CoinRank

On-chain indicators show weakening participation with BTC trading below major trend levels and spot demand failing to absorb selling pressure.

 

U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs shift into net outflows, widening the year-over-year demand gap and signaling the absence of the key buyer base that usually drives upside cycles.

 

Prediction markets lean toward no Fed rate cuts in April, keeping liquidity constrained and limiting the chance of a meaningful near-term crypto rebound.

Bitcoin slides toward $70,000 as on-chain data signals a weakening bull cycle

 

Bitcoin continues drifting toward the low 70,000s as on-chain indicators point to fading demand and tightening liquidity. CryptoQuant’s latest report shows the Bull Score Index at zero, suggesting the weakness is structural rather than a temporary correction. Spot volumes remain muted, seller absorption is thinning, and participation has declined across both retail and institutional segments.

 

U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs, previously a major source of demand, have flipped into sustained net outflows, creating a year over year gap in buying power measured in tens of thousands of BTC. Glassnode data reinforces this trend, highlighting a genuine demand vacuum rather than forced capitulation. Stablecoin supply growth has also stalled, with USDT’s market cap turning negative for the first time since 2023, signaling broader liquidity compression in the system.

 

Macro expectations remain cautious. Prediction markets imply the Federal Reserve is likely to hold rates unchanged in April, with only limited expectations for easing later in the year. President Donald Trump’s remarks about his Fed nominee Kevin Warsh have added uncertainty by raising questions about the independence of future rate decisions. In Asia, the tone is defined by hesitation, with rebounds being viewed as temporary rather than trend-shifting.

Multicoin Capital co-founder Kyle Samani steps down after nearly a decade

 

Kyle Samani, co founder of Multicoin Capital, announced he is stepping down as managing director after nearly ten years shaping one of crypto’s most influential venture firms. Samani described the decision as bittersweet, emphasizing that he remains highly confident in the long term trajectory of digital assets and believes crypto is “rewiring the circuitry of global finance.”

 

Although stepping away from daily operations, he will continue to invest personally and maintain his role as chairman of Forward Industries, a Solana treasury firm. Samani highlighted the importance of upcoming U.S. policy developments, especially the Clarity Act, which he expects will unlock major new institutional interest by providing clearer legal classification for digital assets.

 

Multicoin, founded in 2017, gained early recognition for backing Solana and Helium before they became mainstream, bridging venture investing with liquid token markets in a way few firms attempted. Operational leadership now falls to Managing Partner Tushar Jain and CFO/COO Brian Smith. Samani has not specified his next step but suggested he will explore broader technological fields while remaining an active participant in crypto.

CFTC resets U.S. prediction-market policy, withdrawing Biden-era restrictions

 

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, led by new Chairman Mike Selig, has withdrawn a 2024 proposal that sought to ban political event contracts in prediction markets. The earlier rule would have treated political outcomes as prohibited contracts on par with war or terrorism, a position now reversed as the agency shifts toward a more innovation-friendly stance under the Trump administration.

 

Selig described the prior proposal as a “frolic into merit regulation” and confirmed that the CFTC will restart the process with a new rule grounded in a clearer reading of the Commodity Exchange Act. The regulator also rescinded a September advisory that had unintentionally created confusion among platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.

 

The pivot comes as prediction markets gain institutional and political relevance, with traditional financial players including Coinbase and Cboe assessing opportunities in the space. The updated regulatory direction aligns with broader legislative efforts in Congress to formalize the CFTC as the primary regulator for non security digital-asset markets. Industry participants expect the new framework to provide a more stable foundation for event-contract innovations going forward.

CME Group hints at launching its own ‘CME Coin’ as tokenization push accelerates

 

CME Group CEO Terry Duffy has signaled that the derivatives giant is exploring the creation of a proprietary token that could operate on a decentralized network, marking the first time the exchange has explicitly floated the concept. The discussion surfaced during an earnings call focused on tokenized collateral, where Duffy noted growing comfort with tokens issued by major financial institutions and their potential integration into margin systems.

 

This initiative appears distinct from CME’s “tokenized cash” product being developed with Google, expected to launch later this year with a large depository bank supporting settlement. The firm is simultaneously preparing to roll out 24/7 trading for all crypto futures and expand its offerings to include new contracts tied to cardano, chainlink and stellar.

 

CME’s average daily crypto volume reached $12 billion last year, underscoring its central role in institutional crypto liquidity. A potential CME issued token — whether used for settlement, collateral or institutional transfers — would represent a significant step in the convergence of traditional finance and blockchain infrastructure, echoing moves like JPMorgan’s tokenized deposit rollout.

Europe’s regulatory clarity positions the EU to lead the next phase of tokenisation

 

This week’s Crypto Long & Short highlights how the European Union has emerged as the most strategically prepared region for large scale tokenisation of real world assets. The value of tokenised RWAs surged 260 percent in the first half of 2025, reaching $23 billion on chain, driven by growing participation from institutions such as BlackRock, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs.

 

With MiCA now fully in force and the DLT Pilot Regime enabling regulated issuance of digital securities, Europe has progressed beyond experimentation into active deployment. Banks have already issued more than €1.5 billion in tokenized bonds, and asset managers are testing on chain fund structures designed for retail channels. Analysts argue that Europe’s unified regulatory framework has become a competitive advantage by giving institutions the clarity they need to allocate real capital.

 

The next stage focuses on interoperability. As more tokenized products enter the market, fragmented liquidity and siloed infrastructures risk recreating old financial inefficiencies. The EU is positioned to define global standards for cross chain connectivity and disclosure frameworks, enabling tokenised markets to scale in a structurally coherent way. With rules now stable and infrastructure maturing, Europe is widely viewed as the most credible leader in the next wave of institutional tokenisation.

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (2/5)｜Bitcoin slides toward $70,000 as on-chain data signals fading demand and tighter liquidity〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Ethereum’s rollup centric Layer2 strategy did not fail because of technology, but because decentralization incentives never aligned with Layer2 business models.

 

As Ethereum begins to scale Layer1 directly, general purpose Layer2 networks lose their core justification and face a structural relevance crisis.

 

Only specialized Layer2s that offer clear differentiation such as privacy, ultra low latency, or application specific execution can survive in a post rollup narrative era.

HOW THE ROLLUP CENTRIC ROADMAP BECAME ETHEREUM’S ONLY CHOICE AND ITS BIGGEST BET

 

To understand why Vitalik Buterin’s recent article matters, it is necessary to go back to the moment when Ethereum first committed itself to a rollup centric future. This decision did not come from theoretical preference. It came from pressure.

 

Between 2018 and 2021, Ethereum faced a growing contradiction. On one side, demand for block space was rising rapidly due to DeFi NFTs and on chain speculation. On the other side, the cost of running a full node was increasing, and the community was deeply resistant to any solution that would significantly raise hardware requirements. Scaling the base layer directly was politically difficult and socially risky.

 

Rollups appeared as a compromise that satisfied everyone on paper. Ethereum Layer1 could remain conservative and secure. Layer2 networks would handle execution and scale. In theory, these Layer2 systems would eventually inherit Ethereum’s security model and decentralize over time. The idea of rollups as “Ethereum’s shards” became the dominant narrative.

This roadmap was not only a technical plan. It became a social contract. Developers built around it. Investors funded it. Media reinforced it. Layer2 was not just a scaling method. It was framed as Ethereum’s destiny.

 

At the time, the bet made sense. Ethereum could not scale quickly without risking fragmentation. Competing Layer1s were emerging with higher throughput and simpler user experiences. The rollup centric roadmap allowed Ethereum to delay hard choices while preserving its ideological core.

 

But embedded in this choice was an assumption that would later prove fragile. It assumed that Layer2 projects would voluntarily move toward deep decentralization even when doing so conflicted with their business incentives. It assumed that time alone would solve governance concentration. It assumed alignment where alignment was never enforced.

 

This was the original strategic gamble. Ethereum outsourced execution complexity to external networks while trusting that long term values would guide their evolution. In hindsight, this was less a technical plan and more an act of faith.

 

WHY LAYER2 DECENTRALIZATION STALLED AND WHY IT WAS NEVER JUST A TECHNICAL ISSUE

 

For years, slow decentralization on Layer2 was explained as a matter of maturity. Teams argued that early centralization was necessary for safety and efficiency. Critics were told to be patient. Stage based frameworks were introduced to signal progress.

 

Yet the uncomfortable reality is that decentralization stalled not because of technical difficulty alone, but because of incentive misalignment. Control over sequencers means control over transaction ordering and fee revenue. Governance authority provides regulatory flexibility. Multisig systems reduce operational risk.

 

Moving toward full trust minimization removes these advantages. It introduces uncertainty and reduces optionality. From the perspective of a Layer2 operator, decentralization is not an upgrade. It is a tradeoff.

This is why many Layer2 networks remained structurally centralized long after their early phase ended. Not temporarily centralized, but intentionally so. The system rewarded control, not relinquishment.

 

Ethereum tolerated this because the alternative felt worse. As long as Layer2 networks delivered lower fees and higher throughput, the ecosystem accepted the gap between theory and reality. The narrative of future decentralization acted as a shield against deeper scrutiny.

 

Vitalik’s recent article breaks this shield. By stating plainly that Layer2 decentralization has progressed far slower than expected, he reframes the issue as a strategic failure rather than a temporary delay. This distinction matters.

 

Once decentralization is acknowledged as a choice rather than a milestone, the entire rollup centric justification weakens. Layer2 networks stop looking like Ethereum’s extensions and start looking like independent systems borrowing Ethereum’s credibility.

 

At that point, the question changes. It is no longer whether Layer2 can decentralize someday. It is whether Ethereum should continue to grant them the status of official scaling layers while absorbing the risks of their design decisions.

 

WHEN ETHEREUM CHOOSES TO SCALE ITSELF THE ORIGINAL LAYER2 PROMISE COLLAPSES

 

Over the past year, Ethereum’s actions have quietly signaled a shift long before the words arrived. Incremental increases to the gas limit. Execution layer optimizations. The gradual movement of zero knowledge proving closer to the base layer. These are not cosmetic changes.

 

They represent a reversal of the earlier assumption that Layer1 must remain minimal at all costs. Ethereum is now willing to accept more responsibility at the base layer in order to regain coherence and control.

 

This shift fundamentally changes the value proposition of general purpose Layer2 networks. If Layer1 transaction costs approach those of Layer2, and if performance gaps continue to narrow, then the primary justification for Layer2 disappears.

 

Users do not choose architectures. They choose experiences. If the base layer becomes cheap and fast enough, few users will tolerate the added complexity of bridging fragmented liquidity and multiple execution environments.

 

Developers face the same calculus. Building on Layer2 only makes sense if it offers something meaningfully different. If it merely replicates Ethereum with extra steps, it becomes a liability rather than an advantage.

 

Vitalik’s article can be read as an official acknowledgment that the original role assigned to Layer2 is complete. Rollups served as a bridge during a period when Ethereum could not scale directly. That period is ending.

 

This does not mean that all Layer2 networks will disappear. It means that their legitimacy must now be earned through differentiation rather than inherited through association.

 

The implication is uncomfortable but clear. Ethereum no longer sees Layer2 as the future of its execution layer. It sees them as optional environments with varying degrees of trust and relevance.

 

WHAT SURVIVES AND WHAT DOES NOT IN THE POST ROLLUP NARRATIVE

 

If the rollup centric roadmap is no longer the backbone of Ethereum’s future, then the ecosystem must sort itself accordingly. Not all Layer2 networks face the same fate.

 

General purpose Layer2s that exist primarily to offer cheaper Ethereum transactions face the most existential risk. Their value proposition erodes as Layer1 improves. Their decentralization remains incomplete. Their economic models depend on sustained traffic that may not materialize.

 

In contrast, specialized Layer2s still have a path forward. Networks that focus on privacy, ultra low latency, non financial applications, or application specific execution can justify their existence. They provide capabilities that Ethereum Layer1 is not designed to optimize for in the near term.

 

The key difference is intent. Surviving Layer2s will not position themselves as Ethereum’s future. They will position themselves as Ethereum’s complements.

 

This transition also forces a reassessment for investors. Many Layer2 valuations were built on the assumption of permanent structural relevance. That assumption no longer holds. What remains is execution quality, differentiation, and real demand.

 

Vitalik did not declare the end of Layer2. He removed their default legitimacy. The market will do the rest.

 

In the long run, this correction may strengthen Ethereum. By reclaiming its core scaling path and clarifying the role of external networks, Ethereum reduces systemic ambiguity. It trades short term discomfort for long term coherence.

 

The uncomfortable truth is that Ethereum’s greatest mistake was not choosing Layer2. It was assuming that outsourcing its future would preserve its values. That assumption has now been abandoned.

 

For participants in the ecosystem, the question is no longer theoretical. It is practical. Which networks offer real value beyond borrowed security. And which ones were only ever sustained by a narrative that has now reached its end.

〈Vitalik Admits a Strategic Misjudgment as Ethereum Begins to End the Layer2 Narrative〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Kalshi and Polymarket are using offline promotions to attract users and stand out in a competitive prediction market landscape.

 

Free groceries and pop-up campaigns help lower entry barriers and connect prediction markets with everyday life.

 

These initiatives also serve as strategic signals to regulators, aiming to build a more favorable policy environment.

How Kalshi and Polymarket use offline promotions, free groceries, and public welfare campaigns in New York to boost growth and improve regulatory positioning.

 

This time, the “egg giveaway war” is being led by the two dominant players in prediction markets—Kalshi and Polymarket.

 

In the lead-up to the Super Bowl, often dubbed “America’s Spring Festival,” both platforms have launched aggressive offline promotion campaigns to capture public attention. Kalshi has been handing out $50 worth of free groceries to users at supermarkets in New York, while Polymarket has gone even further, unveiling its long-prepared “New York’s first free grocery store,” scheduled to open on February 12.

 

In their battle for visibility and user growth, these multi-billion-dollar prediction market giants have chosen one of the oldest—but still most effective—strategies: on-the-ground, offline promotion.

 

>>> More to read: What is Crypto Prediction Market? A Beginner’s Guide

KALSHI VS. POLYMARKET: THE OFFLINE PROMOTION BATTLE

 

As one of America’s leading global metropolises, New York has become a key battleground for prediction market giants Kalshi and Polymarket.

 

 

Against the backdrop of rising living costs in New York and across the United States, both platforms have recently rolled out major offline promotional campaigns.

 

On February 3, Kalshi distributed time-limited $50 grocery vouchers to selected users at Westside Market, located at 84 Third Avenue in New York, aiming to attract more participants to its real-world event prediction markets.

 

Judging from nearby street posters, in-store signage, and promotional materials, Kalshi’s offline campaign resembled an improvised “pop-up” activation. By partnering with a local supermarket and deploying temporary marketing materials, the platform used “free $50 groceries” as an incentive to draw crowds, encourage participation, and generate on-site attention.

 

Through this pop-up campaign, Kalshi appears to be targeting everyday, low-barrier betting topics—such as whether New York gas prices will exceed $3.30 this year—to lower the entry threshold for new users. The strategy aims to drive brand exposure, user acquisition, and platform engagement.

 

Thousands have already picked up their free Kalshi groceries!

We are being told we’ve already inspired other companies to keep up the initiative!

2 more hours to get yours

Westside Market | 84 3rd Ave. NYC pic.twitter.com/8R11OGODLu

— Kalshi (@Kalshi) February 3, 2026

 

>>> More to read: What is Kalshi Prediction Market?

 

Compared with Kalshi’s relatively rough and highly commercial approach, Polymarket’s preparations were noticeably more comprehensive.

 

Also on February 3, slightly ahead of Kalshi’s official announcement, Polymarket revealed that after months of preparation, it would open “New York’s first free grocery store” through a leased offline location on February 12 (Eastern Time). In addition, Polymarket donated $1 million to New York City’s food bank to help address regional food insecurity.

 

After months of planning, we’re excited to announce ‘The Polymarket’ is coming to New York City.

New York’s first free grocery store.

We signed the lease. And we donated $1 million to Food Bank For NYC — an organization that changes how our city responds to hunger. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/BGMCWUMz8n

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) February 3, 2026

 

Notably, Polymarket emphasized that its offline store would offer fully stocked supplies with no purchase required. At the end of its announcement, the platform also encouraged the public to donate to the city’s food bank, calling on people to take concrete action to address rising food prices and the broader cost-of-living-driven hunger problem.

 

>>> More to read: What is Polymarket? Web3 Prediction Market

WHY PREDICTION MARKETS ARE “GIVING AWAY EGGS”

 

The recent food donation campaigns by Kalshi and Polymarket were not coordinated with the New York City government and were initiated independently by the companies.

 

However, the language and objectives in their public statements closely resemble the policy positions repeatedly emphasized by New York’s newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, during his campaign. Mamdani previously proposed opening publicly owned grocery stores across New York’s five boroughs to reduce food prices, arguing that nonprofit operations and the use of public property could significantly lower rent and operating costs. This initiative is still in a pilot phase, with no finalized implementation timeline.

 

At the same time, as one of the most politically influential states in the U.S., New York is actively drafting new legislation targeting the emerging prediction market sector. Among them, the proposed ORACLE Act aims to restrict or prohibit New York residents from betting on certain prediction market events and to impose stricter limits on event-based contracts. Another bill would require prediction market operators to obtain state-issued licenses before operating.

 

These developments reflect persistent concerns among some lawmakers, who continue to view prediction markets as resembling unregulated gambling or as being particularly vulnerable to insider manipulation.

 

Against this backdrop, although the mayor does not have direct regulatory authority over prediction markets, the actions taken by Kalshi and Polymarket may represent a strategic attempt to indirectly improve their regulatory standing—using social engagement and public welfare initiatives to cultivate a more favorable policy environment.

 

✏️ Seeing this unfold, one can’t help but reflect on the contrast

 

▶ “Fake” crypto promotions revolve around flashy conferences, luxury dinners, and hyping dubious concept tokens.

 

▶ “Real” crypto promotions, by comparison, involve giving away vegetables and eggs, opening offline stores to provide free food, supporting charitable causes, and encouraging public donations to help those in need.

 

In today’s market, genuine user growth is no longer driven by empty narratives, but by tangible value and real-world impact.

 

 

▶ Read the original article

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Polymarket and Kalshi Go Offline — $50 Vouchers Spark Promo Battle〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Moltbook signals a shift in AI Agent valuation from short-term utility and hype toward long-term presence and collective behavior.

 

The MOLT surge reflects speculative bets on new “existence-based” narratives rather than product fundamentals.

 

While near-term momentum is limited, the sector offers opportunities for strategic, long-term positioning.

An in-depth analysis of how Moltbook is reshaping the AI Agent narrative, shifting market valuation from utility to autonomous existence, and redefining Web3’s long-term participation model.

 

MOLTBOOK IS REDEFINING THE STARTING POINT OF THE AI AGENT NARRATIVE

 

The concept of AI Agents is not new to the Web3 ecosystem.

 

In early 2025, it emerged as one of the hottest narratives in the market—only to be rapidly invalidated within a short period. During the first wave of AI Agents, several leading projects, such as ai16z and swarms, maintained active code development and frequent product iterations. However, despite these efforts, few managed to deliver truly sustainable products or viable business models.

 

At the time, market demand was driven less by real utility and more by collective FOMO surrounding the “AI Agent narrative.” Once sentiment cooled, token prices declined sharply, and the sector’s overall market capitalization collapsed.

 

Recently, an experiment called Moltbook—seemingly unrelated to crypto—has brought AI Agents back into public focus. The speed at which market sentiment identified and priced this phenomenon has been notable.

 

Moltbook is a social network exclusively designed for AI Agents. Humans are not allowed to post, comment, or vote; they can only observe. From a product standpoint, its practical utility appears limited. From a market perspective, however, it presents a highly impactful scenario: large numbers of AI Agents interacting, debating, collaborating, and even forming their own narratives and cultural patterns in a fully autonomous public environment.

 

More importantly, the “human-silent, AI-free” structure was quickly absorbed into speculative pricing dynamics. Even amid weak on-chain market conditions, MOLT—the meme token associated with Moltbook—experienced rapid multi-fold daily gains, with its market capitalization briefly reaching $120 million.

 

This surge was not driven by Moltbook solving any fundamental Web3 problems. Instead, it reflected renewed market willingness to assign value to AI Agents themselves.

 

The true significance of Moltbook lies less in its product design and more in its core experiment: placing AI Agents in a long-term, unmoderated public space. As a result, these agents no longer appear merely as callable tools, but as an evolving collective capable of sustained interaction and self-organization.

 

This shift has reframed the central discussion. The focus is no longer on whether AI Agents can assist humans more efficiently, but on whether Web3 can meaningfully participate in ecosystems where Agents operate autonomously—and whether this signals the early stages of a new market cycle.

 

From an investment perspective, revisiting the successes and failures of the first AI Agent wave is becoming less critical. The more relevant question is whether phenomena like Moltbook indicate a structural change in how AI Agents exist and interact—and whether this transformation may open a new participation window for the Web3 economy.

HOW SHOULD THE AI AGENT SECTOR BE REPRICED AFTER MOLTBOOK?

 

If the first wave of AI Agent valuation was driven primarily by the size of its narrative, the post-Moltbook market is showing a distinctly different pricing logic.

 

In the Moltbook experiment, few participants were genuinely concerned with product functionality. It does not improve efficiency, generate direct revenue, or present a clear business model. Yet despite this, the market quickly spawned a large number of related meme tokens and assigned them highly aggressive sentiment-driven valuations.

 

This shift suggests that market attention has moved away from “what AI Agents can do” toward “how Agents exist.”

 

This transition has fundamentally altered the valuation framework for AI Agents. During the first cycle, Agents were largely packaged as “advanced tools” within a broader narrative. Whether they were actually used or produced measurable outcomes had little lasting impact on valuation.

 

Under the Moltbook framework, however, Agents are placed in a long-term, unmoderated public environment. Their value no longer derives from isolated demonstrations of capability, but from continuous presence, sustained interaction, and emergent collective behavior.

 

🔍 As a result, the market has begun to reprice three core attributes:

 

The ability to persist over time

The potential to form collective dynamics

The capacity to continuously generate new behaviors and narratives

 

From this perspective, the surge in MOLT was not a reflection of Moltbook’s product strength, but a bet on this new mode of existence. The market was not pricing how many tasks an Agent could complete, but whether it was worth observing over the long term, repeatedly comparing, and continuously projecting sentiment onto.

 

In this sense, Moltbook has not answered the question of how AI Agents achieve practical adoption. Instead, it has forced the market to confront a more fundamental issue: if Agents themselves become the primary objects of valuation, can Web3 still provide new structural forms to support this mode of existence?

NO IMMEDIATE BOOM, BUT THE AI AGENT SECTOR DESERVES RENEWED ATTENTION

 

The Web3 application models emerging around Moltbook remain at a very early stage. Whether in Agent-based social networks, Agent-driven economies, or the more abstract concept of “existence-based valuation,” all are still far from having clear product roadmaps or verifiable business models.

 

At the same time, current crypto market conditions remain unfavorable. Overall sentiment is weak, on-chain capital activity is limited, and most new narratives struggle to attract sustained attention and liquidity support. Under such conditions, expectations of replicating the explosive trajectory of the first AI Agent cycle are unrealistic.

 

However, it is precisely because short-term momentum is unlikely to materialize that this phase becomes more suitable for strategic reassessment.

 

Rather than chasing immediate price action, this period offers an opportunity to re-evaluate the fundamental direction of the sector, reassess emerging structural changes, and identify whether new participation models are gradually taking shape around Moltbook and similar experiments.

 

In this context, the current market environment may not favor rapid valuation expansion—but it does favor deeper analysis, longer-term positioning, and early recognition of potential structural inflection points.

 

 

▶ Read the original article

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Is Moltbook Sparking a Second Golden Age for AI Agents?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Binance remains a major liquidity hub, but its dominance in price discovery and derivatives trading is facing structural challenges.

 

On-chain platforms like Hyperliquid are gaining traction by prioritizing transparency, verifiability, and public market infrastructure.

 

The real competition is shifting from volume and fees to who defines the future trading model of crypto markets.

An in-depth analysis of Binance’s shifting dominance as on-chain platforms like Hyperliquid reshape price discovery, liquidity flows, and the future structure of crypto trading.

 

For years, Binance has been widely regarded as the “No.1 Exchange in the Crypto Universe.”

It became a label deeply embedded in retail investors’ minds — almost unquestioned.

 

Yet recently, I’ve begun to grow increasingly skeptical of this long-standing narrative.

 

There is no doubt that, backed by its vast ecosystem spanning public blockchains, wallets, incubation programs, and venture capital networks, Binance remains the most influential platform in today’s crypto industry in terms of overall reach.

 

But the real question worth reexamining lies elsewhere — at the very core of what an exchange is meant to do.

 

In trading itself.

 

Especially in high-volume, high-fee, price-defining arenas such as the derivatives market,
does Binance still firmly sit at the top?
Does it still possess an unshakable advantage over its competitors?

 

And beyond pure trading volume, in key areas of innovation and specialized market segments, are there now players that are beginning to outperform Binance?

 

This question is not driven by any single short-term data point.

 

Rather, it stems from a series of seemingly minor developments over the past months — each insignificant on its own, but together, gradually reshaping my understanding of Binance’s true position in the market.

DERIVATIVES TRADING VOLUME UNDER PRESSURE

 

One of the clearest signals of shifting market dynamics has emerged in recent periods of high volatility.

 

Over the past few days, Hyperliquid has overtaken Binance in liquidation volume.

 

As shown in recent data, over the past 24 hours, Hyperliquid recorded approximately $193 million in liquidations, compared to $146 million on Binance.

 

There is, however, an important caveat.

 

Binance’s liquidation data feed is subject to a rate limit of at most one update per second. As a result, platforms such as Coinglass may experience minor delays when capturing real-time figures.

 

That said, based on market observations and trader behavior, a clear trend is emerging:

 

✏️ an increasing number of large traders are choosing to open positions on Hyperliquid.

 

Representative examples include well-known figures such as “Mach Big Brother,” the “1011 insider whale,” James Wynn, AguilaTrades, “CZ’s counterpart,” the “14-win streak whale,” Gambler@qwatio, Low-Stack Degen, and several other high-profile accounts.

 

▶You may dismiss them as pure gamblers.

▶But where the gamblers go, liquidity follows.

▶And liquidity is the lifeblood of any exchange.

 

📌Why Is This Shift Happening?

 

The underlying reason lies in structural differences between centralized and on-chain trading systems.

 

Compared with centralized exchanges — which inevitably face ongoing concerns about “black-box operations” — Hyperliquid executes all orders, trades, liquidations, and settlements on-chain.

 

➤ This architecture provides built-in advantages in terms of:

 

Transparency

Verifiability

Perceived fairness

 

Every transaction is publicly auditable.

 

Nothing happens behind closed doors.

 

This stands in sharp contrast to traditional CEX models, where users must ultimately trust the platform’s internal matching and risk-management systems.

📌 A Case That Still Lingers in the Market’s Memory

 

In the first half of last year, a prominent industry veteran — someone who had previously founded several well-known projects — suffered a targeted liquidation on a major centralized exchange (not Binance).

 

The losses reportedly exceeded $100 million.

 

Despite repeated inquiries, the platform never disclosed detailed information regarding its internal order-matching logic or liquidation mechanisms.

 

No transparent records.

No independent verification.

No accountability.

 

Incidents like this continue to shape how large traders evaluate counterparty risk — and reinforce the appeal of fully on-chain trading venues.

 

>>> More to read: CZ Under Fire as Binance Listing Controversy Resurfaces

SLOWING MOMENTUM IN NEW ASSET LISTINGS

 

Over the past year, compared with several second-tier exchanges, Binance has noticeably tightened its pace of official token listings.

 

Instead of frequent direct listings, much of the early-stage experimentation has been shifted to Binance Alpha. However, the post-listing performance of many Alpha projects has been underwhelming.

 

Following the surge of Chinese meme tokens, Alpha’s strategic focus has increasingly tilted toward the BSC ecosystem. After the “10.11 incident,” controversies surrounding Binance’s listing practices continued to intensify, prompting renewed scrutiny across the industry.

✅ Ecosystem Shifts: From Solana to Bybit?

 

A recent public dispute further highlighted these tensions.

 

Not long ago, Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana, openly criticized Binance on X and was subsequently unfollowed by Changpeng Zhao.

 

Yet this incident merely amplified a narrative that had already been circulating in the market:

 

many projects from the Solana ecosystem are gradually shifting toward Bybit for listings and liquidity support.

 

If this trend continues, Binance’s traditional dominance in primary listings and price discovery may no longer remain unchallenged.

✅ Traditional Assets: A New Battleground

 

More importantly, as crypto-native assets remain in a prolonged downturn, the industry has begun to treat tokenized traditional assets — including equities and precious metals — as the next major growth frontier.

 

On this front, Binance’s progress appears relatively slow.

 

Compared with Hyperliquid and several highly aggressive centralized exchanges such as Bitget and Gate, Binance has moved more cautiously.

 

Last Monday, Binance launched its first stock-linked perpetual contract, Tesla (TSLA), followed shortly by Intel (INTC) and Robinhood (HOOD).

 

While this marked a meaningful step, competitors were already moving far more aggressively.

 

From tokenized stocks to precious metals, from indices to commodities, rival platforms have rapidly expanded their product coverage — effectively launching an early race for future users.

✅ Hyperliquid’s Structural Advantage

 

On the decentralized side, Hyperliquid has advanced even further.

 

Through its HIP-3 open architecture, the platform enables highly flexible, customized market creation. This has allowed it to list dozens of traditional-asset-linked instruments, including pre-IPO exposure to companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

 

More importantly, these products are not merely symbolic.

 

They have already accumulated substantial trading volume.

 

In recent periods, traditional-asset-linked markets have accounted for nearly half of Hyperliquid’s top-volume rankings — signaling genuine user demand rather than speculative experimentation.

✅ Implications

 

Taken together, these developments suggest that Binance’s long-standing advantage in asset expansion and market leadership is facing structural pressure.

 

While Binance still retains enormous brand strength and infrastructure depth, its more conservative approach to new listings and traditional-asset integration may gradually weaken its first-mover edge — especially in an environment where innovation speed is increasingly decisive.

WHAT HAS REALLY CHANGED?

 

When viewed together, the current evidence still falls short of proving that Binance has “lost its throne.”

 

Binance remains the most important liquidity hub in the crypto market.

 

But the real issue is not whether any second-tier exchange can temporarily overtake Binance in market share.

 

🔍 The real warning sign is this:

Binance is facing sustained structural challenges on the very battlefield that matters most — trading itself.

🚩 From Market Share to Narrative Power

 

What Binance is gradually losing is not volume.

 

It is something far more subtle:

 

the power to define what an exchange is.

 

For a long time, Binance’s dominance went far beyond liquidity.

 

It shaped industry consensus:

 

Where price discovery happened

Where institutional capital flowed

Where new assets should be tested first

Where “real markets” were formed

 

By default, the answer was always Binance.

🚩 A Shift in Trader Priorities

 

That consensus is now being quietly reshaped.

 

More and more high-net-worth traders are placing:

 

verifiability, fairness, and traceability
above brand reputation and fee discounts.

 

As price discovery increasingly migrates on-chain,
and as experimental markets move from opaque backends to transparent, auditable mechanisms,

 

trading behavior itself is being reorganized.

 

Platforms like Hyperliquid are not competing with Binance in the traditional sense.

 

They are redefining the infrastructure of trading.

🚩 From Competition to Paradigm Shift

 

This is what makes the current challenge fundamentally different.

 

In the past, Binance faced rivals that played the same game:

 

faster matching, deeper liquidity, lower fees.

 

Today, it is facing something else entirely:

 

a potential shift in market paradigm.

 

One where:

Trust is built through code, not reputation

Fairness is enforced by transparency, not policy

Price discovery happens in public, not behind closed systems

 

This is not a battle between exchanges.

 

It is a battle between trading models.

🚩 The Question Binance Must Confront

 

Binance is still powerful.

Still dominant.

Still central.

But dominance alone is no longer sufficient.

 

🔍The critical question now is:

How deep is Binance’s moat in a world where trust is being rebuilt on-chain?

 

If exchanges are no longer defined by who controls the biggest black box,
but by who operates the most credible public infrastructure,

 

then Binance may need to rethink not just its strategy —

 

but its identity.

 

 

▶ Read the original article

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Is Binance Still the World’s No.1 Crypto Exchange?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

The crypto winter started in January 2025, not after peak prices

Structural ETF and treasury buying delayed visible collapse, while retail and non institutional assets entered a full bear market much earlier.

 

Institutional capital changed price behavior but not market reality

Over seventy billion dollars in ETF driven demand supported Bitcoin prices, replacing sharp crashes with prolonged stagnation and time based exhaustion.

 

The next market recovery will be uneven and selective

This cycle represents a shift toward institutional survivability. Assets without compliance pathways or balance sheet relevance may not fully recover.

There is a specific feeling that only appears in real bear markets. It is not panic and it is not fear. It is quieter and heavier. Fatigue. Indifference. A slow loss of urgency. When market participants stop refreshing price charts every few minutes and start questioning why they are still paying attention at all, winter is already here. If this describes how the crypto market feels right now, that is not an accident. It is a signal.

 

This moment does not resemble a normal pullback. It does not behave like a technical correction inside a healthy bull trend. What we are experiencing is the delayed recognition of a structural shift that began far earlier than most people were willing to admit. According to Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan, the crypto winter did not start recently. It started in January 2025. The market simply failed to call it what it was at the time.

The importance of this claim is not its headline value. It is what it explains. Once this premise is accepted, many contradictions of the past year suddenly make sense. Strong adoption narratives alongside falling prices. Institutional optimism paired with retail exhaustion. Regulatory progress that appears disconnected from market performance. These are not inconsistencies. They are the natural characteristics of a market that has already entered winter but has not fully acknowledged it.

 

A MARKET THAT LOOKED STABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BEING HELD UP

 

On the surface, the crypto market in 2025 did not resemble the beginning of a deep downturn. Bitcoin pulled back from its highs but avoided a violent collapse. Ethereum weakened but maintained its position as a core asset. At several points, large tokens even staged short lived rebounds. To many investors, these movements suggested a cooling phase rather than the start of a prolonged winter.

 

This perception, however, was shaped by a narrow view of the market. Hougan’s insight is not focused on price action alone, but on why prices were able to hold at all. The answer lies in structure, not sentiment.

 

The introduction of spot Bitcoin ETFs and the rise of crypto treasury companies created a form of demand that had never existed in previous cycles. This capital did not arrive chasing narratives or short term momentum. It arrived through allocation mandates, compliance frameworks, and balance sheet strategies. Its goal was not to time the market, but to gain exposure. As long as supply was available, it was absorbed.

 

This structural bid functioned like a support framework beneath the market. It prevented visible collapse while masking deeper weakness elsewhere. The winter did not disappear. It was simply delayed in its most obvious form.

 

RETAIL WAS ALREADY IN WINTER WHILE THE NARRATIVE LAGGED BEHIND

 

Once attention moves away from Bitcoin and Ethereum, the true condition of the market becomes clear. Across mid tier assets, ecosystem tokens, and projects without institutional access, 2025 was already a full scale bear market. Prices declined not by small percentages, but by fifty, sixty, or even seventy percent. Liquidity dried up. Trading activity collapsed. Narratives that once drove excitement quietly lost relevance.

 

Hougan divided the market into three layers, and this framework explains far more than any single chart. The first layer consists of assets that institutions can access easily. These assets benefit from ETF channels, treasury demand, and regulatory clarity. They were protected by structural buying. The second layer includes assets that entered institutional consideration later. These tokens experienced real bear markets, but their ecosystems and narratives survived. The third layer includes assets with no institutional gateway or balance sheet demand. This group absorbed the full force of the downturn early and without protection.

 

This division leads to an uncomfortable conclusion. The retail driven segment of the crypto market entered winter at the start of 2025. The broader industry simply refused to label it as such. As long as Bitcoin appeared stable, the assumption persisted that the cycle had not turned. In reality, the cycle had already fractured.

 

THE ETF THOUGHT EXPERIMENT THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING

 

One of Hougan’s most important observations comes from a simple question. What would the market look like without ETFs.

 

Since early 2025, ETFs and crypto treasury firms accumulated more than seven hundred thousand Bitcoin, representing roughly seventy five billion dollars of demand. This was not speculative capital. It was structural demand that did not exit during drawdowns and did not chase rallies.

 

Without this demand, price discovery would have followed a very different path. Hougan suggests that Bitcoin could have fallen dramatically further, potentially by another sixty percent. Whether the exact figure is correct is less important than what it reveals. Current prices are not the result of natural market clearing. They are the result of structural intervention.

 

This explains the unusual stagnation that now defines the market. Prices do not collapse because supply continues to be absorbed. Prices do not recover because sentiment remains exhausted. Time, rather than volatility, has become the dominant force shaping market behavior.

 

WHY POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS FEEL IRRELEVANT RIGHT NOW

 

Every crypto winter produces the same confusion. Adoption continues. Regulation advances. Institutions build infrastructure. Stablecoins expand. Tokenization accelerates. Yet prices remain weak.

 

The explanation is simple and uncomfortable. In winter, markets are not searching for reasons to rise. They are searching for reasons to stop caring.

 

Those who lived through 2018 or 2022 recognize this phase. True bottoms do not form when optimism remains. They form after exhaustion. Positive developments do not disappear during this process. They are compressed and stored. When conditions change, that stored progress does not reenter the market gradually. It releases suddenly.

 

WHY THIS WINTER MAY END FASTER THAN EXPECTED

 

Hougan’s optimism is not rooted in price targets. It is rooted in time structure. Historically, crypto winters last roughly one year. If measured from peak prices, this cycle appears incomplete. But if winter truly began in January 2025, the market is already well into its later stages.

 

Several critical processes have already occurred. Excess leverage has been flushed. Retail capitulation has appeared. Only durable narratives remain active. These are not early cycle signals. They are late cycle ones.

 

When macro conditions stabilize, when policy clarity improves, or when time itself dulls the remaining fear, the market response could be faster and sharper than many expect. Winters end not with excitement, but with indifference. That indifference is now widespread.

 

A STRUCTURAL TRANSITION, NOT A SIMPLE CYCLE

 

The most important conclusion goes beyond timing. This cycle is not a simple repeat of past bull and bear rotations. It represents a structural transition.

 

The crypto market is moving away from pure narrative driven speculation toward institutional survivability. Assets are no longer judged solely by potential upside. They are judged by whether they can be held on balance sheets, accessed through compliant vehicles, and defended under regulatory scrutiny.

 

Spring will arrive. But it will not lift everything. Some assets already experienced their winter and may never fully recover. Others have barely felt it yet.

 

If investors continue to apply the logic of the last bull market to the current environment, they may discover that the real winter was not in the market at all, but in their expectations.

〈The Crypto Winter Did Not Just Begin. It Has Already Been Underway for a Long Time〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

The Epstein files show that Bitcoin was discussed and evaluated by elite networks as early as 2011 long before mainstream adoption or institutional interest.

 

Early capital and institutional funding played a significant role in shaping Bitcoin’s development path including developer support infrastructure choices and ideological direction.

 

A 2016 email suggesting contact with multiple Bitcoin creators reopens questions about Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity and highlights how incomplete the public understanding of Bitcoin’s origins remains.

When the US Department of Justice released a large batch of Epstein related documents in late January the public focus quickly locked onto familiar names. Politicians. Tech executives. Billionaires. Party guest lists. Island travel records.

 

At first glance this looked like another chapter in a long running scandal. But buried inside the emails and attachments was something unexpected. Bitcoin kept appearing. Not as a joke. Not as a footnote. But as a recurring topic in serious conversations between Epstein and some of the most influential figures in technology and finance.

This was not Bitcoin in hindsight. These discussions took place between 2011 and 2014. At a time when Bitcoin trading volume was tiny and public understanding was close to zero. Long before institutions. Long before ETFs. Long before the idea of digital gold entered mainstream finance.

 

The documents suggest that Bitcoin was already being studied by people at the very top. And not casually.

 

BITCOIN WAS NEVER JUST AN UNDERGROUND EXPERIMENT

 

In 2011 Epstein described Bitcoin as a brilliant idea with serious flaws. That timing matters. It was the same year Bitcoin experienced its first major boom and collapse. At that stage most of the world still viewed Bitcoin as an obscure experiment used by hobbyists and fringe communities.

 

Yet Epstein was already discussing its structural weaknesses. Its ideological contradictions. Its long term implications. These were not retail level conversations. They were the kind of discussions held by people thinking in systems not trades.

 

By 2013 Bitcoin began to appear more frequently in his emails. Not just Bitcoin itself but the people around it. Advisors. Developers. Early investors. Infrastructure builders. Epstein was not just observing from the outside. He was embedded in the discussion loop.

This matters because it challenges a popular narrative. Bitcoin is often described as something that grew organically from the margins until it surprised the world. The documents suggest a different reality. From a very early stage Bitcoin attracted attention from elite networks that specialize in spotting structural shifts before they become visible.

 

IDEOLOGICAL BATTLES AND EARLY CAPITAL PRESSURE

 

By 2014 Bitcoin was no longer just software. It was an ideological battlefield. Developers and investors disagreed on what Bitcoin should become. A currency. A store of value. A new type of property. Or something entirely different.

 

Epstein entered this phase not as a theorist but as a participant. Through fund structures he was connected to early investments in Blockstream. A company that played a central role in shaping Bitcoin Core development and promoting a conservative approach to protocol changes.

At the same time other projects such as Ripple and Stellar were pushing faster settlement models and closer relationships with financial institutions. Emails show tension between these camps. Not just technical disagreement but concern over capital alignment.

 

One message suggested frustration that investors were backing multiple competing visions at once. The implication was clear. Capital was not neutral. It could shape outcomes by deciding which paths received long term support and which ones did not.

 

This raises an uncomfortable question. How many alternative Bitcoin futures never materialized not because they failed technically but because they lost early capital backing.

 

THE MIT FUNDING QUESTION AND DEVELOPER CONTROL

 

One of the most sensitive periods in Bitcoin history came after the collapse of the Bitcoin Foundation. Core developers faced funding uncertainty. Salaries were unstable. Governance structures were fragile.

 

During this period the MIT Media Lab Digital Currency Initiative stepped in to fund several Bitcoin Core developers. Publicly this was framed as academic support for open source research.

 

The Epstein documents add new context. The Media Lab had received anonymous donations from Epstein. Internal emails expressed gratitude and emphasized that this funding allowed the lab to move quickly and secure key wins. Including keeping Bitcoin developers from being influenced by other organizations.

 

That phrasing matters. It reveals a belief that developers could be controlled. Or at least guided. Through funding stability.

 

This does not prove that Bitcoin development was captured. But it does prove that powerful actors believed influence was possible. And that they were actively trying to prevent rival influence.

 

Bitcoin did not evolve in isolation. It evolved inside a network of institutions incentives and funding flows.

 

DID EPSTEIN MEET BITCOIN CREATORS

 

The most explosive line in the documents appears in a 2016 email. While pitching currency ideas to Middle Eastern officials Epstein casually mentioned that he had spoken with some of the creators of Bitcoin. He said they were enthusiastic.

 

The wording is precise. Creators. Plural.

 

This single sentence reopens one of the oldest questions in crypto. Was Satoshi Nakamoto an individual or a group. If Epstein believed the latter it suggests he thought their identities were known at least within certain circles.

 

It is possible this was exaggeration. Epstein often used association as a credibility tool. But it is unlikely he would invent such a claim without believing it would be accepted as plausible by his audience.

 

If he truly met Bitcoin creators then the implications are massive. It would suggest that Bitcoin was never as anonymous as believed. And that governments may have known more than they publicly admitted.

 

There is no direct proof. But the silence around the issue is notable.

 

THE IRONY OF EPSTEIN AND BITCOIN

 

Despite his proximity to early Bitcoin discussions Epstein never became a true believer. In 2017 when asked whether it was worth buying Bitcoin he replied with a simple no.

 

History did not choose him.

 

Bitcoin continued to grow beyond the control of any single individual or network. Yet the documents make one thing clear. The myth of Bitcoin as a completely untouched grassroots creation is incomplete.

 

WHAT THE FILES REALLY CHANGE

 

Nearly half of the Epstein documents remain unreleased. It is unclear what additional names or connections may still surface. What is already clear is that Bitcoin’s early history was more intertwined with elite capital and institutional power than many would like to admit.

 

This does not weaken Bitcoin. If anything it strengthens the case for understanding it honestly.

 

Decentralization is not a starting condition. It is a process. And that process was shaped by real people with real influence making real decisions behind closed doors.

 

The fog has not fully lifted. But its outline is finally visible.

〈Epstein Files and the Early History of Bitcoin: A Hidden Line of Power and Capital〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。