This article was originally published as Trump Says $1.4B Crypto Gains Are Fine Despite In-Office Claims on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
1
1
1.3k
Article
Bitcoin P&L Ratio Drops to 43-Month LowBitcoin is flashing a highly unusual on-chain signal: its realized profit-and-loss ratio has fallen to a 43-month low of -0.35, an indicator CryptoQuant says reflects “extreme” loss conditions across the market. Historically, CryptoQuant adds, that type of reading has tended to appear close to major price bottoms.
The metric has not been this low since shortly after the FTX collapse, when Bitcoin traded below $16,000 in late 2022. With BTC still recovering from a steep drawdown that began after a peak near $126,080 in October, the new data is adding fuel to a broader debate among analysts over whether the market is past its worst stress—or merely approaching it.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant reports Bitcoin’s realized P&L ratio hit -0.35, the lowest reading in 43 months, last seen around late 2022.
CryptoQuant says past occurrences of readings below -0.35 in 2015 and 2019 preceded subsequent rallies.
CryptoQuant’s on-chain stress signal is arriving as “Fear and Greed” sentiment has moved off near-record lows and Bitcoin has bounced more than 7% from a June 25 trough near $58,190.
Some analysts link the current drawdown to Strategy’s Stretch (STRC) preferred-stock offering and related concerns about dividend coverage.
Other commentators argue investors should not wait for a “bottom” to be obvious because historical discount zones have been associated with strong 6- and 12-month forward returns.
Realized P&L reaches a historically rare loss zone
According to CryptoQuant, the Bitcoin realized profit-and-loss (P&L) ratio has dropped to -0.35. The realized P&L ratio measures the net percentage of Bitcoin currently in profit or loss relative to total supply, using on-chain cost basis information. In practical terms, a more negative reading indicates that a larger share of holders are underwater on their realized entry prices.
CryptoQuant emphasized that the -0.35 threshold has shown a strong historical relationship with major bottoming behavior. In its analysis published Thursday, the firm said that realized P&L has “marked BTC bottoms with extreme precision,” citing earlier periods where the ratio slipped below -0.35 before later rebounds.
The indicator’s last comparable level came around December 2022, shortly after the FTX collapse exposed fragile market liquidity. Back then, Bitcoin fell to levels under $16,000—an episode that many market participants still reference as a stress test for crypto’s risk assets.
What the signal may mean for sentiment and timing
CryptoQuant’s indicator arrives during a sharp correction cycle that began from a high set in October near $126,080, after which Bitcoin experienced a roughly 50% drawdown. While past realized P&L readings can be informative, timing remains the key question for investors: a bottom signal can appear before prices fully recover, and it does not rule out additional volatility.
Still, broader sentiment gauges show signs of stabilization. The “Fear and Greed” index has risen cautiously over the past 10 days, according to the index page on Alternative.me. During the same window, Bitcoin has climbed more than 7% after falling to a near two-year low of about $58,190 on June 25, as reflected in prior reporting by Cointelegraph.
In other words, the on-chain data and the sentiment recovery are moving in the same direction, even if they don’t provide a precise “day of the bottom” forecast.
Strategy’s STRC episode and the leverage unwind narrative
A significant part of the discussion around the latest selloff centers on corporate Bitcoin exposure. Cointelegraph previously reported that analysts attributed much of the recent weakness to Strategy—the largest corporate Bitcoin holder—after its top perpetual preferred stock offering, Stretch (STRC), deviated from its $100 par value. The move reportedly pushed STRC below $75, raising concerns that Strategy’s dividend model may have been strained.
On Thursday, Cointelegraph noted that Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan said the STRC incident likely helped “squeeze out excess leverage” and could be pushing the market closer to a bottom as participants work through the fallout.
For traders and long-term holders alike, this matters because leveraged positioning can magnify moves on the way down. If leverage is truly being unwound—whether through forced deleveraging, hedging adjustments, or repricing of capital-market products—then the market may become less mechanically vulnerable to sudden liquidations. What remains unclear is how much of that unwind is complete and whether new risk reappears as prices rise.
Why some analysts say buying before the “bottom” may be rational
Not all commentary is framed around waiting for confirmation. Swan Bitcoin analyst Adam Livingston pointed to how close Bitcoin is currently trading relative to its realized price—the network’s aggregate cost basis, which often acts as a reference point in on-chain analysis.
According to Livingston, Bitcoin is trading about 16% above the realized price. He argued that this historically aligns with strong forward returns, citing research showing 41% gains over six months and 81% gains over 12 months following similar discount conditions.
Livingston acknowledged that buying at this stage “feels awful,” but he argued the psychological discomfort is part of why the opportunity can appear. In his view, waiting for a “bottom” is flawed because bottoms rarely announce themselves in a way that’s reliable enough to time entries perfectly.
While that argument is not a guarantee, it reframes the debate: rather than trying to predict the exact turn, investors may focus on whether market-wide indicators—on-chain loss concentration, realized valuation levels, and sentiment—suggest that downside pressure is fading.
What to watch next
For the near term, traders and investors will likely keep comparing this realized P&L trough with subsequent price action: if Bitcoin continues to stabilize while sentiment improves and leverage unwinds, the market may be shifting from capitulation toward consolidation. The key uncertainty is whether the current signals mark a decisive bottoming phase—or simply another stage in a volatile transition.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin P&L Ratio Drops to 43-Month Low on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bitcoin P&L Ratio Drops to 43-Month Low
Bitcoin is flashing a highly unusual on-chain signal: its realized profit-and-loss ratio has fallen to a 43-month low of -0.35, an indicator CryptoQuant says reflects “extreme” loss conditions across the market. Historically, CryptoQuant adds, that type of reading has tended to appear close to major price bottoms.
The metric has not been this low since shortly after the FTX collapse, when Bitcoin traded below $16,000 in late 2022. With BTC still recovering from a steep drawdown that began after a peak near $126,080 in October, the new data is adding fuel to a broader debate among analysts over whether the market is past its worst stress—or merely approaching it.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant reports Bitcoin’s realized P&L ratio hit -0.35, the lowest reading in 43 months, last seen around late 2022.
CryptoQuant says past occurrences of readings below -0.35 in 2015 and 2019 preceded subsequent rallies.
CryptoQuant’s on-chain stress signal is arriving as “Fear and Greed” sentiment has moved off near-record lows and Bitcoin has bounced more than 7% from a June 25 trough near $58,190.
Some analysts link the current drawdown to Strategy’s Stretch (STRC) preferred-stock offering and related concerns about dividend coverage.
Other commentators argue investors should not wait for a “bottom” to be obvious because historical discount zones have been associated with strong 6- and 12-month forward returns.
Realized P&L reaches a historically rare loss zone
According to CryptoQuant, the Bitcoin realized profit-and-loss (P&L) ratio has dropped to -0.35. The realized P&L ratio measures the net percentage of Bitcoin currently in profit or loss relative to total supply, using on-chain cost basis information. In practical terms, a more negative reading indicates that a larger share of holders are underwater on their realized entry prices.
CryptoQuant emphasized that the -0.35 threshold has shown a strong historical relationship with major bottoming behavior. In its analysis published Thursday, the firm said that realized P&L has “marked BTC bottoms with extreme precision,” citing earlier periods where the ratio slipped below -0.35 before later rebounds.
The indicator’s last comparable level came around December 2022, shortly after the FTX collapse exposed fragile market liquidity. Back then, Bitcoin fell to levels under $16,000—an episode that many market participants still reference as a stress test for crypto’s risk assets.
What the signal may mean for sentiment and timing
CryptoQuant’s indicator arrives during a sharp correction cycle that began from a high set in October near $126,080, after which Bitcoin experienced a roughly 50% drawdown. While past realized P&L readings can be informative, timing remains the key question for investors: a bottom signal can appear before prices fully recover, and it does not rule out additional volatility.
Still, broader sentiment gauges show signs of stabilization. The “Fear and Greed” index has risen cautiously over the past 10 days, according to the index page on Alternative.me. During the same window, Bitcoin has climbed more than 7% after falling to a near two-year low of about $58,190 on June 25, as reflected in prior reporting by Cointelegraph.
In other words, the on-chain data and the sentiment recovery are moving in the same direction, even if they don’t provide a precise “day of the bottom” forecast.
Strategy’s STRC episode and the leverage unwind narrative
A significant part of the discussion around the latest selloff centers on corporate Bitcoin exposure. Cointelegraph previously reported that analysts attributed much of the recent weakness to Strategy—the largest corporate Bitcoin holder—after its top perpetual preferred stock offering, Stretch (STRC), deviated from its $100 par value. The move reportedly pushed STRC below $75, raising concerns that Strategy’s dividend model may have been strained.
On Thursday, Cointelegraph noted that Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan said the STRC incident likely helped “squeeze out excess leverage” and could be pushing the market closer to a bottom as participants work through the fallout.
For traders and long-term holders alike, this matters because leveraged positioning can magnify moves on the way down. If leverage is truly being unwound—whether through forced deleveraging, hedging adjustments, or repricing of capital-market products—then the market may become less mechanically vulnerable to sudden liquidations. What remains unclear is how much of that unwind is complete and whether new risk reappears as prices rise.
Why some analysts say buying before the “bottom” may be rational
Not all commentary is framed around waiting for confirmation. Swan Bitcoin analyst Adam Livingston pointed to how close Bitcoin is currently trading relative to its realized price—the network’s aggregate cost basis, which often acts as a reference point in on-chain analysis.
According to Livingston, Bitcoin is trading about 16% above the realized price. He argued that this historically aligns with strong forward returns, citing research showing 41% gains over six months and 81% gains over 12 months following similar discount conditions.
Livingston acknowledged that buying at this stage “feels awful,” but he argued the psychological discomfort is part of why the opportunity can appear. In his view, waiting for a “bottom” is flawed because bottoms rarely announce themselves in a way that’s reliable enough to time entries perfectly.
While that argument is not a guarantee, it reframes the debate: rather than trying to predict the exact turn, investors may focus on whether market-wide indicators—on-chain loss concentration, realized valuation levels, and sentiment—suggest that downside pressure is fading.
What to watch next
For the near term, traders and investors will likely keep comparing this realized P&L trough with subsequent price action: if Bitcoin continues to stabilize while sentiment improves and leverage unwinds, the market may be shifting from capitulation toward consolidation. The key uncertainty is whether the current signals mark a decisive bottoming phase—or simply another stage in a volatile transition.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin P&L Ratio Drops to 43-Month Low on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The metric has not been this low since shortly after the FTX collapse, when Bitcoin traded below $16,000 in late 2022. With BTC still recovering from a steep drawdown that began after a peak near $126,080 in October, the new data is adding fuel to a broader debate among analysts over whether the market is past its worst stress—or merely approaching it.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant reports Bitcoin’s realized P&L ratio hit -0.35, the lowest reading in 43 months, last seen around late 2022.
CryptoQuant says past occurrences of readings below -0.35 in 2015 and 2019 preceded subsequent rallies.
CryptoQuant’s on-chain stress signal is arriving as “Fear and Greed” sentiment has moved off near-record lows and Bitcoin has bounced more than 7% from a June 25 trough near $58,190.
Some analysts link the current drawdown to Strategy’s Stretch (STRC) preferred-stock offering and related concerns about dividend coverage.
Other commentators argue investors should not wait for a “bottom” to be obvious because historical discount zones have been associated with strong 6- and 12-month forward returns.
Realized P&L reaches a historically rare loss zone
According to CryptoQuant, the Bitcoin realized profit-and-loss (P&L) ratio has dropped to -0.35. The realized P&L ratio measures the net percentage of Bitcoin currently in profit or loss relative to total supply, using on-chain cost basis information. In practical terms, a more negative reading indicates that a larger share of holders are underwater on their realized entry prices.
CryptoQuant emphasized that the -0.35 threshold has shown a strong historical relationship with major bottoming behavior. In its analysis published Thursday, the firm said that realized P&L has “marked BTC bottoms with extreme precision,” citing earlier periods where the ratio slipped below -0.35 before later rebounds.
The indicator’s last comparable level came around December 2022, shortly after the FTX collapse exposed fragile market liquidity. Back then, Bitcoin fell to levels under $16,000—an episode that many market participants still reference as a stress test for crypto’s risk assets.
What the signal may mean for sentiment and timing
CryptoQuant’s indicator arrives during a sharp correction cycle that began from a high set in October near $126,080, after which Bitcoin experienced a roughly 50% drawdown. While past realized P&L readings can be informative, timing remains the key question for investors: a bottom signal can appear before prices fully recover, and it does not rule out additional volatility.
Still, broader sentiment gauges show signs of stabilization. The “Fear and Greed” index has risen cautiously over the past 10 days, according to the index page on Alternative.me. During the same window, Bitcoin has climbed more than 7% after falling to a near two-year low of about $58,190 on June 25, as reflected in prior reporting by Cointelegraph.
In other words, the on-chain data and the sentiment recovery are moving in the same direction, even if they don’t provide a precise “day of the bottom” forecast.
Strategy’s STRC episode and the leverage unwind narrative
A significant part of the discussion around the latest selloff centers on corporate Bitcoin exposure. Cointelegraph previously reported that analysts attributed much of the recent weakness to Strategy—the largest corporate Bitcoin holder—after its top perpetual preferred stock offering, Stretch (STRC), deviated from its $100 par value. The move reportedly pushed STRC below $75, raising concerns that Strategy’s dividend model may have been strained.
On Thursday, Cointelegraph noted that Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan said the STRC incident likely helped “squeeze out excess leverage” and could be pushing the market closer to a bottom as participants work through the fallout.
For traders and long-term holders alike, this matters because leveraged positioning can magnify moves on the way down. If leverage is truly being unwound—whether through forced deleveraging, hedging adjustments, or repricing of capital-market products—then the market may become less mechanically vulnerable to sudden liquidations. What remains unclear is how much of that unwind is complete and whether new risk reappears as prices rise.
Why some analysts say buying before the “bottom” may be rational
Not all commentary is framed around waiting for confirmation. Swan Bitcoin analyst Adam Livingston pointed to how close Bitcoin is currently trading relative to its realized price—the network’s aggregate cost basis, which often acts as a reference point in on-chain analysis.
According to Livingston, Bitcoin is trading about 16% above the realized price. He argued that this historically aligns with strong forward returns, citing research showing 41% gains over six months and 81% gains over 12 months following similar discount conditions.
Livingston acknowledged that buying at this stage “feels awful,” but he argued the psychological discomfort is part of why the opportunity can appear. In his view, waiting for a “bottom” is flawed because bottoms rarely announce themselves in a way that’s reliable enough to time entries perfectly.
While that argument is not a guarantee, it reframes the debate: rather than trying to predict the exact turn, investors may focus on whether market-wide indicators—on-chain loss concentration, realized valuation levels, and sentiment—suggest that downside pressure is fading.
What to watch next
For the near term, traders and investors will likely keep comparing this realized P&L trough with subsequent price action: if Bitcoin continues to stabilize while sentiment improves and leverage unwinds, the market may be shifting from capitulation toward consolidation. The key uncertainty is whether the current signals mark a decisive bottoming phase—or simply another stage in a volatile transition.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin P&L Ratio Drops to 43-Month Low on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
67
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
VitalikOutlinesLeanEthereumRoadmap
5,729 views
171 Discussing
#VitalikOutlinesLeanEthereumRoadmap 🚀 Vitalik outlines a leaner Ethereum roadmap.
The focus? Simplicity, scalability, and stronger decentralization. By reducing protocol complexity, Ethereum aims to become easier to maintain, more secure, and better prepared for long-term adoption.
A simpler network. A stronger future. ⚡
#Ethereum✅ #ETH #VitalikOutlinesLeanEthereumRoadmap $ETH #BinanceSquare
raj1177
·0 Likes
·10 views
EthicalHackersFindAptosFlawRisking$70B
1,265 views
25 Discussing
MonadTVLTops$447.9MSurpassingSui
180 views
3 Discussing