_Techno

Was Jane Street Dumping $BTC Daily?
Bitcoin has just taken back the $67, 000 to $68, 000 range with a sharp breakout that slashed a wave of short positions and added more than $100 billion to its market capitalization within 24 hours.
Coincidentally with the rally, a popular narrative resurfaced on crypto social media: the so called 10AM dump had suddenly ceased, and some users accused Jane Street as the supposed force that had been bringing the selling pressure.
However, does any solid proof exist that Jane Street was on a daily basis systematically dumping Bitcoin at 10:00 AM Eastern Time?
Let’s separate observation from assumption.
What Is the “10AM Dump”?
The “10AM dump” is an informal trader term describing a recurring pattern where $BTC often sold off around 10:00 AM ET.
That time window matters because:
US equity markets open at 9:30 AM ET
The first hour typically carries the highest liquidity
Major US macroeconomic data is often released at 8:30 AM or 10:00 AM
ETF flows and institutional hedging adjustments frequently occur during this period
Many traders observed that overnight strength during Asia and European sessions would sometimes reverse shortly after the US open. Over time, this repeated behavior evolved into a narrative that a large institutional player was deliberately selling into that liquidity pocket.
However, elevated volatility around the US open is common across asset classes. It is not unique to crypto.
Why Was 10AM Important This Time?
What made this session different was that Bitcoin did not sell off during the usual window.
Instead:
BTC broke through resistance
Shorts were liquidated
Momentum accelerated
Price reclaimed key technical levels
When a widely watched intraday pattern fails to appear, traders often interpret it as a signal in itself. The absence of expected selling can suggest:
Selling pressure has been absorbed
Positioning has flipped
A short squeeze is underway
Liquidity above resistance is thin
But a broken pattern does not automatically confirm that prior moves were caused by coordinated manipulation.
What Is the Lawsuit About?
The legal narrative stems from the collapse of Terraform Labs, the company behind the failed Terra ecosystem including TerraUSD.
Terraform has made allegations within litigation that certain trading firms, including Jane Street, engaged in structured trading activity tied to UST during its peg defense period.
Important context:
These are legal allegations within an ongoing dispute
There has been no court ruling establishing Bitcoin market manipulation
The claims relate to UST and Terra related mechanics, not proven daily BTC dumping
There is currently no verified evidence showing that Jane Street executed systematic daily Bitcoin sell programs at 10AM.
Was Jane Street Dumping BTC Daily?
Objectively, there is no confirmed proof of coordinated daily Bitcoin dumping by Jane Street.
More common explanations for repeated 10AM volatility include:
ETF hedging adjustments
Market maker gamma positioning
Options expiry dynamics
Liquidity concentration at US market open
Algorithmic portfolio rebalancing
Scheduled macroeconomic data releases
Large quantitative trading firms often choose to trade during peak liquidity windows for the reason that their trading becomes more efficient. That by itself does not infer manipulation.
What Caused Probably the Recent Bitcoin Price Rally?
The recent breakout aligns more closely with:
A short squeeze triggered by crowded positioning
A liquidity vacuum above resistance
Heavy derivative imbalance
Broader macro uncertainty
Institutional participation during US hours
When markets are heavily skewed to one side, the absence of expected selling can fuel rapid upside cascades.
That structure fits the rally more convincingly than the idea that a single large seller suddenly disappeared.
Final Verdict
The “10AM dump” appears to be a trader observed pattern, not documented proof of coordinated daily manipulation.
The lawsuit involving Terraform and Jane Street concerns Terra related events, not established systematic Bitcoin selling.
So far, the available evidence does not support the claim that Jane Street was dumping BTC every day at 10AM.
In markets, narratives move quickly.
Evidence usually moves slower.
And at this stage, the evidence does not confirm the 10AM dumping theory.

#bitcoin $BTC

A governance clash within $AAVE has intensified after Aave Chan Initiative founder Marc Zeller released a sweeping audit of Aave Labs ahead of a proposed $51 million funding vote. In response, Aave Labs published its own performance data and counterarguments, deepening divisions over transparency, revenue allocation, and long term accountability between the DAO and the operating entity.
At the center of the debate is the "Aave Will Win" proposal, which seeks $51 million in funding for $AAVE Labs. Token holders are now evaluating what deliverables, reporting standards, and governance safeguards would accompany such a mandate. Zeller’s audit revisits previous funding sources, including the 2017 token sale, venture backing, and DAO contributions, arguing that new capital requests must be tied to clearly measurable outputs.
Swap fee allocation has become a flashpoint. The audit claims roughly $5.5 million in swap fees flowed to the Labs maintained front end rather than the DAO, framing it as a misalignment in value distribution. Aave Labs insists that these fees emanated from a privately operated interface and were not protocol level revenues controlled by token holders. The dispute highlights a more general structural tension typical for DeFi: what is the right balance between token holder rights and the autonomy of contributors?
There have also been worries about how the governance process is conducted. A few people from the community felt that the recent proposals were ill, timed and too wide in scope. They stated that token holders should be given more time and better disclosures to evaluate major funding decisions. The governance forum is currently debating an addendum that would put in place more stringent conflict of interest provisions as well as a requirement for disclosure of new proposals.
Market situation brings about another dimension. AAVE has been hovering around the $120 level, and technical signals depict a slight weakness along with increased volatility. Although price movements don't decide governance results, the perception of the openness of funding and the quality of its execution may have an impact on how participants weigh risk shortly.
Another focal point is Horizon, $AAVE real world asset initiative. The audit questions its net economics and suggests that incentives and non, performing positions might have led to exaggerations of headline revenue figures. In case, these allegations are true, the DAO may be driven to enhance the strictness of its reporting standards, further define KPIs, and rethink the subsidy schemes tied to RWA expansion
On the flip side, in South Korea, regulatory changes are increasingly becoming the main topic of discussion.
The legislators are moving towards raising the disclosure requirements for crypto influencers on social media to such an extent that they may be required to reveal not only their holdings but also the payments they receive for the assets they promote. The breach of such rules may result in penalties at par with those for capital market offenses, which is a sign of a wider effort to establish formal standards for the promotion of digital assets.
What lies ahead for Aave is how governance is going to change in reaction to the $51 million proposal, not just whether it will be approved. The decision will determine the extent to which DAOs will have to consider changes to their solutions for raising funds, giving ownership of the front end, and maintaining transparency in a DeFi world that is becoming more and more under the microscope.
#DAO

Negotiations over stablecoin incentives are close to a major breakthrough with administration officials determined to settle one of the last issues holding back the crypto legislation in general. With in, depth discussions speeding up, the lawmakers are working toward having a deal ready before March 1 enabling Senate debate on market structure reforms.
The White House organized a series of talks between the banking industry and representatives of the digital asset world, using the draft legislation as a negotiation tool to help locate differences. The officials concentrated on establishing a very clear distinction between interest, style rewards which should be banned and the kind of incentives that are allowed and are linked to user activity, e.g., transaction based benefits. People who know about the negotiations have said that the payment for simply holding the asset is not going to be accepted in the new framework.
Banks have pointed out that in general the stablecoin rewards could cause the depositors to move their money away from the banks and thereby put banks under liquidity pressure. The crypto companies have answered by saying that if the rules are made too tight, it would be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs and the banking sector would become even more privileged. The draft provisions being examined would provide regulators with the instruments to take a closer look at those programs which are aimed at getting around the rules and to the authority to impose penalties if the situation merits it.
Resolving the dispute over stablecoins is seen as a key step to unlocking a wider legislative package. Members of Congress have indicated that before they can go ahead with comprehensive reforms of the market structure, they need to know how stablecoins will be treated. The Senate Banking Committee will likely return to its discussion of the bill markup as soon as the final wording is agreed.
On a different note, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has changed its internal guidance to permit broker, dealers to include most high, quality stablecoin holdings as part of their capital requirements, albeit with a small discount. Although this change was made via staff channels rather than a formal rulemaking, it nevertheless offers firms greater operational leeway when incorporating stablecoins into their trading and custody arrangements.
As talks heat up and new drafts are being exchanged, the sides feel that they are close to a deal. Signed, off agreement on stablecoin incentives could be the key to solving the crypto legislation puzzle and setting federal action in motion in the coming weeks.

#Stablecoins $DASH

The US Federal Reserve has unveiled a formal proposal to eliminate "reputation risk" as one of the factors in its bank supervisory framework, which is seen by many as a direct answer to the continued cry for crypto debanking. The proposition will set in law the previous moves of the central bank and thus, it will be illegal for supervisors to pressure financial institutions to disengage from lawful but politically disfavored businesses, including crypto firms.
The regulation introduces 60 days for public comments and aims at making the Fed's prior decision to exempt reputation risk from bank examinations a matter of record. It has been long argued by the detractors of this notion that it gave regulators a backdoor way to indirectly force banks to cut ties with certain industries, most notably crypto, without having to cite explicit safety and soundness reasons.
Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman revealed that the Fed has gotten reports that worry them about supervisors misusing reputation risk to indirectly prompt banks to terminate customers whose political views, religious beliefs, or engagement in lawful but disfavored sectors such as digital assets do not favor them. She underlined that discrimination on such grounds is illegal and off the Fed's supervisory framework.
The proposal follows similar action by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which previously removed reputational risk considerations from its oversight of national banks. The Fed initially announced in July that it would no longer factor reputation risk into examinations, and the current rulemaking would formally embed that change.
Debanking in the crypto sector has been widely reported. In a recent legal response, JPMorgan confirmed it closed more than 50 accounts tied to President Donald Trump in early 2021, though it did not disclose a reason. Separately, Strike CEO Jack Mallers stated in November 2025 that his accounts at JPMorgan were closed without explanation.
According to a January memo to the Board of Governors, the proposal would explicitly prohibit the Fed from encouraging or compelling banks to deny services to customers engaged in lawful business activities deemed politically sensitive. The board also indicated that permitted payment stablecoin issuers may be included within the definition of covered banking organizations following separate rulemaking processes, a development that could directly impact crypto native firms seeking banking access.
Public comments on the proposal are due within 60 days of its publication on Feb. 23, marking a significant step in the evolving regulatory approach to crypto and banking access in the United States.

#Fed $BNB