Crypto Breaking

A third-party vendor compromise allowed attackers to inject malicious code into Polymarket’s frontend, leading to a phishing drain from user wallets, according to blockchain analyst Specter. The incident was discovered on Thursday and reportedly targeted at least 11 Polymarket users, with Specter estimating losses of $2.94 million.
Polymarket said on X that the issue has been contained, the affected dependency removed, and that users will be fully refunded. While Cointelegraph attempted to follow up for additional comment, no response was received before publication.
Key takeaways
Specter attributed the Polymarket incident to malicious script injection following a vendor compromise, with an estimated $2.94 million drained from at least 11 wallets.
Polymarket states the compromise has been contained and that the impacted dependency was removed, with full user refunds promised.
DefiLlama data shows June exploit losses reached $74.9 million across 29 incidents—more than May’s $60.5 million, but far below April’s $644 million.
Across the last 30 days, private key compromises accounted for 43% of reported exploit losses, making it the leading attack vector.
DefiLlama’s breakdown points to other recurring methods, including “fake proof” exploits (10%) and reverse MEV honeypots (8%).
Polymarket: vendor compromise leads to frontend phishing
Specter said the malicious script appeared to be designed to facilitate phishing, ultimately draining funds from multiple Polymarket wallets. The key operational detail in the account is that the attacker did not need to compromise Polymarket’s core smart contracts directly; instead, the issue originated from a third-party vendor compromise that enabled code injection into the platform’s frontend.
That distinction matters for users because frontend-based attacks can succeed even when on-chain contracts remain intact. In practice, phishing scripts can trick users into approving malicious actions, entering credentials into spoofed interfaces, or signing transactions that benefit attackers.
Polymarket’s response emphasized containment and remediation: the platform said the compromise has been stopped, the problematic dependency removed, and affected users will receive full refunds. With those steps, the immediate risk of further wallet draining should decline, though users will still want to monitor their accounts and transaction history for any suspicious approvals.
Why this sits within a larger pattern of crypto incidents
The Polymarket event comes amid a sustained run of reported crypto security breaches. DefiLlama data lists the Polymarket incident as the 89th reported crypto security breach of the second quarter. That count extends what DefiLlama categorization describes as the most-hacked quarter on record by incident count.
Earlier in June, DefiLlama’s monthly totals already reflected elevated activity. June exploit losses climbed to $74.9 million across 29 reported incidents, surpassing May’s $60.5 million. However, April’s $644 million remains the standout outlier for magnitude, underscoring that while breach frequency remains high, individual months can vary dramatically based on whether large incidents occur.
June’s reported exploit losses: the biggest June incidents
DefiLlama’s aggregation highlights several of the largest June events. The most prominent was the $36 million Humanity Protocol exploit. Other notable losses included the $4.7 million Secret Network bridge exploit, two Aztec-related exploits worth $2.1 million each, and a $1.7 million bridge exploit tied to Taiko, according to the article’s cited figures and linked coverage.
Taken together, the list shows that bridge ecosystems and cross-chain integrations continue to attract high-impact attacks. While frontend phishing attacks like Polymarket’s are distinct from bridge exploits, both categories fall under the broader umbrella of “exploit losses”—the measurable outcomes when attackers successfully compromise systems or user interactions.
Attack vectors over the last month: key compromise still leads
DefiLlama data summarized in the piece indicates that the primary driver of reported exploit losses over the past 30 days was private key compromise, responsible for 43% of losses. Fake proof exploits accounted for 10%, while reverse MEV honeypots made up 8% of losses, based on DefiLlama’s breakdown.
The vector mix is useful because it shifts how defensive priorities are framed. Private key compromise suggests either user-side weakness (including wallet security practices) or operational weaknesses involving signing keys—issues that often persist across unrelated protocols. Meanwhile, fake proof and reverse MEV honeypots reflect more sophisticated adversarial tactics at the application and execution layers, targeting how systems validate claims or how trading bots execute orders.
The article also notes that roughly a month before Polymarket’s latest attack, the prediction market disclosed a separate $600,000 exploit traced to a six-year-old private key used for internal top-up operations. Polymarket leadership said at the time that user funds and contracts were safe and that permissions tied to the key had been revoked, emphasizing that the platform has dealt with operational key risks before.
Polymarket’s scale and what users should monitor next
DefiLlama data cited in the article places Polymarket’s total value locked at over $450 million, up 301% from $112 million a year earlier. As platforms grow, they often become more attractive targets—not only for contract-level attacks but also for the broader supply-chain and integration risks that can surface through third-party dependencies.
Going forward, readers should watch for two signals: confirmation from Polymarket and security analysts that the injected frontend dependency is fully removed and no similar vendor-based pathways remain, and whether wallet-level incidents prompt changes in how users interact with the platform (for example, renewed scrutiny of approvals and transaction prompts). With refunds promised, the immediate impact may be contained, but the recurrence of earlier key-related disclosures underscores that operational security remains a critical focus for both users and the platforms they rely on.
This article was originally published as Polymarket Loses $2.9M to Theft, Plans Full User Refunds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Story Protocol, a layer-1 blockchain originally positioned around intellectual property licensing, is reframing its mission around artificial intelligence. The project announced it is rebranding as the DATA Foundation, saying it will concentrate on building “essential infrastructure for training AI.”
In its announcement, the company argued that leading AI labs are reaching a data bottleneck: the open internet has been “effectively exhausted for scraping,” while remaining sources are either costly, tailored case-by-case, or lack clear legal documentation. In that environment, it says training systems struggle to source enough data at scale and to establish provenance and quality.
Key takeaways
Story Protocol is rebranding as the DATA Foundation to focus on AI training data infrastructure rather than general IP licensing.
Trace is being introduced as an on-chain registry intended to support data provenance and licensing for AI training datasets.
Poseidon is described as the protocol’s processing layer for AI-related data workflows.
Leadership is changing: Story president and product chief Andrea Muttoni will become CEO of the DATA Foundation, with Kled founder Avi Patel joining as chief data officer.
Partnership intent is explicit, with Kled positioned as a key licensable data-set source that pays contributors for tasks used in training data creation.
A pivot from IP licensing to AI training infrastructure
Story’s original framing aimed to supply an “IP layer” for the internet using permissionless licensing. In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, Story president and product chief Andrea Muttoni said the company ran into a structural tension: major rights-holders—particularly those controlling music, games, and brands—guard their most valuable assets closely, while permissionless licensing can conflict with the control they want to maintain.
Muttoni said the team eventually identified a different opening in the AI data pipeline. According to him, Poseidon—an AI data-processing initiative Story incubated—showed “immediate traction” with major AI firms, and the project raised a $15 million seed round in July 2025.
The company’s thesis is that the next scarce input for AI training is not just data, but data that can be verified, legally licensed, and trusted at scale—particularly when scraping-based approaches face diminishing returns.
Trace: an on-chain registry for provenance and licensing
A central part of the DATA Foundation’s plan is an on-chain registry named Trace. The project says Trace is designed to record and make verifiable claims about AI training data provenance and licensing terms, with the goal of helping AI companies validate entire datasets.
Beyond recordkeeping, the company emphasizes that Trace should also allow contributors to enforce their terms. The implication for builders and institutions is straightforward: instead of treating licensing paperwork and provenance checks as disconnected processes, the DATA Foundation is positioning them as part of an auditable on-chain workflow.
Poseidon as the protocol’s processing layer
The DATA Foundation also points to Poseidon as the “processing layer” of the overall protocol. While the announcement focuses more on what Trace does for provenance and licensing, the project frames Poseidon as the engine that supports AI-related data operations.
This division of labor—processing via Poseidon and provenance via Trace—matters because the bottlenecks described by Story are not only about collecting information, but about being able to demonstrate where it came from, under what rights it was licensed, and whether it meets quality expectations. In that context, the processing and registry components are intended to work together as part of a single end-to-end stack.
Kled integration and the “flagship app” approach
In addition to developing its own infrastructure, Story says it is integrating with Kled, a provider of licensable AI training datasets. The company says Kled pays people for tasks including capturing videos of their surroundings or recording ambient audio—activities used to generate real-world signals for AI training.
Muttoni characterized Kled as the “flagship app” on DATA, suggesting that the foundation’s product strategy is likely to rely on an active supply side of contributors rather than depending solely on pre-collected datasets.
In terms of continuity, Muttoni told Cointelegraph that registered IP and data on the Story blockchain would remain. The transition to the DATA branding, he said, means the roadmap will shift toward building a full-stack framework for AI training data.
Leadership changes and what advisers add
The rebrand also comes with a reshuffle at the top. Muttoni will serve as CEO of the DATA Foundation, while Avi Patel—Kled founder—will join as chief data officer and adviser.
Story founder Seung-yoon Lee will become an adviser as well. In comments included with the announcement, Lee argued that the most valuable IP of this era is data that cannot be easily scraped—examples given include how a surgeon’s hands move, how robots grip objects, and how people speak and behave in everyday work and environments. He framed DATA as an end-to-end network intended to prove real-world data’s origin, license it, and pay people who contribute to its creation.
Why this pivot is arriving as crypto eyes AI
Story’s move fits a wider pattern in the crypto sector as projects seek new demand drivers amid shifting market conditions. The announcement cites that some crypto miners have pivoted toward running high-performance computers for AI workloads, helping support revenues in a bear market.
It also references broader industry activity: earlier coverage by Cointelegraph described Coinbase’s plan to launch a tool allowing consumer AI models to connect to an exchange account to make trades or execute strategies as it tries to expand beyond a pure trading platform. The story further notes that Forbes reported that Immutable—known for Web3 gaming—has been pivoting toward an AI marketing platform aimed at game publishers.
For investors and operators, the common thread is that AI infrastructure tends to be resource- and compliance-heavy: beyond compute, it depends on reliable inputs and defensible sourcing. DATA Foundation’s emphasis on provenance and licensing indicates that, at least in Story’s view, the market opportunity lies in making those inputs more verifiable and scalable.
Next, the most important questions are practical: how quickly Trace is adopted by AI firms and dataset contributors, and whether DATA’s approach can reduce the friction of proving licensing and provenance compared with current, mostly off-chain processes. Readers should also watch how Poseidon operationalizes the processing layer and what measurable traction the DATA Foundation reports as more real-world training data moves into its registry.
This article was originally published as Story Protocol Rebrands as DATA Foundation After AI Pivot on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ether slid to its lowest level of the year on Friday, and the move had an immediate knock-on effect across the market’s largest capitalizations. After a 5.2% drop over 24 hours, ETH’s market capitalization fell below $185 billion, with the token trading around $1,510 on Coinbase, according to TradingView.
That decline allowed Tether’s USDt to overtake ETH for the second-largest spot by market capitalization, with USDt at roughly $186 billion at the time of the flip. Analysts framed the outcome as a reminder that—at least in the current environment—many traders and users are choosing stability over volatility.
Key takeaways
ETH’s selloff pushed its market capitalization below $185 billion, after a 5.2% 24-hour decline, according to TradingView.
Tether’s USDt briefly rose to about $186 billion in market cap, overtaking Ether for the second-largest position.
Market commentary linked the flip to ongoing stablecoin demand, which now represents almost 15% of total crypto market capitalization.
Ethereum’s broader ecosystem has seen internal restructuring, but new R&D efforts via Ethlabs are also underway.
Some Ethereum-aligned treasuries continued buying during the weakness, while Circle’s USDC also showed strength relative to XRP.
Why USDt overtook Ether as ETH hit a fresh low
The immediate trigger was Ether’s sharp downward move over a single day. TradingView data cited in the report shows ETH falling to around $1,510 on Coinbase, following the 5.2% crash. With ETH’s market cap dropping below $185 billion, USDt’s approximately $186 billion figure became large enough to move it into the #2 slot.
Bitrue Research Institute’s research lead, Andri Fauzan Adziima, told Cointelegraph that the overtake underscores how the market is currently “favor[ing] stability over ETH’s volatility.” The point wasn’t just about one day of price action—it was about what capital is rewarding in the moment.
Stablecoins keep growing even when the market turns
The USDt-versus-ETH flip aligns with a wider trend: stablecoins are steadily expanding their share of the crypto market. Cointelegraph notes accelerating stablecoin growth, citing that the category accounts for almost 15% of total crypto market capitalization.
In a Thursday post, 21Shares highlighted an important contrast with the last downturn: stablecoin supply contracted by more than 30% during the prior bear market, but is reaching record highs this time. The firm argued that the shift suggests stablecoins have become a defining use case rather than something that depends strictly on the market cycle.
“To us, that is the strongest evidence yet that stablecoins are one of crypto’s defining use cases – demand that no longer depends on the cycle.”
From a liquidity and trading perspective, deeper stablecoin balances can improve on-ramps and off-ramps and help sustain activity during volatility. Alvin Kan, chief operating officer of Bitget Wallet, also pointed to that angle, calling the flip a “notable milestone” reflecting stablecoins’ dominance.
“It demonstrates strong demand for reliable, liquid on- and off-ramps during periods of volatility, while serving as a reminder that ETH must continue delivering compelling utility and narrative momentum to maintain its position.”
Ethereum pressure, but active “buy-the-dip” behavior
While Ether’s price weakness drew attention, several Ethereum-related players reportedly leaned into the decline.
Crypto treasury company Sharplink made its first purchase in eight months, buying 5,000 ETH on Thursday after ETH’s drop. Bitmine, which is chaired by Tom Lee, also continued accumulating: it added 76,881 ETH last week, according to the coverage cited by Cointelegraph.
These actions don’t automatically reverse price trends, but they can be meaningful for sentiment and for how long-horizon holders behave when market conditions deteriorate. If treasuries continue converting into ETH at lower levels, it suggests confidence in the asset’s longer-term role even while short-term volatility punishes holders.
At the same time, the Ether slump has unfolded alongside changes to Ethereum’s institutional structure. Cointelegraph referenced executive departures and a 20% workforce reduction at the Ethereum Foundation. However, it also notes that a new nonprofit organization, Ethlabs, was launched this week by key EF developers and researchers and backed by Ether treasuries Bitmine and Sharplink, pointing to continued efforts focused on Ethereum research and development.
Broader capitalization moves: USDC vs. XRP
Ether wasn’t the only major asset showing relative strength or weakness during the market’s choppy session. The report also states that Circle’s USDC flipped Ripple’s XRP in market capitalization as XRP declined toward $1, its lowest level since November 2024.
At the time of the comparison mentioned in the coverage, XRP’s market capitalization was cited around $64 billion, compared with USDC’s roughly $73.6 billion. For investors tracking stablecoins, the takeaway is similar to what the USDt flip signals: stablecoin demand can be resilient even when other large coins experience extended drawdowns.
Looking ahead, the key question is whether ETH can reclaim critical support levels and sustain momentum, or whether stablecoins continue to widen their grip on market capitalization. Traders and investors will likely watch how stablecoin growth trends evolve alongside Ethereum’s institutional and R&D developments—especially if volatility persists.
This article was originally published as Tether (USDT) Passes Ether in Market Cap as ETH Drops Toward $1.5K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Base, the blockchain developed by Coinbase, has resumed normal operations after an outage that lasted nearly two hours and stemmed from a consensus failure that prevented block production.
Base confirmed on Thursday that its blocks were once again being produced normally and that it had verified recovery across the broader ecosystem following the disruption. The incident was tracked publicly via Base’s status page, which first flagged unhealthy block production before later describing the specific consensus issue.
Key takeaways
Base reported a near two-hour outage caused by a consensus problem that sequenced an invalid block and stopped new block creation.
The network later restored “healthy blockbuilding,” and infrastructure across the ecosystem was able to sync again.
Base said it had identified the issue and would investigate the underlying cause with a full post-mortem.
The downtime was notable because Base is among the most widely used Ethereum layer-2 networks.
An upgrade scheduled for shortly after the outage—Beryl—was completed hours later, after the incident.
Outage traced to consensus and invalid block sequencing
Base’s status page reported that the team was investigating “unhealthy” block production at 4:03 pm UTC on Thursday. Less than an hour later, Base said it had isolated a consensus problem in which an invalid block was sequenced. According to the status update, that sequence effectively halted block production, meaning no new blocks could be created during the period.
In a subsequent update just before 6 pm UTC, Base stated that it had recovered healthy blockbuilding, and that ecosystem-wide infrastructure had returned to a synced state. The team added that it had identified the issue and would continue investigating the root cause, promising a full post-mortem.
Base also posted the recovery status on X via its official account, saying blocks were being produced normally and that it had confirmed widespread recovery throughout the ecosystem.
Why Base downtime is noteworthy for Ethereum layer-2 users
While outages can happen across blockchain networks, a disruption of this nature is comparatively rare for major systems—particularly for networks that are heavily relied upon for daily activity. Base is described in the report as one of the most used Ethereum layer-2 networks.
Base previously experienced a significant outage in August 2025, when it went down for 33 minutes, as indicated in a separate incident recorded on its status page. The latest event therefore adds another high-visibility reliability test for users and operators who depend on Base for time-sensitive transactions and on-chain application workflows.
The reporting around the incident also emphasized that Base’s creator, Jesse Pollack, said funds on the network were safe. However, even when assets are not at risk, a halt in block production can affect confirmations, withdrawals, and the overall throughput that applications expect from a live network.
Timing around the Beryl upgrade
According to the report, the downtime appeared to occur separately and just hours ahead of a scheduled Base upgrade known as Beryl. The upgrade was set for 6 pm UTC and was reported as completed at 8 pm UTC, two hours later.
Base’s Beryl update was intended to reduce delays on withdrawals and introduce a new token standard for real-world assets and stablecoins. For users, those changes can directly influence how quickly funds move out of the system and how new tokenized products are represented on-chain. For infrastructure providers, upgrades also increase operational complexity—making it especially important that the network returned to healthy block production before or during the transition.
Wider reliability signals across competing networks
Base’s outage also fits into a broader pattern of occasional block-production stalls across large networks. The report points to Sui, which experienced two separate periods of downtime on back-to-back days in May, each causing a temporary block-production halt. Sui later stated that the downtime resulted from a network update it had assessed as having a low probability of causing a halt.
That detail matters because it highlights a recurring challenge in blockchain operations: even carefully planned upgrades can create unforeseen edge cases. In Base’s case, the immediate cause was described as a consensus problem that prevented block creation, and the team indicated it would investigate the root cause. Readers may want to watch whether Base’s post-mortem explains how the failure relates to network parameters, client behavior, or sequencing logic—and whether similar failure modes could recur.
What to watch next
Base says it has identified the issue and will publish a root-cause analysis. The key follow-up will be how the post-mortem explains the consensus failure and what safeguards are added to prevent invalid block sequencing and restore even more resilient block production—particularly around future upgrades like Beryl.
This article was originally published as Coinbase Base Restarts Block Production After 2-Hour Outage on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

StablecoinX has completed its merger with TLGY Acquisition Corp, a publicly traded SPAC, positioning the stablecoin infrastructure firm to begin trading on Nasdaq on Friday. The company will list under the ticker symbol USDE, according to a statement released Thursday.
The debut marks a major milestone for a business focused on building stablecoin infrastructure for the Ethena ecosystem, including decentralized verifier nodes and supporting software layers. The move comes as the broader crypto market struggles, despite ongoing interest in “digital dollars” as settlement rails for mainstream finance.
Key takeaways
StablecoinX is set to start Nasdaq trading under the ticker USDE following its merger with TLGY Acquisition Corp.
The company is branded as an infrastructure provider for Ethena, rather than a direct issuer competitor to dollar-backed stablecoin majors.
USDe’s $1 peg relies on a derivatives-based, delta-neutral strategy—an approach that can face stress when futures funding rates turn negative.
USDe supply and market value have declined sharply from its October peak, underscoring a tougher environment for yield-linked stablecoins.
StablecoinX holds a large ENA treasury position, and the ENA price has fallen dramatically from its April 2024 high—factors investors may want to monitor closely.
Nasdaq listing tied to Ethena infrastructure
StablecoinX describes itself as the first publicly listed stablecoin infrastructure company aimed at supporting the Ethena ecosystem. Its core offerings include decentralized verifier nodes (DVNs)—a function designed to serve as a cross-chain message verifier for Ethena—and a software and distribution set of products.
According to the Thursday statement, the firm will begin trading Friday after completing the business combination. CEO and Chairman Edward Chen framed the rationale around Ethena’s growing role in “the next generation of digital dollars,” signaling that StablecoinX’s market thesis is tied to Ethena’s continued development rather than to broad stablecoin market share alone.
Why USDe’s design matters: synthetic peg and derivatives risk
At the center of StablecoinX’s story is Ethena’s USDe, a yield-bearing, synthetic dollar-pegged stablecoin. Unlike USDt (USDT) or USDC (USDC), which are backed by actual dollars, USDe is intended to maintain its $1 peg through a derivatives strategy.
The system uses crypto collateral in Bitcoin and Ether, paired with short futures positions on the same assets. In normal market conditions, long and short exposure can offset price swings, helping stabilize USDe’s value at approximately $1.
However, the strategy is not “set and forget.” The model is described as delta-neutral in regular trading environments, but it can be vulnerable during periods when futures funding rates go negative. That nuance is important for investors who may view synthetic and yield-linked stablecoins as fundamentally different from fully fiat-backed designs.
USDe shrinking from its peak while stablecoin demand continues
Even with stablecoins generally expanding over recent years, the input data points to a different trend for USDe itself. The article reports that USDe market capitalization has declined by 70% since its October peak, reaching roughly $4.5 billion and placing it sixth among stablecoins. The text also notes that Ethena’s USDe represents only about 1.4% market share—well behind competitors such as Tether and Circle.
The supply trend highlights a key tension in the current stablecoin landscape: demand for dollar-like tokens may be resilient, but the market appetite for specific yield mechanics can fluctuate with broader crypto conditions and market structure (including derivatives funding).
StablecoinX’s treasury exposure and recent capital plans
StablecoinX’s financial positioning is closely tied to Ethena’s native token ENA. The company’s treasury reportedly holds about 3 billion ENA, or roughly 20% of total supply, valued at approximately $275 million based on the information provided.
StablecoinX also announced a $360 million capital raise to purchase ENA on Sunday, as referenced in the article.
But the same source notes that ENA is currently trading at $0.08, down 94% from its April 2024 all-time high. With such a sharp decline, investors may want to consider whether the planned ENA purchases will strengthen treasury alignment with Ethena—or whether valuation compression and market risk remain material.
Infrastructure thesis in a tough crypto market
The Nasdaq move lands during a difficult stretch for crypto and crypto-related capital raising. The article states that crypto SPACs and crypto treasuries have had a challenging year as the broader market has fallen, with $2.3 trillion leaving the space since October and crypto dropping out of favor among investors.
Before the merger, TLGY reportedly fell 6.93% on Thursday in OTC trading, ending at $9.40, according to Google Finance data cited in the article. That backdrop adds context to the risk-reward calculation for investors evaluating StablecoinX as a newly public stablecoin infrastructure platform.
Looking ahead, the main questions for readers are whether USDe’s derivatives-based peg can remain resilient when market conditions shift—especially around futures funding dynamics—and how StablecoinX’s ENA treasury strategy performs as both crypto prices and stablecoin usage evolve.
This article was originally published as StablecoinX to Launch in Ethena Ecosystem, Nasdaq Debut Friday on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Sharplink, the Ethereum treasury company, has made its first Ether purchase in eight months as ETH slid to the lowest level seen this year. The move highlights how corporate balance-sheet strategies can continue even when broader market momentum weakens.
According to on-chain data tracked by Arkham, a wallet associated with Sharplink received 5,000 ETH on Thursday via crypto prime brokerage FalconX. Arkham data places the transaction at roughly $7.85 million. FalconX was last recorded supplying Sharplink with ETH on Oct. 26, when the company bought $78.3 million worth of Ether.
Key takeaways
Sharplink bought 5,000 ETH on Thursday, marking its first Ether acquisition in about eight months.
The purchase comes as Ether fell to $1,537—its lowest price level reported for 2026.
Arkham’s on-chain records show FalconX was also the execution partner on Sharplink’s previous reported ETH buy on Oct. 26.
Sharplink’s Ether strategy is tied to a multi-factor thesis that includes US stablecoin/crypto regulatory progress and continued real-world asset tokenization.
The company is also expected to be added to the Russell 2000 and Russell 3000 indexes, a development investors may watch for potential capital-market spillovers.
A corporate buy at ETH’s 2026 low
Ether’s decline to $1,537 on Thursday provides the immediate backdrop for Sharplink’s latest treasury action. While the broader market reaction is typically measured by price and volatility, the company’s decision points to a different lens: steady accumulation even during softer conditions.
Bitrue Research Institute’s Andri Fauzan Adziima characterized the behavior as evidence of ongoing corporate conviction. “I’m seeing genuine corporate accumulation conviction holding strong amid subdued price action,” Adziima told Cointelegraph.
In other words, the purchase aligns with a pattern that treasury operators often follow—building positions when liquidity is available and valuations are comparatively depressed—rather than waiting for a market uptrend to begin. Traders may therefore interpret Thursday’s on-chain activity as a signal that Sharplink sees more than just short-term price pressure in its Ether holdings.
What Sharplink has previously pointed to
The latest buy also fits with remarks made by Sharplink CEO Joseph Chalom earlier this year. In May, he outlined three catalysts he believed could support Ether’s outlook.
First, Chalom pointed to the US CLARITY Act. Second, he connected potential upside to a renewed appetite for market risk, which he said would depend on easing geopolitical tensions and a cooling of the “artificial intelligence investment thesis.” Third, he emphasized continued expansion in real-world asset (RWA) tokenization.
That regulatory and tokenization framework remains a central uncertainty. While the Senate has not yet voted on its version of the CLARITY Act, the House Financial Services Committee said it plans to hold a hearing on July 17.
The political and market assumptions around these catalysts are also moving targets. The article notes that the US and Iran are working toward a final peace agreement to end months of conflict. Separately, tokenized real-world assets have reportedly reached a distributed asset value of $31.55 billion, approaching what the source describes as the highest level seen this year.
Sharplink’s Ether position and rivals’ momentum
Sharplink’s latest transaction comes as it continues to build a sizable Ether balance. Founded in 2019 as an affiliate marketing service provider for sports betting and gambling industries, the company pivoted to become an Ethereum treasury business in June 2025. Consensys co-founder and CEO Joe Lubin was named chairman at that time.
At its peak, Sharplink was described as the largest publicly traded corporate holder of ETH, though it later lost that top position to Bitmine in August—just two months after Bitmine launched its own Ether buying strategy.
The company now holds 876,285 ETH and ETH equivalents accumulated through a combination of active purchases and staking rewards, the source reports. Bitmine, by comparison, is reported to hold 5.67 million ETH after acquiring an additional 52,203 ETH last week.
Bitmine chairman Tom Lee added context around the broader timing of accumulation, saying the company “continue[s] to maintain a steady pace of accumulation throughout 2026” and that it believes “we are in the early stages of crypto spring.”
Corporate treasury strategy meets public-market access
Beyond the on-chain buy, Sharplink is approaching a different milestone: its expected inclusion in the Russell 2000 and Russell 3000 indexes on Monday. Index additions are often viewed as meaningful because many passive and active funds—including exchange-traded funds—tend to rebalance holdings around such changes.
In May, Chalom said joining the Russell indexes would broaden Sharplink’s shareholder base and strengthen access to capital markets. For investors, the combination of a continuing treasury accumulation plan and wider index-driven visibility could matter, particularly for those tracking how crypto-linked equities integrate into mainstream portfolios.
Looking ahead, readers should watch whether Sharplink’s renewed buying pace persists beyond this single reported transaction—especially as US regulatory timelines around the CLARITY Act and shifting macro conditions influence risk appetite. The next on-chain confirmations and how the market responds to index inclusion may offer additional clues about whether this “accumulation conviction” translates into a sustained corporate bid for Ether.
This article was originally published as Sharplink Restarts ETH Buys After 8 Months as Price Hits 2026 Low on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Asset manager 21shares has revised down several of its bullish expectations for the crypto industry in 2026, arguing that while key market infrastructure is improving, weaker price action and slower retail and enterprise participation have dampened momentum.
In its midyear outlook, the firm said sectors ranging from exchange-traded products (ETPs) and stablecoin regulation to tokenization and prediction markets are continuing to mature. Still, it expects that major DeFi security incidents and enterprise adoption that is “slower-than-expected” will make a number of previously planned 2026 targets harder to reach.
Key takeaways
21shares says crypto infrastructure is advancing faster than market prices, leaving parts of the industry on track while broader growth is constrained.
Despite more institutional involvement, 21shares maintains that Bitcoin’s four-year cycle remains intact.
Prediction markets are highlighted as a standout growth area, with 21shares projecting annual trading volume could exceed $100 billion.
Crypto ETPs are described as resilient in the long run, even as US spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen about $3 billion in net outflows this year.
Regulatory clarity in the US is cited as helping convert ETF application backlogs into new launches beyond Bitcoin and Ether.
Bitcoin’s cycle still matters, even with institutions reshaping markets
One of 21shares’ clearest messages is that Bitcoin’s four-year market rhythm continues to play a central role. The firm pointed to Bitcoin’s post-halving behavior and argued that increased institutional involvement has changed how the asset trades during downturns without changing the cycle itself.
21shares said Bitcoin peaked at roughly $126,000 in October 2025 before pulling back sharply, and it has continued to trade in a manner consistent with past post-halving patterns. In its view, institutional ownership has helped limit how violently markets draw down, but the fundamental cyclical behavior has not been disrupted.
The firm’s stance also echoes commentary from former 21shares co-founder Ophelia Snyder, who left the company after its acquisition by FalconX in 2025. In a recent Substack post, Snyder argued that institutionalization makes crypto more entangled with broader financial and macroeconomic drivers. She wrote that the investor base is larger, more institutional, and more connected to the traditional financial system—meaning geopolitical developments and macro shifts can influence crypto pricing more than they once did.
Prediction markets and regulation-driven momentum
While 21shares trimmed some of its broader growth projections, it elevated specific segments where adoption dynamics appear stronger. The firm singled out prediction markets as one of the industry’s best-performing areas, forecasting that annual trading volume could surpass $100 billion this year.
The outlook also ties market development to regulation, particularly in the US. 21shares argued that improving regulatory clarity has helped transform a backlog of crypto ETF submissions into a more continuous stream of new product launches—expanding offerings beyond the initial wave of Bitcoin and Ether-focused vehicles.
In that context, 21shares referenced the Securities and Exchange Commission’s generic listing standards as a mechanism behind the pace of ETF conversions. It also highlighted a single case: Hyperliquid, which the firm described as standing out among newer US spot ETF tracking structures. According to 21shares, US spot ETFs tracking the asset pulled in over $150 million in net inflows in under a month, which it framed as evidence that traditional capital continues to find its way into digital-asset products.
ETPs show durability despite weaker spot inflows
21shares also addressed crypto ETP performance, arguing that short-term flows do not fully reflect investor behavior during weaker market conditions. The firm noted that while US spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded roughly $3 billion in net outflows this year, the total holdings are still just above 1.25 million BTC—close to an all-time high for Bitcoin holdings inside the category.
That balance matters because it suggests many investors are not rushing to exit after periods of volatility. 21shares said holdings remain supported by investors who either hold through downturns or accumulate strategically even when Bitcoin trades well below earlier highs.
Beyond Bitcoin-only flows, the report’s theme is that the institutional pipeline has not shut off; it has simply become more selective and less reflexive during drawdowns. For market participants, this distinction can be important: outflows can pressure near-term sentiment, but the level of cumulative holdings can point to longer-term positioning rather than capitulation.
Consolidation accelerates across treasuries and scaling ecosystems
Another major thread in 21shares’ midyear outlook is consolidation. The firm said public companies holding crypto on their balance sheets are increasingly diverging, with some smaller treasury players trading below the value of their digital assets. In 21shares’ framing, this gap can intensify pressure on weaker players and make mergers or strategic combinations more likely.
A similar dynamic, the report suggests, is playing out in Ethereum’s layer-2 ecosystem. 21shares said a handful of dominant rollups continue to take market share while many smaller networks struggle to attract meaningful user activity and liquidity. For builders and users, the implication is that network effects and capital efficiency are becoming more decisive differentiators—particularly in a market where growth is harder to come by.
What to watch next
As 21shares moves several 2026 targets out of reach, investors should watch whether regulatory catalysts (especially ETF-related) and segment-specific strength (like prediction markets) can offset the drag from weaker price conditions, security setbacks in DeFi, and slower enterprise adoption.
This article was originally published as 21Shares Cuts 2026 Crypto Forecasts as Institutional Demand Rises on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitGo Holdings said it cut nearly 15% of its workforce on Thursday, a move its CEO framed as a “one-time” restructuring as the company directs more resources toward security, trading, stablecoins and AI-driven infrastructure.
CEO and co-founder Mike Belshe shared the decision on X, writing that the crypto industry’s evolution has changed how financial services should be built and that the firm needs to be “sharper, more focused” in the areas that matter most. BitGo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Key takeaways
BitGo laid off about 15% of staff on Thursday, according to CEO Mike Belshe’s post on X.
Company focus areas highlighted by Belshe include security, trading, stablecoins, settlement, and AI-powered infrastructure.
BitGo said the reductions are intended as a one-time action and does not expect further workforce cuts.
Despite hiring plans—51 open roles listed on its job board—BitGo’s stock fell on the day of the announcement.
CEO outlines “focused” priorities after workforce cut
In his statement, Belshe described the layoffs as a difficult decision and linked the timing to broader changes in the ecosystem. He argued that BitGo’s operating approach must align with how financial services are increasingly delivered, and he tied the restructuring to a need for sharper prioritization.
Belshe specifically pointed to five internal focus areas: security, trading, stablecoins, settlement, and artificial intelligence-powered infrastructure. By emphasizing both core infrastructure services (such as security and settlement) and newer build directions (including AI infrastructure), BitGo is signaling that it wants to consolidate headcount while potentially scaling specific capabilities.
How many roles could be affected
BitGo did not confirm the exact number of employees impacted. However, the firm’s 2025 annual report—published in March—listed 603 full-time employees as of Dec. 31, 2025. If the workforce reduction matches the “nearly 15%” figure, the impact could plausibly be on the order of about 90 employees.
Belshe characterized the cuts as “a one-time action” and said BitGo does not “anticipate further reductions.” That matters for employees and investors alike: it suggests the company intends to reset capacity once rather than continue trimming on an ongoing basis, even as it reallocates resources to the priorities outlined in the announcement.
Hiring continues even as company reduces headcount
While announcing layoffs, BitGo also indicated it is still looking to hire. Its job board lists 51 open roles across multiple regions, according to the posting referenced in reporting. That creates an important tension investors will likely watch: reductions in one part of the organization paired with continued recruitment in others.
For builders and candidates, the implication is that BitGo may be reshaping teams rather than retreating from growth entirely. For market participants, the bigger question is whether the layoffs are mainly operational efficiency in a down cycle—or whether they signal that BitGo sees near-term demand specifically for the capabilities it highlighted, such as AI-enabled infrastructure and stablecoin-related services.
Broader industry backdrop: cuts spread across crypto
The BitGo layoffs arrive amid a wider wave of job reductions across crypto firms in 2026. Reporting cited that companies in the sector have cut more than 5,000 jobs so far this year, with many pointing to a combination of efficiency improvements—often attributed to AI—and a broader market slump.
Examples referenced in the coverage include:
Block Inc., which cut around 4,000 jobs (about half its workforce) in February, according to earlier reporting.
Robinhood, which cut 10% of its workforce on June 16, as previously reported.
Kraken’s parent, Payward, cutting 150 staff in May, according to earlier coverage.
Dune, which reduced staff by 25% in May.
Coinbase’s reported reduction of 700 employees (about 14% of its workforce).
Gemini, which laid off 200 employees earlier in the year, and Crypto.com, which reportedly cut about 180 staff, with both citing rising AI use.
The piece also pointed to broader US technology layoffs, noting that over 121,500 layoffs from more than 200 companies had occurred so far in 2026, according to Layoffs.fyi. This context frames BitGo’s actions as part of a larger labor realignment across the tech sector—not solely a crypto-specific adjustment.
Market reaction and what to watch next
BitGo’s stock fell after the announcement, closing Thursday down 4.67% at $4.80, extending a nearly 73% decline from its public debut at $18 on Jan. 22, according to reporting and market data from Google Finance.
Going forward, the key items for readers are whether BitGo can turn the restructuring into measurable progress in the areas Belshe named—especially security, stablecoins, and AI-driven infrastructure—and whether the “one-time” nature of the layoffs holds. In an environment where many crypto firms are still trimming costs, investors will likely look for signs that the company’s resource shift translates into stronger execution rather than simply further consolidation.
This article was originally published as BitGo Cuts 15% of Workforce as Crypto Infrastructure Tightens Costs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin DeFi is struggling to move beyond the promise stage, and the shutdown of Botanix earlier this month has become a new stress test for the idea of “programmable Bitcoin.” The closure—after nearly four years of work and about a year of mainnet uptime—raises a hard question for builders: if a well-funded, technically ambitious Bitcoin scaling project with live applications and competitive yields can’t sustain usage, is decentralized finance actually in Bitcoin’s roadmap in the way advocates expected?
Data from DefiLlama suggests the scale remains small. Total value locked (TVL) across Bitcoin DeFi protocols is about $4.12 billion, a figure that’s tiny relative to Bitcoin’s roughly $1.2 trillion market capitalization and far smaller than the value managed through spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, corporate treasuries, and custodial accounts. As Bitwise’s Andre Dragosch put it in comments to Cointelegraph, Bitcoin’s strength as “pristine collateral” has outpaced the plausibility of Bitcoin as a standalone DeFi execution layer.
Key takeaways
Botanix shut down citing insufficient demand for the network’s yield and activity to cover ongoing infrastructure costs.
Bitcoin DeFi TVL remains comparatively small, with DefiLlama placing it at about $4.12 billion across protocols.
Wrapped BTC on large, liquid Ethereum-compatible venues continues to outcompete Bitcoin-aligned execution chains on practical convenience and liquidity.
Some builders argue the issue is structural—Bitcoin’s user base behaves more like reserve-asset holders than active DeFi traders.
Other teams say the opportunity is real but depends on trust, institutional-grade risk frameworks, and Bitcoin-anchored designs rather than direct EVM cloning.
Botanix’s shutdown spotlights a demand problem
Botanix announced it was winding down without pointing to a hack or regulatory shock. Instead, the project attributed the decision to demand. According to the shutdown description, the chain “worked” technically: around 25 million transactions, roughly 200,000 wallets, and tens of millions of dollars in bridged funds. Yet those metrics did not translate into the fee volume needed to sustain the business.
The project’s co-founders pointed to a pattern familiar across parts of BTCFi: users often come for yield and treat BTC primarily as store-of-value collateral, then adopt passive strategies. When borrowing, trading, and frequent fund movements don’t happen at a scale large enough to generate consistent protocol fees, even solid technical execution can fail to reach economic viability.
As Botanix’s design reflects broader BTCFi infrastructure, users had to bridge Bitcoin into a tokenized representation on an Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-based environment before accessing DeFi functionality. That additional bridge step—and the smart contract assumptions that come with it—remains a recurring friction point for Bitcoiners, even when a team argues its security model is more Bitcoin-aligned than typical wrapped BTC approaches.
Botanix co-founder Willem Schroé told Cointelegraph that he would not have changed the core architecture. In his view, the “best rates” the project offered were not enough to defeat the default utility of wrapped BTC on Ethereum. He attributed this outcome to Ethereum’s extensive infrastructure, entrenched liquidity, and longer-established “Lindy effect,” along with practical differences in user experience and regulatory comfort.
Why “native” Bitcoin DeFi hasn’t become mainstream
More broadly, Botanix’s experience reinforced a conclusion echoed by researchers: Bitcoin is still primarily treated as a reserve asset rather than a platform for programmable financial products. For many existing DeFi patterns—lending, leveraged exposure, and yield—wrapped BTC on established EVM ecosystems is described as “genuinely sufficient” for user needs.
That sufficiency matters because BTCFi alternatives frequently ask users to accept additional complexity: bridge risk, custody assumptions during tokenization, and the unfamiliarity of a smaller application ecosystem. When the liquidity, integrations, and trading venues are already available through wrapped BTC on major networks, users have less incentive to migrate to a dedicated Bitcoin-aligned execution layer.
The broader BTCFi landscape also appears to concentrate around venues that have “own the user relationship,” leaving independent infrastructure to row upstream against convenience and branding. In the same vein, activity consolidation on liquid venues can make it harder for smaller Bitcoin-specific projects to bootstrap the kind of fee-generating usage they need.
Quantitatively, the gap between hype and usage remains stark. A May 2026 analysis cited by Cointelegraph, based on a GoMining survey of 730 Bitcoin holders, reported that 77% had never used a BTCFi platform and only 3% had integrated BTCFi into their overall Bitcoin strategy. Even with the caveat that the sample consisted of engaged Bitcoin holders who opted into the survey, the results suggest BTCFi is still closer to a niche behavior than a mass-market routine.
Justin d’Anethan of Arctic Digital added that liquidity and yields on EVM or Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) native solutions often remain better than those offered by Bitcoin-specific approaches. He also described the real-world alternatives many clients use when they want to “put their Bitcoin to work,” including centralized desks and exchanges lending out BTC, basis-style structures, and institutional credit pools.
Are “standalone” Bitcoin DeFi layers the wrong target?
Andre Dragosch argued to Cointelegraph that Botanix’s failure points to a structural mismatch between where Bitcoiners allocate capital and what standalone Bitcoin DeFi execution layers require. In his framing, capital seeking yield has largely shifted toward wrapped BTC products on mature, liquid venues rather than bridging into bespoke federations.
For Dragosch, the key isn’t just that people haven’t “discovered” Bitcoin-native DeFi, but that the base-layer culture and design incentives of Bitcoin—slow, conservative, and aligned with store-of-value narratives—don’t naturally produce the kind of user demand that bespoke execution layers depend on.
That view implies a central tension: Bitcoin’s “reserve collateral” role may be driving the next wave of institutional adoption, while “onchain execution” is a separate goal requiring a different user base and different economic incentives. The next phase of adoption, Dragosch suggested, may run through institutions and balance sheets more than through new Bitcoin DeFi execution stacks.
Builders still see room—trust and Bitcoin-anchored design matter
Not everyone agrees that the problem is a lack of demand for Bitcoin-backed lending and yield, but there is a shared theme around trust and infrastructure readiness.
Diego Gutierrez Zaldivar, CEO of RootstockLabs—an EVM-compatible, Bitcoin-secured sidechain—disputed the idea that there is no demand for Bitcoin-linked DeFi services. He told Cointelegraph that the constraint is trust: institutions require operational, legal, and risk management frameworks that go beyond simply deploying smart contracts.
Zaldivar also claimed that more than 40% of Bitcoin DeFi activity runs through Rootstock, pointing to use cases such as real-world asset settlements and institutional vaults. He further said that flows involving hundreds or even thousands of BTC deposits have started to appear—something he said was rare only two or three years ago.
Meanwhile, Chainway Labs co-founder Orkun Mahir Kılıç, associated with Citrea, criticized the premise of cloning EVM DeFi primitives onto Bitcoin as a dead end. He argued Botanix’s outcome reflects a verdict on that approach rather than on Bitcoin DeFi itself. In his view, while “more secure” doesn’t automatically change user behavior, the security guarantee can be decisive for institutions and large holders who need trust-minimized transactions without a custodian to fail.
For other users, he suggested, the differentiator is not abstract security—it’s the presence of applications that genuinely aren’t available elsewhere.
As Bitcoin DeFi continues to test whether its economic model can survive outside Ethereum’s deepest liquidity, the key things to watch next are whether Bitcoin-anchored projects can sustain fee-generating usage without relying on passive collateral behavior, and whether institutional flows grow in ways that reduce the dependency on bridging and trusted intermediaries.
This article was originally published as Botanix Failure Raises Questions About Bitcoiners’ DeFi Interest on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin has slipped to around $58,000, a level that long-term power-law analyses have historically associated with major cycle lows. While the data stops short of confirming a precise “bottom,” several widely referenced support and quantile signals suggest BTC is trading in a statistically familiar drawdown zone rather than clearly breaking from its long-run behavior.
Derivatives pricing and liquidation maps add another layer to the picture. Traders are watching $55,000 for the next support magnet, while the $65,000–$68,000 area is emerging as a major upside liquidity pocket if downside momentum fades.
Key takeaways
Power-law modeling cited by analyst Giovanni places BTC’s long-term trend near ~$135,000, putting $58,000 about 54% below the trend and within a historically “cycle-low-like” deviation band.
The same framework points to a near-$68,000 “-1σ” support estimate, with a stronger long-run floor closer to ~$55,000.
On the derivatives side, liquidation clustering shows roughly $4B of shorts near $65,000 versus about $1B below $55,000, implying a potential relief rally could run into $65,000–$68,000.
Technical read-throughs hinge on whether BTC can reclaim $60,000 on a daily basis; a daily close above it would help preserve bullish RSI divergence across multiple time frames.
Realized price levels near $54,000–$55,000 are highlighted as another historically reliable bear-market support zone going back to prior cycle bottoms.
Why $58,000 is getting attention from power-law models
The market’s latest move is being interpreted through a long-running statistical lens: power-law models designed to map Bitcoin’s historical trend and the distribution of deviations over multiple cycles.
According to Giovanni’s Bitcoin power-law model, the network’s long-term trend price sits near $135,000. With BTC at roughly $58,000, the drawdown is about 54% from the all-time high reference point used in the model’s framework and roughly 1.22 standard deviations below the estimated trend.
The key point for cycle context is that Giovanni’s model suggests past bear-market lows—in 2012, 2015, 2019, 2020, and 2022—arrived within a similar statistical range. In that view, the current decline fits a pattern consistent with prior deep lows rather than an abrupt break from Bitcoin’s longer-term growth path.
Support bands: $68,000 as a checkpoint, $55,000 as the bigger line
Giovanni’s estimates place a commonly referenced “-1σ” support zone near $68,000. However, the analyst also emphasizes that a more meaningful historical floor appears closer to $55,000. Importantly, Giovanni also noted that the power-law model would only be considered invalid if BTC traded below approximately $17,000 for more than a year—an assumption that, in the present context, remains far from being tested.
A second statistical metric referenced alongside the model also points toward “rarely seen” valuation. Bitcoin’s power-law quantile is cited at 6.2%, which implies the asset is cheaper than roughly 94% of its historical observations measured against the power-law trend. The article ties that pattern to earlier cycle lows, including 2015, 2020, and 2023, suggesting BTC has returned to a historically uncommon valuation band.
Investors should treat these signals as scenario probabilities rather than guarantees. Power-law work can indicate where markets often bottom, but it does not automatically confirm that a cycle bottom has already been printed—especially when short-term liquidity conditions and technical structure are still evolving.
Liquidations, $60,000 reclaim, and where the next liquidity sits
While the long-term math draws a wide “cycle-low” envelope, the near-term tape is being shaped by derivatives positioning. BTC reportedly printed a new yearly low near $58,000 after aggressive selling swept through Binance, according to taker sell volume metrics cited from CryptoQuant.
The flush included an hourly taker sell volume of about $2.1 billion, followed by another $1.9 billion in the next hour after the New York market open—described as Binance’s largest hourly sell pressure since May 4. Following that liquidation event, the move is said to have cleared more than $300 million in long BTC positions before price rebounded toward $60,000.
That $60,000 level is now central to the short-term technical narrative. A daily close back above $60,000 is described as preserving developing bullish RSI divergence across one-hour, four-hour, and daily time frames—an indication that selling momentum may be weakening even as price continues to mark lower lows.
Futures trader Byzantine General offered a related interpretation on social media: the drop to $58,000 allegedly cleared out leveraged longs while attracting fresh short selling. In his view, a daily close above $60,000 would strengthen the argument that a local bottom has been set for now.
Betting the range: upside liquidity near $65,000–$68,000 vs. the $55,000 floor
Derivatives positioning also highlights an asymmetry in where forced buying could emerge in a rebound. The liquidation map described the concentration of short liquidations near $65,000 at more than $4 billion, compared with roughly $1 billion below $55,000—creating a reported four-to-one imbalance. In practice, that means a relief rally might find additional fuel as shorts are forced to cover into rising prices.
Traders are also watching internal liquidity near $68,000, which the article links to a “daily fair-value gap” area of interest. The implication is that if BTC can recover from the current zone, upside pathways may be supported not only by technical recovery but also by derivative settlement dynamics.
On the other hand, a daily close below $60,000 would reinforce a bearish read across both short-term and longer-horizon charts. In that case, attention would likely shift back toward the $55,000 area—where multiple value frameworks converge.
The article adds another support argument by pointing to Bitcoin’s realized price. Realized price, which tracks the average cost basis of onchain coins, is described as having historically provided support at major Bitcoin bear-market bottoms since 2014. That historical relationship is used to frame the $54,000–$55,000 region as a key level to monitor if selling pressure continues.
For now, the market’s next decision point looks tied to whether BTC can hold and reclaim $60,000 on a daily basis; that would keep the door open for a move into the $65,000–$68,000 liquidity pocket. If it fails, the focus likely returns to the $55,000 and $54,000–$55,000 realized-price convergence, where historical cycle behavior suggests the most important support test may be underway.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Power-Law Model Flags Deeper Drop as BTC Tests $58K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slid sharply over the past several sessions, briefly testing levels last seen in September 2024 and triggering a wave of leveraged liquidations. While broader risk assets steadied after a key US inflation print, crypto-specific flows and derivatives positioning pointed to waning demand and a market that may be primed for further volatility.
At the same time, institutional indicators are sending mixed signals: spot Bitcoin ETFs saw meaningful net outflows, and an upcoming options expiry appears structurally bearish. With traders increasingly reassessing risk-reward against interest-bearing alternatives, the near-term question for Bitcoin is no longer just whether the macro backdrop improves, but whether crypto can generate its own catalyst.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin fell about 9% in three days, reaching its lowest level since September 2024 and sparking over $1 billion in liquidations on leveraged long positions.
Spot Bitcoin ETF activity deteriorated, with $469 million in net outflows reported for Wednesday—an oft-cited proxy for institutional demand.
Friday’s Bitcoin options expiry is heavily skewed toward puts, with Deribit put open interest expected to exceed calls by $3.4 billion.
Rising confidence in a cooling inflation trend helped stocks and pressured demand for non-yielding assets like Bitcoin, while 5-year US Treasuries yielded about 4.15%.
Bitcoin’s sharp drop and the forced unwinds
Bitcoin traded down roughly 9% across three days, hitting a low not seen since September 2024. The subsequent retest of the $58,000 area proved painful for bulls: more than $1 billion in liquidations were recorded across bullish BTC leveraged positions. Although BTC recovered modestly to around $59,500, the move left traders cautious rather than confident.
Part of the timing lined up with the release of the US Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index. The data showed May inflation rising 4.1% year over year. Even so, the market response suggested investors believed inflation pressures had begun to cool—especially as crude Brent retreated from roughly $95 earlier to around $75 more recently.
That easing in energy prices appears to have helped equities. The article notes that the S&P 500 and gold had erased their intraday losses, indicating that traders were willing to rotate back into risk assets after digesting macro updates.
Why crypto’s correlation story is breaking
Even when Bitcoin moves in tandem with broader markets, investors often look to whether the “risk-on” tailwind is actually benefiting crypto. Here, several crypto-specific signals suggest BTC is not simply lagging equities—it may be diverging.
The piece highlights a shift in how traders may be framing opportunity costs. It points to stronger performance in parts of the tech sector, referencing notable stock moves such as Micron’s 16% jump and a similar surge in Sandisk, alongside gains in chipmaking equipment. In that environment, Bitcoin can lose relative appeal if capital is finding stronger payoff in equities.
Beyond stock action, the article ties the broader risk appetite to shifting government emphasis on areas that support infrastructure and computing capacity. It also references a set of policy angles—such as a stake in Intel and proposals and frameworks related to quantum computing and “frontier models”—which are presented as supporting factors for the tech and data infrastructure narrative.
For Bitcoin traders, the key implication is straightforward: if equities are offering both momentum and an improving macro narrative, then BTC needs more than soft correlations to attract incremental risk capital.
Fixed income turns into a more competitive hedge
One of the article’s central arguments is that the balance of hedging tools may be changing. When rates are rising or expected to rise, investors often prefer assets that can generate yield—particularly in uncertain regimes where non-yielding assets like Bitcoin face more headwinds.
According to the coverage, traders may be pricing in an elevated probability of US rate increases into year-end. It cites the CME FedWatch Tool showing an 80% chance of US interest rate hikes by December, up from 68% a month earlier. In the same vein, it points out that 5-year US Treasuries were yielding about 4.15%, providing an alternative “parking place” for capital compared to Bitcoin.
That matters because the attractiveness of Bitcoin frequently hinges on whether investors believe they can finance exposure cheaply or whether cash is earning too much elsewhere. If Treasury yields remain competitive, the burden shifts to crypto-specific demand drivers—ETF flows, onboarding, or derivative positioning that reflects genuine upside conviction.
ETF outflows and options skew reinforce caution
Two of the most immediately actionable signals in the report come from flows and derivatives.
On the spot ETF side, the article says Bitcoin’s outlook took a hit from $469 million in net outflows on Wednesday. It frames this metric as a proxy for institutional demand—meaning persistent negative flows can signal that large allocators are not actively adding to exposure at current prices.
Derivatives are sending a similar cautionary message. The coverage points to Friday’s upcoming Bitcoin options expiry of about $13 billion, stating that the distribution of open interest favors put instruments. It reports that put open interest on Deribit is expected to exceed call open interest by $3.4 billion.
It also adds that most neutral-to-bullish options structures are likely to expire worthless, because 78% of call options are priced at $72,000 or higher. Taken together, the options market suggests the crowd is paying for downside protection—or positioning for reduced upside.
The article further notes deterioration in the Strategy (MSTR) position, referencing “huge unrealized loss” after buying $64.1 billion worth of Bitcoin since 2020. While equity-linked narratives can influence trader sentiment, the bigger takeaway is that corporate exposure does not automatically translate into stable support for spot demand, especially when ETF flows are negative.
What to watch next
With liquidations behind BTC for now but ETF outflows and a put-heavy options expiry still in focus, traders should look for evidence that spot demand returns—either through improved ETF flow trends or a shift in derivatives positioning as the expiry passes. Until then, Bitcoin’s ability to reclaim strength may depend less on macro tailwinds and more on whether crypto-specific demand reappears.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin rebounds after new 2026 lows as weak US stocks loom on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin options markets are signaling caution rather than panic, according to new research from Anchorage Digital. In its latest Prime Signal report, the firm’s head of research, David Lawant, finds that traders across both crypto-native venues and traditional investment wrappers are paying up for downside protection—especially over the very near term.
The study looked at options activity across Deribit and two major exchange-traded fund products tied to Bitcoin exposure: BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) and Strategy’s Bitcoin-linked instruments. Anchorage argues that this cross-market view helps capture differences between crypto-native positioning and more institutional or retail flows than a single venue alone.
Key takeaways
Deribit and IBIT options show elevated put skew, consistent with demand for downside hedges at a premium rather than outright bullish bets.
Defensive positioning is unusually high within both markets’ historical ranges—ranked in the 82nd percentile for IBIT and the 84th percentile for Deribit over their respective multi-year windows.
Anchorage reports Bitcoin options have spent nearly half of 2026 pricing higher one-week implied volatility than one-month implied volatility, an inversion that has typically been temporary.
In Strategy’s options market, put skew remains below levels Anchorage associates with past stress episodes like forced deleveraging.
Downside hedging stays in focus across venues
Anchorage’s central finding is that traders are not just buying options—they are choosing structures that emphasize downside risk. In both the Deribit and IBIT options markets, the firm observed elevated put skew, a pattern that generally indicates market participants are willing to pay more for protection against lower prices than for upside participation.
Anchorage quantifies this defensiveness by comparing current activity against historical behavior. It reports that defensive positioning sits at the 82nd percentile within IBIT’s history and at the 84th percentile across Deribit’s five-year record, suggesting that the current hedging intensity is high relative to what has been typical.
Why the “one-week vs one-month” volatility inversion matters
Beyond skew, Anchorage examined the term structure of implied volatility—specifically how volatility priced for the coming week compares with volatility priced for the following month. The report says Bitcoin options have spent nearly half of 2026 with one-week implied volatility higher than one-month implied volatility, an inversion it describes as unusual and historically episodic.
Anchorage attributes the pattern to a chain of catalysts spanning macroeconomic conditions, geopolitical developments, and crypto-specific drivers that have kept traders focused on near-term risks. Instead of signaling a stable trend expectation, the data points toward “event window” caution: participants appear more concerned about what could happen soon than about setting a long-range directional view.
Lawant said he is watching for a change in that relationship—specifically, whether one-month implied volatility begins to exceed one-week implied volatility again. He frames such a shift as a sign that the market may be growing more comfortable looking further out rather than concentrating hedges around immediate uncertainty.
Strategy’s options market: hedging without “crisis” pricing
Anchorage’s analysis also addresses whether the options market is pricing Strategy (MSTR) as if it faces a severe downside scenario. While the company has experienced weakness in its equity-related products, Anchorage argues that options demand for protection has not escalated to stress levels typically associated with broad systemic fear.
Earlier coverage from the market has highlighted the decline in Strategy’s perpetual preferred stock, STRC. According to the details cited in Anchorage’s research discussion, STRC fell as low as $82.53 on June 22—around 17% below its $100 par value—before partially recovering after Strategy disclosed it had increased its fiat reserves to $1.3 billion. By Thursday, STRC was reported as trading around $77, roughly 23% below par, based on the figures referenced in the report write-up.
The weakness has also extended to Strategy’s common shares. The article notes that MSTR has been down about 78% over the past year and traded around $87 on Thursday, according to Yahoo Finance data.
However, Anchorage’s options read-through is more measured than the equity performance. The firm reports that Strategy-related options remain well below stress levels seen during prior market corrections. While put skew indicates that hedging demand is present, the skew has not moved into ranges that Anchorage associates with fears of forced deleveraging or a broader crisis.
That distinction matters for market participants because it separates “risk management” from “contagion pricing.” Put skew can rise for many reasons—structural hedging, volatility supply/demand, or tactical protection—so Anchorage’s comparison to historical stress levels is intended to show that traders are cautious but not uniformly expecting a severe unwind scenario.
Broader implications for how traders are framing risk
Taken together, Anchorage’s findings suggest a market where near-term downside hedging remains the dominant theme, even as different trading ecosystems show broadly consistent behavior. Elevated put skew in both Deribit and IBIT indicates that the appetite for protection is not limited to a single buyer type or venue; it spans the crypto-native options market and a key regulated product channel.
At the same time, the volatility term structure points to timing rather than direction. The one-week/one-month implied volatility inversion described in the report implies that traders are treating the next few days to weeks as more uncertain than the later month horizon—consistent with a market responding to catalysts as they approach, rather than immediately repricing longer-term outlooks.
For Strategy-related risk, the message is similar: equity weakness does not automatically translate into options-market “panic pricing.” Anchorage says the hedging activity in Strategy’s options is still below the kind of levels it has previously linked to forced deleveraging dynamics.
Going forward, traders may want to track whether the one-month implied volatility premium returns over the one-week measure—an indicator Lawant flagged as a potential shift from immediate risk management to a longer-term posture. Until then, Anchorage’s data suggests the market will likely keep prioritizing near-term protection across both crypto and ETF-linked Bitcoin options.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Options Traders Hedge as Uncertainty Persists, Anchorage Says on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

CoinShares says its latest survey of UK wealth advisers points to a structural blind spot in how crypto is handled by traditional portfolios. More than half of UK advisers surveyed reported that most of their clients’ cryptocurrency exposure sits outside their firm’s visibility and oversight, raising concerns about risk management and advisory effectiveness.
The findings arrive as the UK’s regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), continues to shape the framework for crypto within retail and wealth contexts. CoinShares’ survey also comes amid wider political churn in the UK, where potential changes to leadership could influence how crypto policy develops over the coming months.
Key takeaways
52% of UK advisers surveyed said the majority of clients’ crypto holdings were “invisible” to them, according to CoinShares’ survey of 261 wealth management professionals.
In the wider EU sample, the figure fell to 25%, suggesting the visibility problem is more pronounced in the UK.
61% of advisers in EU countries surveyed reported working at firms that either restrict digital assets or provide no clear internal guidance.
CoinShares frames the issue as a firm-policy risk rather than a client demand or knowledge gap.
UK FCA research indicates crypto penetration is still limited, with about 8% of adults reported as invested in crypto as of an FCA December update.
Why advisers say crypto is “invisible”
CoinShares’ survey, released on Thursday, polled 261 wealth management professionals across Europe. In the UK, 52% of advisers said that most of their clients’ digital asset exposure was effectively outside their oversight.
The survey indicates the pattern is not uniform across the continent. Looking across all EU countries included in the study—alongside countries such as France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland—just 25% of advisers said they faced the same level of limited visibility into clients’ crypto holdings.
CoinShares also reported that adviser constraints are often internal. In the EU-wide sample, 61% of respondents said they worked in companies that either explicitly restricted digital assets or offered no clear internal guidance for dealing with them. This matters because it shifts the core barrier from investor behavior to institutional policy—potentially limiting advisers’ ability to assess risk properly or tailor recommendations.
CoinShares CEO: it’s not a demand or knowledge problem
Jean-Marie Mognetti, CoinShares co-founder and CEO, argued that the central issue is governance within firms rather than a shortage of client willingness or adviser expertise. He said capital has already been earmarked, but the managers entrusted with it cannot “see” the underlying exposure.
In Mognetti’s view, the mismatch creates a “wrong-way risk” scenario: when advisers cannot observe holdings, they cannot properly allocate capital, manage risk, or build trust through transparent guidance. He added that “visibility comes before advice,” stressing that effective oversight is a prerequisite for sound portfolio management.
“[…] Visibility comes before advice. You cannot allocate, manage risk or earn trust over assets you cannot see.”
For investors, the practical implication is straightforward: if advisers lack an accurate picture of clients’ crypto exposure, portfolios may not reflect the true risk profile—especially during periods of crypto volatility when correlations and liquidity conditions can shift quickly. For firms, the challenge is equally material: incomplete visibility can undermine compliance processes and internal risk reporting that depend on accurate asset data.
FCA research and the push toward clearer allocation rules
The UK debate around crypto oversight continues to evolve, and CoinShares’ findings intersect with regulator activity. The FCA has previously reported that around 8% of UK adults are invested in crypto, according to research published in December.
In parallel, the FCA has also been linked to a policy direction that could change how crypto appears in mainstream portfolios. The regulator has reportedly proposed allowing authorized investment funds to hold up to a 10% allocation of cryptocurrency exchange-traded notes, as referenced in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
While CoinShares’ survey focuses on what advisers can actually see and handle, the FCA’s approach—if it proceeds—would shift the conversation from “whether advisers can access crypto in portfolios” to “how much exposure is permitted and how it must be structured.” The survey suggests that even when clients hold crypto, institutional visibility may not match the needs of regulated advisory and wealth management processes.
That tension—between growing regulatory pathways for crypto allocation and the on-the-ground reality of adviser oversight—may become more salient as retail and wealth vehicles integrate digital assets more explicitly.
UK politics: possible leadership change amid a policy question
Beyond regulation, political dynamics can influence the direction and pace of policy. Earlier this week, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigned as Labour leader amid pressure from within his party, creating space for a successor from the parliamentary ranks.
A by-election result has highlighted one candidate likely to be favored within Labour: Andy Burnham, a former Mayor of Greater Manchester, won a seat as a member of parliament representing Makerfield. While it remains unclear how Burnham might handle crypto policy at a national level, Cointelegraph earlier noted that during his time as mayor he supported the blockchain industry as a driver for economic development.
In the near term, the key question for market participants is less who the next leader is—and more what that leadership will prioritize in the relationship between traditional finance and digital assets. CoinShares’ survey underscores that policy is only part of the puzzle; firm-level rules and internal guidance can determine whether advisers actually have actionable access to clients’ crypto exposure.
For readers watching UK crypto policy, two signals stand out: regulatory moves that clarify permitted crypto allocations for authorized funds, and industry efforts to improve adviser visibility into client holdings. If internal firm policies remain restrictive or guidance is still unclear, survey respondents’ concerns about “wrong-way risk” may persist even as the formal rules evolve.
This article was originally published as CoinShares Survey Finds Half of UK Wealth Advisers Can’t See Clients’ Crypto on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slid below the $60,000 mark on Thursday, a move that drew attention to fresh downside technical risk and underscored how sensitive crypto remains to swings in broader financial markets. The drop followed weakness in megacap technology stocks, which dampened overall risk appetite and added pressure to BTC as it approached another critical psychological level.
From a charting perspective, the selloff has also helped activate multiple bearish patterns. Analysts say the combination of a breakdown below $60,000 and the completion of two separate setups on lower timeframes increases the odds of a move toward—and potentially through—the $54,000 area in the coming days.
Key takeaways
BTC’s break below $60,000 has wiped out its June gains and triggered fresh technical downside scenarios.
A four-hour “rounded top” structure appears to have completed, with a projected target just under $54,000.
On the daily chart, a bear-flag breakdown points to the same $54,000 zone, strengthening the bearish case.
Glassnode’s MVRV pricing bands align with the $54,000 area as an important potential support level.
Why $60,000 losing momentum matters
On Thursday, BTC/USD fell as much as 4.8% and traded down to an intraday low near $58,000, according to the market moves referenced in coverage of Bitcoin’s weakness. Importantly for traders, that decline did not stop at a minor dip—by moving below $60,000, Bitcoin broke a widely watched psychological threshold.
With the broader market in a fragile posture, that kind of level loss often changes how participants position. Instead of treating the area as “support to defend,” many traders reframe it as a level that must now be reclaimed to prevent further downside follow-through.
Rounded top breakdown points to a repeat target
The most direct technical argument for additional selling comes from the four-hour chart. Coverage notes that the price action completed what appears to be a rounded top pattern on that timeframe. In technical analysis, a rounded top forms when upward momentum gradually weakens, eventually shifting the asset from an uptrend into a downtrend that resembles an inverse “U” shape.
The pattern’s signal becomes actionable when the market breaks below the structure’s “neckline,” the support area that marks the base of the formation. After that breakdown, analysts typically estimate a downside objective by measuring the distance from the top of the formation to the neckline and projecting that same distance downward from the breakdown point.
Using that method, the measured downside target for Bitcoin is described as sitting just under $54,000, implying roughly an 8.9% drop from current prices at the time of reporting. The key point for readers is not the exact precision of the number, but the directional clustering: if multiple independent setups converge on the same zone, traders often treat that area as the next likely “decision point” on the chart.
Daily bear-flag adds weight to the $54,000 zone
To make the bearish case stronger, the article also points to confirmation from the daily chart via a bear-flag breakdown. Bear flags generally emerge after a sharp decline, followed by a period of consolidation that resembles a flagpole-and-flag structure. When price later breaks out downward from that consolidation, the pattern is often treated as implying that the prior down-move can extend.
In this case, the bear-flag breakdown is stated to project an identical move toward the $54,000 zone. That matters because it reduces the probability that $54,000 is merely a one-off technical estimate. Instead, two different pattern frameworks—rounded top on one timeframe and bear flag on another—are both pointing to the same region, which tends to attract concentrated positioning from market participants who follow chart-based signals.
On-chain confirmation: MVRV bands highlight potential support
Beyond pure price patterns, the coverage also turns to on-chain analysis from Glassnode, focusing on MVRV pricing bands. MVRV compares Bitcoin’s current market price with its realized price—the average price at which coins last moved on-chain. Put simply, these bands are often used to gauge whether BTC is trading in unusual profit or loss territory relative to where holders last established their cost basis.
As of Wednesday, the article states that Bitcoin traded near $60,997, while the 1.0 MVRV band—shown in green—sat around $53,390. That level closely matches the technical downside target near $54,000. When on-chain bands and chart objectives overlap, it can suggest a confluence area where demand might emerge, particularly if sellers start to encounter holders sitting at less favorable positioning.
However, the same framework also warns that a deeper decline could bypass that support. The article notes that if selling intensifies, Bitcoin could test the 0.8 MVRV band (shown in blue) near $42,700. Historically, it says, major bear-market bottoms have tended to form around that lower band—where unrealized losses become more extreme and capitulation risk rises.
For investors and active traders, this creates a more structured “map” of scenarios: $54,000 is framed as a near-term target and potential support test, while the $42,700 area is presented as a lower-bound zone to watch if the market fails to stabilize before then.
Readers should watch for whether Bitcoin can reclaim and hold above $60,000 after the breakdown, since that would challenge the bearish pattern narratives. If BTC instead keeps pressing lower, the next key question becomes whether $54,000 holds as a confluence support area—or whether conditions deteriorate enough to push price toward the deeper MVRV band levels.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Falls to $58K as Bear Pressure Builds; $50K Key Level on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

XRP is trading just above $1 and is testing what traders often treat as psychologically important support. While the market price remains under pressure, multiple on-chain signals suggest the token’s network positioning and capital flows may be improving.
CryptoQuant data highlighted shrinking XRP held on major exchanges, seven straight days where withdrawals have outpaced deposits on Binance by transaction count, and continued positive whale accumulation. In parallel, spot XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have gathered meaningful inflows since April, including $243 million in cumulative net purchases.
Key takeaways
Binance’s XRP reserve has fallen to its lowest level since March, with roughly 100 million XRP leaving over the past month.
On Binance, XRP withdrawals have exceeded deposits for seven consecutive days since June 17, based on transaction counts (not token volume).
Whale flows on a 90-day moving average have remained positive throughout the quarter, indicating net accumulation by large holders.
Spot XRP ETFs have drawn $243 million in cumulative inflows since April, with June inflows totaling $31 million.
Technically, XRP remains in a broader bearish structure on higher timeframes and is approaching a potential demand zone between $1 and $0.63.
Exchange reserves keep sliding
One of the clearest on-chain themes in recent days is the continued reduction of XRP sitting on exchanges. Crypto analyst Amr Taha pointed out that Binance’s XRP reserve dropped to about 2.68 billion XRP as of June 25, down from roughly 2.78 billion XRP on May 12.
That shift followed an outflow of approximately 100 million XRP from the exchange over the past month, marking what CryptoQuant described as the lowest Binance reserve level since March. Among major trading venues, Binance led in absolute outflows, while other platforms showed smaller but still notable declines.
CryptoQuant data also showed that Upbit’s XRP reserve eased to about 2.48 billion XRP on June 25 from approximately 2.51 billion XRP on May 31. Bybit’s holdings declined to about 82 million XRP from around 92 million XRP on June 2, with Bybit recording the steepest percentage drop among the tracked exchanges.
Withdrawals outpacing deposits on Binance
The story isn’t only about balances—it’s also about flow behavior. Taha flagged a significant change in Binance’s activity: XRP withdrawal transactions have exceeded deposits for seven straight days since June 17.
On June 23, the seven-day withdrawal share climbed to 53.8%, the highest reading since June 2024, while deposits fell to 46.1%, the weakest level since 2024. Importantly, CryptoQuant’s metric tracks transaction counts rather than the total amount of XRP moved.
Even so, the direction of the imbalance matters for how traders interpret positioning. A withdrawal-led stretch typically implies that users are moving coins off the exchange more frequently than they are sending them in, which can reduce readily available liquidity for short-term selling pressure—at least in aggregate.
Whale accumulation supports the flow picture
Large holders appear aligned with the exchange-reserve trend. CryptoQuant data cited in the reporting showed XRP whale flows on a 90-day moving average have stayed positive throughout the quarter at about 5.143 million XRP per day.
In practical terms, positive whale flows generally suggest that large wallets have been adding to positions rather than distributing at scale over the period. While whale activity does not guarantee a near-term price reversal, it can change the balance of who is absorbing supply during downturns.
Spot XRP ETFs add a separate layer of demand
Institutional-style demand has also contributed to a more supportive backdrop. According to SoSoValue’s ETF tracking, spot XRP ETFs recorded $2 million in net inflows on June 24. That helped lift June’s total net inflows to $31 million.
Since April, cumulative net inflows across spot XRP ETFs have reached $243 million, the figure referenced alongside the on-chain flow updates. For investors, ETF inflows are notable because they represent sustained access to XRP exposure through regulated market structures, which can complement—or at times counter—retail-driven volatility.
Price remains weak, but a key chart area is coming into focus
Despite improving on-chain signals, XRP’s price action still reflects a market that has not fully found stabilization. The token was reported trading near $1.01, which was cited as its lowest level of 2026 at the time of the coverage. This placed XRP close to its first move below $1 since November 2024.
With XRP down about 43% year-to-date, traders are watching for whether any bounce can materialize from a defined technical region. The coverage pointed to a potential demand area within a “fair value gap” between $1 and $0.63. That zone corresponds to an unfilled price gap created during a sharp rally in late 2024, and such gaps are frequently monitored by market participants for possible mean-reversion buying if declines extend.
At the same time, higher-timeframe structure remains bearish, according to the analysis summarized in the article. So even if a local demand zone attracts buyers, broader market trend conditions may continue to limit upside follow-through until the structure shifts.
Long-range accumulation thesis still on the table
Beyond near-term technicals, the reporting also included a longer-term view from Versan Aljarrah, founder of Black Swan Capitalist. In commentary shared on X, Aljarrah argued XRP has spent years building an accumulation range, with higher lows appearing on both weekly and monthly timeframes.
The thesis frames prolonged consolidations as setups for stronger breakouts once the range eventually resolves. Aljarrah’s target—$10—implies a move around 900% from current levels, a projection that underscores the bullish end of a spectrum that remains dependent on a confirmed breakout rather than a single bounce.
For now, investors may want to track whether exchange outflows and ETF inflows continue to line up with price stabilization—especially as XRP approaches the $1 to $0.63 area. The next decisive question is whether on-chain strength can translate into a trend shift on higher timeframes, or whether the market continues treating the $1 region as a breakdown point.
This article was originally published as On-Chain Data Flags Support as XRP Tests Risk of Falling Below $1 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy faces new legal pressure after Rosen Law Firm opened a securities investigation into the Bitcoin treasury company this week. The review follows a steep MSTR selloff and a deeper Bitcoin decline across the wider crypto market and related shares. Together, the events place Michael Saylor’s firm under legal, market, and balance sheet pressure during a volatile trading week.
Strategy Faces Securities Investigation
Rosen Law Firm said it began an investigation into potential securities claims against Strategy and related securities. The firm linked the review to allegations of misleading business information shared with market participants during recent disclosures. It said affected shareholders may seek compensation through a contingency fee arrangement if claims move forward in court.
The firm also said it is preparing a class action to recover possible market losses through the planned lawsuit. Therefore, the legal process could add another challenge for Strategy and its securities program during a weak market. The company already faces pressure because its business model depends heavily on Bitcoin prices, capital markets, and equity sentiment.
The investigation comes after Peter Schiff criticized Saylor’s Bitcoin-backed securities push in recent public comments as Bitcoin prices weakened. Schiff argued that STRC buyers could bring claims tied to promotional statements and offering materials for the security. However, that argument remains separate from Rosen Law Firm’s planned legal action and any future court filing.
Mstr Stock Slides To New Lows
MSTR fell to a new low near $86 after breaking below $100 earlier this week. TradingView data showed the stock dropped more than 5% on the day during regular trading as pressure accelerated. The stock also lost about 23% across the past week as sellers controlled momentum.
The decline reflects heavy selling pressure across crypto-linked equities and Bitcoin treasury names during the current session. Moreover, MSTR often trades as a leveraged proxy for Bitcoin exposure in public markets during volatile trading. That link strengthens during rallies, but it also magnifies losses during sharp selloffs as market risk rises.
Market commentator Zerohedge pointed to heavy put buying across the latest trading session as prices fell today. That options activity added pressure as traders positioned for more downside in the stock during the session. Meanwhile, Bitcoin also weakened after PCE inflation reached 4.1%, the highest level since 2023.
Bitcoin Drop Tests Strategy Treasury Model
Bitcoin’s drop below $60,000 deepened concern over Strategy’s treasury-heavy structure and balance sheet risk. The company holds a large Bitcoin reserve on its balance sheet, so BTC price moves affect sentiment. As a result, every major Bitcoin selloff can weigh on MSTR shares and financing conditions.
Strategy reportedly carries an unrealized Bitcoin loss of more than $13.6 billion after the latest crash. That figure reflects current market prices rather than completed asset sales by the company. Still, it raises questions about leverage, liquidity, and future capital decisions if market stress continues.
Schiff has suggested that Strategy may sell Bitcoin to fund stock buybacks if pressure increases. However, Strategy has not announced any plan to sell its Bitcoin reserves despite the market pressure. Saylor has instead said current reserves exceed debt by over $40 billion, unlike the 2022 downturn.
This article was originally published as Strategy Faces Legal Storm As Mstr Falls Deeper With Bitcoin Rout on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) has ordered cryptocurrency exchange operator Bithumb to pay a $136,000 fine for violating personal information protection rules tied to cross-border data transfers. The decision underscores the legal expectations for consent and handling of personal data when crypto trading activities involve overseas counterparties.
In a notice issued on Thursday, the PIPC said its investigation found Bithumb transferred personal information overseas without separate consent from data subjects during processes related to “order book sharing” and “virtual asset transfer” with foreign exchanges. The regulator linked the conduct to Bithumb’s arrangements involving Tether (USDT) trading data and user information sharing with multiple overseas platforms.
Key takeaways
PIPC imposed a $136,000 fine on Bithumb for breaches of South Korea’s personal data protection requirements involving overseas transfers.
The regulator found Bithumb shared personal information with 13 overseas exchanges and also used overseas counterparties to facilitate order book sharing and virtual asset transfers.
PIPC acknowledged an anti-money laundering rationale for providing certain information, but emphasized strict compliance for cross-border transfer and data-subject self-determination.
The case highlights how crypto compliance programs must address privacy and consent alongside AML/KYC obligations.
PIPC’s findings: cross-border transfers and the consent requirement
According to the PIPC notice, the regulator’s review focused on how Bithumb conducted certain operational integrations with foreign trading venues. The PIPC stated that Bithumb transferred personal information overseas without obtaining separate consent from the data subjects in the context of order book sharing and virtual asset transfer workflows.
The decision cites order book sharing for USDT between September and November 2025, when Bithumb worked with BingX. The PIPC further noted that while Bithumb obtained consent to share data with Stellar, it still carried out overseas data sharing through additional channels.
The PIPC’s framing is important for compliance teams: even where an exchange can justify the need to share information for anti-money laundering purposes, regulators may still require that cross-border personal-data transfers meet the procedural and consent standards under South Korea’s Protection Act.
Why the decision matters for exchanges and compliance programs
For crypto firms operating internationally—or coordinating with overseas counterparties—this case illustrates a practical enforcement boundary between AML-related information sharing and privacy law obligations. The PIPC explicitly recognized the necessity of providing personal information for AML when transferring virtual assets to other exchanges. However, it concluded that, with respect to overseas transfer of personal information, exchanges must treat the issue as closely connected to individuals’ rights.
In practice, the compliance implication is that exchanges may need more granular consent management and documented procedures around cross-border data flows. That includes assessing whether existing consents cover each specific foreign transfer pathway, whether the scope aligns with the intended processing and recipients, and whether data-sharing arrangements reflect the “data subject’s right to self-determination” described in the notice.
This also raises operational questions for regulated market participants: privacy controls cannot be treated as a one-time onboarding step. Instead, they must be maintained as exchanges expand routing, liquidity sharing, or transfer mechanisms across borders.
Enforcement context: Bithumb under regulatory scrutiny
Bithumb is one of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges and has faced intense regulatory attention. The exchange has previously been subject to actions by financial authorities over alleged violations of South Korea’s Financial Information Act. In March, the country’s financial regulator imposed a six-month suspension, but a court later reversed that decision in April.
More recently, reporting indicated that police conducted raids at Bithumb’s offices as part of an investigation related to alleged nepotism involving a South Korean lawmaker, adding to the broader compliance and governance scrutiny surrounding the firm.
While these matters span different regulatory regimes—personal data protection versus financial supervision and other enforcement areas—they collectively signal a risk that institutional stakeholders cannot separate privacy, market conduct, and governance issues in crypto oversight. For banks, payment firms, and institutional investors with exposure to crypto ecosystems, such enforcement patterns can affect counterparties’ compliance posture and the perceived robustness of their control environments.
Broader policy backdrop: tax changes and law enforcement coordination
South Korea’s crypto regulatory environment is also evolving through fiscal and public-safety measures. The Ministry of Finance confirmed in May that a 22% tax on cryptocurrency gains is scheduled to take effect beginning January 2027, after previous postponements. The change is likely to affect a large base of retail investors holding digital assets in the country.
In parallel, blockchain analytics and law enforcement coordination has moved forward. Chainalysis reported a memorandum of understanding with the Korean National Police Agency (KNPA) intended to enhance investigative capability within South Korea. The stated focus includes improving responses to crypto crime, including attacks linked to North Korea.
Taken together, these policy directions show that South Korean authorities are simultaneously strengthening compliance expectations for regulated entities and expanding domestic enforcement capacity. The Bithumb privacy fine fits within this wider trend: regulators are treating data protection and cross-border information handling as part of the overall integrity framework for crypto markets.
Closing perspective
The PIPC’s order against Bithumb highlights that exchanges must align their AML-driven information-sharing processes with privacy consent and cross-border transfer requirements. Compliance leaders should watch for how similar cases are handled in South Korea—particularly around data transfer scopes tied to liquidity/order book sharing—since enforcement could shape how crypto firms structure cross-border operational integrations.
This article was originally published as South Korea Fines Bithumb $136K for Overseas User Data Sharing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) has ordered cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb to pay a $136,000 fine after finding that the platform violated the country’s personal data protection rules by transferring user information overseas without obtaining separate consent.
In a notice published Thursday, the regulator said the breach occurred during Bithumb’s processes for sharing order books and transferring virtual assets with overseas exchanges. The PIPC’s findings place additional compliance pressure on major South Korean trading venues as authorities tighten both privacy and financial-crime controls.
Key takeaways
The PIPC fined Bithumb $136,000 for transferring personal data abroad without separate consent during certain exchange-to-exchange operations.
The regulator linked the violation to order book sharing and virtual asset transfers tied to overseas platforms.
PIPC acknowledged that anti-money laundering (AML) needs can justify data provision, but said overseas personal data transfers still require strict adherence to legal procedures and the data subjects’ self-determination rights.
Bithumb’s case comes amid heightened scrutiny from South Korean regulators and law enforcement, following past enforcement actions and reported raids.
PIPC’s rationale: AML use is not a blanket permission
According to the PIPC, Bithumb transferred personal information overseas in connection with order book sharing and virtual asset transfers involving foreign exchanges. The regulator concluded that the exchange handled personal data in a way that did not satisfy the consent and procedural requirements set out under South Korea’s Protection Act.
The notice also explained the logic of its decision. The PIPC said there is a necessity to provide personal information for AML purposes when transferring virtual assets to other exchanges. However, when it comes to overseas transfers of personal data, the PIPC emphasized that the data subject’s right to control their information must be respected through strict compliance with required procedures.
“As this is a closely related matter, it is necessary to strictly comply with the requirements and procedures stipulated in the Protection Act,” the PIPC said in its notice (translation).
The PIPC’s published decision is available on the regulator’s website.
Tether order-book sharing and overseas exchange data handling
While privacy regulators rarely disclose every operational detail in enforcement notices, the PIPC’s account connected Bithumb’s breach to specific activities. The regulator said the incident was related to Bithumb sharing Tether (USDT) order books with BingX between September and November 2025.
The PIPC noted that Bithumb had obtained consent to share data with Stellar, but the order-book sharing described in the notice involved an overseas exchange partner—where the regulator determined separate consent for the overseas personal data transfer was not obtained.
In addition to the order book-sharing matter, the PIPC said the violation also involved Bithumb sharing user information with 13 overseas exchanges. Taken together, the regulator’s framing suggests the problem was not limited to a single counterpart; rather, it reflected how personal data was handled across multiple foreign relationships during exchange operations.
Why this matters for South Korea’s crypto compliance landscape
South Korea has been one of the most actively regulated crypto markets in Asia, and enforcement actions have increasingly targeted more than just anti-money laundering. The PIPC’s decision underscores that exchanges operating locally must manage privacy obligations with the same rigor they apply to financial compliance.
For investors and market participants, the practical effect is straightforward: compliance failures can lead to fines and reputational damage, and repeated regulatory scrutiny can influence how quickly exchanges adapt their systems for data handling, third-party information sharing, and cross-border workflows.
Just as importantly, the PIPC’s reasoning draws a line between AML-related data sharing needs and what it described as the separate right of data subjects regarding self-determination. In other words, AML necessity does not automatically override consent and procedural safeguards when personal data crosses borders.
Bithumb under pressure amid broader enforcement and public attention
Bithumb is among the largest crypto exchanges in South Korea, and the PIPC fine adds to an already difficult regulatory environment for the platform.
Earlier, South Korea’s financial watchdog imposed a six-month suspension on Bithumb’s activities in March over alleged violations of the country’s Financial Information Act. A court later reversed that decision in April, but the history shows that Bithumb’s compliance challenges have been a recurring theme.
More recently, police reportedly raided Bithumb’s offices as part of an investigation into alleged nepotism involving South Korean lawmaker Kim Byung-gi. While that matter is separate from the PIPC’s personal data ruling, it contributes to the perception that the exchange remains at the center of multiple, overlapping investigations.
Related coverage in earlier reporting noted: Cointelegraph previously reported on the financial watchdog’s suspension decision (link).
South Korea crypto regulation isn’t slowing: taxes and law-enforcement upgrades
The fine arrives as other policy and enforcement developments continue to shape the South Korean crypto market. The country’s Finance Ministry confirmed in May that a 22% tax on cryptocurrency gains will be imposed starting in January 2027, after earlier timelines shifted away from an expected 2025 start. According to the Yonhap news agency, about 16 million South Koreans were invested in digital assets as of March 2025.
Separately, Chainalysis said it signed a memorandum of understanding with the Korean National Police Agency (KNPA) aimed at building investigative capability within South Korea’s law enforcement. Earlier coverage tied the pact to efforts to combat North Korea-linked crypto attacks, with police “at the forefront” of tackling these threats.
Earlier coverage mentioned: Cointelegraph reported on the Chainalysis and KNPA memorandum of understanding (link).
For traders, developers, and users, the combined picture is clear: compliance requirements in South Korea are broadening across privacy, taxation, and investigative capability—meaning operational choices like cross-border data sharing during exchange partnerships are now likely to be scrutinized more closely.
Going forward, market watchers should focus on how major exchanges revise consent management and cross-border data-transfer processes, and whether South Korean regulators publish additional guidance or enforcement actions that clarify how AML-driven data provision should be implemented alongside privacy protections.
This article was originally published as South Korea Fines Bithumb $136K for Overseas User Data Sharing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slid to fresh 21-month lows Thursday at the Wall Street open, falling back toward the $58,000 area as a hotter-than-expected US inflation print rattled risk assets. The move underscored how tightly BTC trading has been tied to broader market volatility when macro data hits.
According to TradingView data cited in the report, BTC/USD on Bitstamp dipped to $58,035—an area last seen in September 2024. The pressure intensified shortly after the release of the May Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) report, with equities swinging sharply at the open.
Key takeaways
BTC returned to levels last traded in September 2024, dropping to about $58,035 on Bitstamp during Thursday’s Wall Street open.
US May PCE inflation came in at 4.1%, a three-year high for the year-over-year measure, contributing to fast, broad-market sell-offs.
CoinGlass data cited in the coverage shows more than $600 million in liquidations across crypto within a single hour as BTC fell.
Traders flagged potential “squeeze” dynamics around key psychological levels below $60,000.
Technical commentary highlighted weakening $60,000 support and potential new resistance closer to $65,000.
Inflation hits, equities wobble—and BTC follows
The catalyst was the May PCE inflation release. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that the PCE price index rose 4.1% year over year in May—recording a three-year high. In the monthly comparison, BEA said the PCE price index increased 0.4%, while excluding food and energy it rose 0.3%.
“From the same month one year ago, the PCE price index for May increased 4.1 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 3.4 percent from one year ago.”
Markets reacted quickly. The report notes that the Nasdaq 100 dropped about 2% within roughly 30 minutes at the open, while the Nasdaq Composite was down modestly around the time of writing. The S&P 500, by contrast, managed a small gain—highlighting dispersion between large-growth and broader benchmarks as investors repriced near-term rate expectations.
Bitcoin’s decline mirrored that “risk-off” impulse. In the minutes after the open, BTC pushed lower in a move that traders often interpret as forced positioning rather than purely discretionary selling—especially given what followed in the derivatives market.
Liquidations top $600 million in an hour
As BTC slid through key levels, derivatives leverage appears to have accelerated the down move. CoinGlass, as referenced in the coverage, logged cross-crypto liquidations totaling more than $600 million over a single hour.
That kind of liquidation burst typically happens when price moves trigger margin calls for leveraged long positions, forcing liquidations that mechanically add to selling pressure. It also tends to increase volatility, making support levels harder to defend in the short term.
The report also included commentary from market participants who suggested the drop may have been intensified by order-book dynamics. A pseudonymous trader identified as “Killa” told X followers that BTC was in a “manipulation phase,” arguing that trading below $60,000 corresponded with a notable “swing low” region and that the orderbook was “stacked below” current pricing.
Bear-market analogies and the $60,000 test
Beyond the immediate macro-driven move, the article frames the latest dip within a broader bear-market pattern. Crypto analyst and trader Niels Klaver, cofounder of STABL Agency, characterized BTC/USD as moving toward what he called the “final leg down” of the current bear market. Klaver referenced a short-term target of $55,000, aligning with earlier popular bearish scenarios circulating among traders.
Other technical commentary focused on whether the market can stabilize after breaking below a key psychological level. The report cites Rekt Capital saying $60,000 support is “clearly weakening,” implying that any attempted rebound may face selling pressure from participants who sell after a breakdown or re-test.
Rekt Capital also pointed to the idea that the current market is behaving similarly to 2022, noting that a widely watched trend indicator—the 50-month exponential moving average (EMA)—is expected to become a resistance area. While that does not guarantee a rejection, it gives investors a concrete “where would resistance show up?” reference point if BTC tries to reclaim higher levels.
Another development highlighted in the report: Rekt Capital suggested that once June’s monthly close arrives, traders will be better able to judge whether July could produce a relief rally “from which price” the market can potentially pivot. This matters because monthly closes often influence how traders assess trend structure, risk management, and the probability of a reversal versus continued breakdown.
What to watch next: support, resistance, and follow-through
For investors and traders, the immediate question is whether BTC can regain and hold above the broken support zone around $60,000, or whether it turns into resistance as liquidation effects dissipate. The report’s cited technical views also imply that any rebound attempt could encounter selling pressure closer to the $65,000 area, with the broader bear-market analogy keeping downside risk in focus.
Going forward, the next macro releases and—just as importantly—whether the market sees sustained follow-through on either side of $60,000 and toward the $55,000 target will likely determine if this is a continuation leg or a transition into consolidation.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Falls to $58K as Elevated US PCE Boosts Rate Bets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

DeFi infrastructure provider Spark has initiated a major stablecoin liquidity deployment on Ethereum, moving roughly $150 million into two Uniswap v4 pools as part of a broader effort to standardize how stablecoin issuers access shared market-making liquidity.
According to a Spark spokesperson speaking to Cointelegraph, the initial liquidity is live in two pools pairing Spark’s USDS with PayPal USD (PYUSD) and USDT, with USDS positioned as the foundation. Spark frames the rollout as one of the largest AMM liquidity migrations in DeFi and describes it as the first phase of what it calls the “Stablecoin FX Layer,” aimed at bootstrapping shared liquidity on Uniswap v4.
Key takeaways
Spark has deployed about $150 million in stablecoin liquidity across two Uniswap v4 pools on Ethereum, initially using USDS as the anchor asset.
The rollout is intended to establish shared liquidity for stablecoin markets, reducing the need for each issuer to individually bootstrap separate liquidity networks.
Spark plans to expand into a more programmable liquidity system later, using Uniswap v4 hooks after additional security review and testing.
The project also functions as a real-world test of the broader thesis that decentralized venues can capture growing activity tied to tokenized finance.
From isolated pools to shared stablecoin liquidity
The core objective behind Spark’s deployment is coordination: rather than requiring every stablecoin issuer to assemble liquidity and trading inventory across multiple venues, Spark says it is building toward a shared liquidity framework. In the first phase, that approach is implemented through standard Uniswap v4 pools—avoiding the complexity of Spark’s planned programmable layer until later.
Spark’s spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the current deployment specifically focuses on “bootstrapping shared liquidity on Uniswap v4.” In other words, the near-term milestone is less about advanced routing or automation and more about proving that large-scale stablecoin liquidity can migrate into a common structure on Uniswap v4.
For market participants, the difference matters. Liquidity bootstrapping is often a slow and capital-intensive process, particularly when issuers need to align with market makers and manage balances across venues. A shared approach—if it reduces operational burden without sacrificing liquidity quality—could make onboarding new stablecoins faster and improve consistency across trading pairs.
Programmable liquidity and the planned DualPool hook
Spark said its longer-term plan involves introducing a Shared Liquidity Layer and a DualPool hook in subsequent phases, leveraging Uniswap v4’s programmable architecture. Uniswap v4 hooks are designed to allow integrations that can extend how liquidity and strategies are managed within the protocol’s framework.
In Spark’s description, a liquidity hook would enable idle or not immediately required capital to be deployed into governance-approved products, liquidity venues, or yield-generating strategies. That concept—turning capital from a static balance sheet into a programmable set of behaviors—is central to how DeFi seeks to compete with traditional finance infrastructure efficiencies.
Spark also noted that the DualPool hook will undergo a separate security review, along with additional testing and production-readiness steps before it is deployed. The distinction is important for users and developers: building on hooks can introduce new failure modes, and Spark’s statement implies that the initial pools are a “safe start,” with more experimental programmability coming only after a formal review process.
While Spark is working with additional partners across the stablecoin ecosystem, the spokesperson did not provide details on those integrations at this stage.
Why this fits the tokenization narrative
Even though Spark’s rollout focuses on stablecoins rather than tokenized securities, it aligns with a wider market narrative: as tokenization expands, trading venues that can efficiently provide liquidity for new onchain assets may see outsized benefits.
Earlier in the month, Standard Chartered pointed to Uniswap as a potential beneficiary of tokenized assets moving into DeFi. In its outlook, the bank forecast that total assets held in DeFi could reach $2.7 trillion by 2030, with Uniswap potentially positioned as a liquidity venue as tokenized markets grow.
Cointelegraph reports that the Spark deployment offers a more immediate test of that general infrastructure thesis, albeit in a stablecoin context. Stablecoins are not tokenized securities, but they are the rails many onchain financial products depend on—particularly when trading activity, hedging, and market-making require deep, reliable liquidity.
The timing also follows steps toward institutional tokenized-asset trading on Uniswap. On Feb. 12, BlackRock said it would bring its $2.1 billion tokenized Treasury fund, BUIDL, to Uniswap, enabling eligible institutional investors and market makers to trade the security through decentralized infrastructure.
Together, these developments highlight a pattern: as more real-world finance primitives move onchain, decentralized venues increasingly need to prove they can deliver not just execution, but also scalable liquidity and operational efficiency.
What to watch next
Investors and builders should watch whether Spark’s shared-liquidity approach can scale beyond two initial stablecoin pairs and whether the planned DualPool hook clears its security review without disrupting liquidity depth. The next phase—moving from standard pools into Spark’s programmable layer—will likely be the clearer signal of whether this “shared liquidity” thesis can deliver measurable efficiency gains across stablecoin markets.
This article was originally published as Spark Moves $150M in Stablecoins to Uniswap to Boost Shared Liquidity on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.