Crypto Breaking

In a strategic move that blends crypto mining with enterprise AI ambitions, MARA Holdings completed a majority stake acquisition in Exaion, the French computing infrastructure operator. The deal, initially agreed in August 2025 with EDF Pulse Ventures, hands MARA France a 64% stake in Exaion after the necessary regulatory clearances. EDF remains a minority shareholder and customer, while NJJ Capital—the investment vehicle of telecom entrepreneur Xavier Niel—will take a 10% stake in MARA France as part of the broader alliance. Governance is being reshaped to reflect the new ownership structure: MARA, EDF Pulse Ventures, and NJJ will each hold board seats alongside Exaion’s CEO and co-founder, with Niel and MARA’s chief executive Fred Thiel also expected to participate on the board. The arrangement crystallizes a multi-party partnership that could accelerate Exaion’s AI and cloud ambitions while reinforcing MARA’s diversification beyond traditional mining operations.

Key takeaways

MARA Holdings secures a 64% stake in Exaion, a French computing infrastructure operator, after regulatory approvals).

EDF Pulse Ventures remains a minority shareholder and customer, preserving existing commercial ties with Exaion.

NJJ Capital will acquire a 10% stake in MARA France, creating a broader alliance with MARA.

Board composition will reflect the new tri-party ownership, with 3 seats for MARA, 3 for EDF Pulse Ventures, and 1 for NJJ, plus Exaion’s leadership.

The move aligns with a wider industry trend of Bitcoin miners repurposing facilities for AI data centers to diversify revenue amid hashprice pressure and rising mining costs.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, MARA

Market context: The deal sits at the intersection of crypto mining, AI infrastructure demand, and large-scale energy deployment. The sector has faced tighter economics since the 2024 halving reduced block rewards and rising network difficulty squeezed margins. In response, several miners have pursued hybrid models—maintaining mining as a cash-flow anchor while building AI computing capacity to stabilize revenue streams. This broader trend is evident in public players adapting their asset bases, with companies like HIVE Digital Technologies reporting strength driven by AI expansion, and others such as CoreWeave moving from crypto mining toward substantial AI infrastructure operations. The industry context underpins MARA’s strategic push into Exaion, emphasizing resilience through diversified endpoints rather than a sole reliance on hash-rate economics.

Bitcoin mining economics have continued to evolve as the hash-rate environment shifts. In the latest cycle, Bitcoin mining difficulty rose about 15% to 144.4 trillion, reversing a prior decline and underscoring the ongoing challenge of maintaining profitability in a volatile cost environment. The rebound in difficulty highlights the need for miners to find steadier revenue streams that can weather fluctuations in price and energy costs. As miners explore data-center-scale AI and high-performance computing services, the balance between pure block rewards and ancillary computing offerings remains a focal point for investors and operators alike.

In the context of this transaction, the governance structure is designed to ensure broad-based representation from MARA, EDF Pulse Ventures, and NJJ while preserving Exaion’s leadership, a balance that could shape how the company evolves as an AI-focused infrastructure provider.

Why it matters

The MARA-Exaion deal signals a concrete step toward a more integrated model of value creation in the crypto ecosystem—one that marries mining with enterprise-scale AI infrastructure. By consolidating Exaion under a majority stake, MARA positions itself to leverage Exaion’s data-center capabilities to offer AI-ready compute at scale, potentially tapping into markets that demand GPU-accelerated processing, machine learning workloads, and cloud-style services tailored for research, development, and production environments. This aligns with a broader industry leitmotif: as hash price becomes an increasingly uncertain driver of earnings, diversified revenue streams anchored in computing infrastructure can provide a stabilizing layer for balance sheets, particularly in a sector prone to volatility in crypto cycles.

The governance implications are non-trivial. The board composition—a representation split among MARA, EDF Pulse Ventures, and NJJ, plus Exaion’s leadership—suggests a framework designed to maintain continuity while enabling cross-pollination of strategic priorities. Xavier Niel’s NJJ Capital involvement and MARA’s continued leadership signal a durable collaboration that could accelerate product development, client acquisition, and international deployment of Exaion’s AI-oriented infrastructure. For investors, the arrangement offers a clearer line of sight into how a crypto-focused mining group can pivot toward high-value computing services while maintaining exposure to digital-asset cycles. For builders in the space, the alliance may foreshadow more multi-party partnerships that blend energy, telecom, and cloud-oriented compute into cohesive platforms for AI workloads and data processing at scale.

From a market perspective, the development occurs amid ongoing demand for AI capacity and cloud infrastructure. Publicly traded miners have increasingly pursued hybrid business models; several have reported that AI-focused data-center initiatives are contributing to revenue growth or serving as a counterweight to mining volatility. The MAVA-Exaion collaboration exemplifies how crypto operators can leverage established energy and data-center assets to participate in AI infrastructure without fully stepping away from mining fundamentals. This approach may influence how other players structure alliances and funding rounds, especially as regulatory and policy considerations around AI compute, data sovereignty, and energy efficiency continue to evolve.

In the long run, the Exaion partnership could shape a more resilient blueprint for how crypto-native firms participate in data-center ecosystems. While the shift toward AI infrastructure is driven by macro-level demand for compute power, it also reflects a broader appetite among investors for differentiated, asset-light growth vectors that are less dependent on volatile crypto price cycles. If executed effectively, the MARA-Exaion alliance could deliver an AI-forward product suite that appeals to enterprises seeking scalable, secure, and energy-conscious computing solutions—an outcome that would diversify both top-line growth and risk exposure for a company historically driven by mining revenues.

What to watch next

Board governance implementation and any subsequent changes to Exaion’s leadership structure.

The timing and terms of NJJ Capital’s 10% stake in MARA France and how it influences cross-border collaboration.

Product roadmaps and enterprise customer wins for Exaion’s AI data-center services, including capacity expansions and new partnerships.

Regulatory developments affecting AI infrastructure and energy usage across France and Europe that could impact deployment scales.

Sources & verification

Official MARA Holdings press release detailing the Exaion stake acquisition and ownership structure.

EDF Pulse Ventures partnership announcements outlining minority participation and customer relationships.

Public disclosures from NJJ Capital regarding its 10% MARA France stake and strategic intent.

Exaion governance documents and leadership statements released in connection with the transaction.

Strategic convergence: AI, cloud computing and Bitcoin mining intersect

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has emerged as a reference point for miners as they recalibrate portfolios toward AI-forward infrastructure. The combination of a 64% Exaion stake for MARA (NASDAQ: MARA) and a 10% stake for NJJ Capital in MARA France signals a deliberate move to anchor AI data-center capabilities within a crypto ecosystem historically defined by hash power. The arrangement envisages Exaion as a platform for AI and high-performance computing, powered by MARA’s energy assets and regulatory experience, while EDF Pulse Ventures preserves its role as a strategic partner and customer. This alignment not only diversifies revenue streams but also positions the group to bid for larger enterprise workloads that require GPU-accelerated compute at scale, a space where the demand is growing even as crypto prices swing.

Industry dynamics underpinning the transaction extend beyond this deal. A number of mining operators are repurposing facilities to host AI and data-center workloads, a trend underscored by notable moves across the sector. HIVE Digital Technologies has reported strong results strengthened by AI initiatives, while CoreWeave has shifted from crypto mining toward AI infrastructure provision as GPU demand cooled for mining. Other players—TeraWulf, Hut 8, IREN, and MARA among them—are similarly realigning assets to unlock steadier, non-volatile income streams. The logic is straightforward: AI compute centers can offer recurring revenue tied to enterprise demand, while mining remains a cash-flow anchor rather than a sole driver of profitability.

In parallel, the industry continues to monitor mining difficulty and hash-rate dynamics. A rebound in difficulty—rising roughly 15% to 144.4 trillion—reiterates the energy and efficiency challenges miners face, including weather-related outages that periodically disrupt grid reliability. Against that backdrop, the ability to monetize excess energy capacity and repurpose facilities into AI data-center hubs could prove essential for long-term resilience. The MARA-Exaion venture thus sits at a confluence of capital, energy strategy, and enterprise-grade compute services, highlighting how crypto businesses are evolving to weather market cycles while expanding their tech footprint into AI-enabled markets.

This article was originally published as MARA Bitcoin Miner Acquires Majority Stake in Exaion AI Data Center on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Dutch gambling regulator has taken aim at a cryptocurrency-forward prediction platform, targeting its local arm for offering unlicensed gambling to residents. The Netherlands Gambling Authority accused Adventure One of Polymarket of marketing event-based bets without the required license, prompting a formal order to halt activities immediately and warning of steep penalties should the injunction be ignored. The action underscores the tension between innovative online prediction markets and national licensing regimes, a friction that regulators in multiple jurisdictions continue to scrutinize as crypto-based products gain traction. The enforcement also arrived amid broader domestic policy debates in the Netherlands over how to tax crypto investments, a topic that could reshape the financial landscape for digital assets if a proposed 36% capital gains tax clears the legislature and becomes law in 2028. Within days of the decision, lawmakers moved forward on the tax plan, framing the issue as part of a wider effort to bring crypto activity under clearer fiscal rules. The clash between a global platform and national regulators highlights how cross-border prediction markets navigate divergent legal environments while seeking to scale in regulated markets.

Key takeaways

Netherlands Gambling Authority ordered Adventure One to cease “immediately,” with fines potentially reaching $990,000 for non-compliance.

The regulator cited specific bets on local Dutch elections as part of the illegal offerings, noting no response from Polymarket to enforcement requests.

Polymarket’s leadership signaled openness to dialogue with state authorities while federal courts in the United States weigh jurisdictional questions.

Within a week of the Polymarket action, the Dutch House of Representatives advanced a 36% capital gains tax on investments that would likely include crypto assets, signaling growing tax scrutiny for digital assets.

The case sits at the intersection of evolving regulation for prediction markets, global licensing regimes, and jurisdictions asserting control over the terrain where crypto-based bets live.

Tickers mentioned:

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Negative. The immediate enforcement and potential fines constrain the operator’s Dutch activities and signal regulatory risk for similar platforms operating in the Netherlands.

Market context: The dispute unfolds as global authorities tighten oversight of prediction markets and crypto-related platforms, with U.S. regulators asserting jurisdiction even as state actions proliferate. The Netherlands’ move dovetails with ongoing debates over crypto taxation and licensing frameworks that influence international operators’ strategic choices.

Why it matters

The Netherlands’ abrupt intervention against Adventure One spotlights how prediction markets — platforms that allow users to place bets on future real-world events — are navigating a patchwork of national licenses and prohibitions. While such markets have expanded in several jurisdictions, unlicensed activity can trigger swift enforcement actions, creating a precedent for other operators that might be testing the boundaries of local gaming or securities law. The regulator’s decision emphasizes that even platforms with international footprints must respect domestic licensing rules when offering gambling products to residents, a principle that could shape the regulatory calculus for similar ventures across Europe and beyond.

For Polymarket, the event underscores a broader strategic risk: regulatory buy-in in some regions remains elusive, and the firm faces potential legal and financial penalties if it does not align its offerings with local requirements. The company has framed the tension as a jurisdictional question, signaling willingness to engage with authorities as courts in the United States weigh how such prediction markets should be regulated at the federal level. This stance reflects a broader industry pattern where operators seek clarity on how cross-border platforms can operate under varied regulatory regimes while safeguarding consumer protections and licensing standards. The tension between innovation and regulation is unlikely to dissipate soon, given the volume of political and regulatory attention on crypto-enabled financial products.

Beyond the enforcement action, the episode intersects with a domestic policy thread: the push to tax crypto investments more aggressively. The Dutch House of Representatives has moved forward with a proposal that would impose a 36% capital gains tax on investments, a category that would likely capture the gains from crypto trading and related digital-asset bets. If enacted and signed into law, the measure could take effect as early as 2028, reshaping the financial calculus for individuals participating in crypto markets, including those who engage in prediction-market activities. The regulatory and fiscal shifts together could influence where operators focus their growth efforts and how they structure user access to markets that hinge on real-world events, such as elections or policy announcements.

Analysts watching the Netherlands’ regulatory environment note that this action aligns with a broader global pattern: authorities are increasingly categorizing certain online prediction markets as gambling or financial products that require licensing, consumer protections, and robust compliance programs. The tension between federal regulatory ambitions in the United States and state-level experimentation adds another layer of complexity for platforms that operate in multiple jurisdictions. As policymakers weigh the appropriate boundaries for prediction markets, stakeholders anticipate continued legal disputes and evolving licensure requirements that will shape the architecture of future, crypto-enabled betting platforms.

For readers following the regulatory frontier, the Dutch case serves as a cautionary tale about the need to verify a platform’s licensing status before participating in event-based bets. It also highlights the importance of transparent engagement with regulators, as policymakers weigh how to balance innovation with consumer protection and tax compliance in a rapidly changing digital asset landscape.

What to watch next

Polymarket’s formal response to the Dutch order and any subsequent steps the platform takes to address licensing concerns.

Possible updates to the Dutch crypto tax framework and whether the 36% capital gains tax advances to become law in 2028.

Potential regulatory alignments or conflicts between Dutch authorities and U.S. regulators as jurisdictional questions around prediction markets persist.

Any future enforcement actions in the Netherlands or other EU states targeting unlicensed gambling or prediction-market activity.

Sources & verification

Kansspelautoriteit (Dutch Gambling Authority) notice: “last onder dwangsom voor illegaal kansspelaanbod Polymarket” — https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/last-onder-dwangsom-voor-illegaal-kansspelaanbod-polymarket

US CFTC leadership statements defending prediction markets — https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-michael-selig-defending-prediction-markets

Polymarket commentary on jurisdiction and dialogue with states — https://x.com/HereComesKumar/status/2020845618789265743

Polymarket-related lawsuit coverage and regulatory questions — https://cointelegraph.com/news/polymarket-s-lawsuit-could-decide-who-regulates-us-prediction-markets

Dutch House advances 36% crypto tax — https://cointelegraph.com/news/dutch-house-advances-36-tax-law

What the story means for markets and regulation

The Netherlands’ move against Adventure One is a reminder that prediction markets, while innovative, remain squarely under regulatory scrutiny. As authorities in different jurisdictions refine licensing regimes and tax policies, platforms will need robust compliance programs to operate across borders. The broader regulatory backdrop — including ongoing debates about crypto taxation and jurisdictional authority over prediction markets — will likely influence how market participants structure bets, manage risk, and engage with policymakers in the months and years ahead. For investors and users, the episode reinforces the imperative to assess regulatory risk and to monitor statements from regulators and platform operators alike as the global landscape for crypto-enabled markets continues to evolve.

What to watch next

Regulatory updates from the Netherlands on licensing for online betting and crypto-related platforms, including potential licensing reforms.

Any official response from Polymarket regarding the Dutch order and its approach to compliance in Europe.

Regulatory clarifications in the United States as courts weigh jurisdiction over prediction markets and enforcement actions expand at the state level.

This article was originally published as Dutch Authorities Call on Polymarket’s Dutch Arm to Cease Activities on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) could see a renewed leg higher if AI equities overheat, according to macroeconomist Lyn Alden. In a discussion with Natalie Brunell on the Coin Stories podcast published to YouTube on Thursday, Alden noted that AI stocks may peak, prompting a rotation into assets with more upside potential. The core idea is simple but influential: when a price narrative becomes hard to justify, capital tends to migrate toward opportunities with stronger risk-reward profiles. The suggestion is not that crypto is guaranteed to rally, but that it could benefit from a shifting allocation mindset as investors reassess growth drivers.

Bitcoin’s price context matters here. From an October high near $126,100, the benchmark has retraced substantially, with data suggesting a drop of about 46% from that peak. The current trading environment—framed by recent softness in the AI rally and ongoing macro uncertainty—raises the prospect that capital may rotate away from frothy AI names and into assets considered more offense-ready over the medium term. Alden argued that BTC could be a beneficiary of this rotation even if the upshot requires patience, highlighting that long-term holders help set a price floor while shorter-term traders search for new catalysts.

Nvidia may be the “most important stock” in US, says exec

On the equity side, Nvidia (EXCHANGE: NVDA), the GPU giant central to AI workloads, remains a barometer for the market’s appetite for AI-driven growth. Albion Financial Group chief investment officer Jason Ware recently told Fox Business that while Nvidia could deliver “another great quarter,” the sustainability of those gains is not a foregone conclusion. “We all know they are the most concentrated, obvious winner in the AI build out. Can that growth continue in a way that supports the stock moving higher?” Ware asked, underscoring the delicate balance between AI optimism and actual earnings momentum. Over the past year, NVDA has climbed more than 35%, underscoring its status as a focal point for risk sentiment and equity leadership.

The linkage between AI enthusiasm and crypto markets is a recurring theme in contemporary market discourse. As investor interest in AI equities intensifies, Bitcoin is increasingly framed as a potential beneficiary of capital reallocation, particularly if the AI trade loses some steam or becomes viewed as overextended. The observation that Bitcoin is now competing for capital in a manner unseen before underscores the broader shift in how investors evaluate “growth” assets against “risk-off” assets in a precarious macro landscape. For some analysts, BTC’s appeal lies not in rapid gains but in its relative resilience as a hedge and store of value as traditional equities encounter volatility tied to interest-rate expectations and policy dynamics.

Bitcoin only needs a “marginal amount” of new demand

Yet Alden cautions that a rapid ascent is not a prerequisite for BTC to move higher. In her view, a marginal uptick in fresh demand could suffice to lift prices when long-term holders have already established a support floor and when speculative participants rotate elsewhere for a time. The rotation thesis rests on the idea that BTC’s supply-demand balance can tilt with a relatively small influx of new buyers entering the market as other narratives pause or cool off. The practical implication is a patient, risk-managed approach: BTC does not require a sudden flood of new capital to shift higher, but it does depend on a shift in who is holding the asset and why they are staying invested.

As part of the broader market mosaic, the industry continues to grapple with the reality that macro conditions—ranging from liquidity cycles to regulatory signals—shape how quickly a rotation into BTC can take hold. The discussion around whether AI leadership can sustain its current pace adds a layer of market psychology to the analysis: if AI stock names face a valuation reset, that reset could accelerate a reallocation toward perceived hedges or diversifiers, including cryptocurrency. In the same breath, observers acknowledge that BTC’s path is unlikely to mirror a textbook V-shaped rebound. The narrative often unfolds as a grind higher or sideways movement, punctuated by occasional pullbacks and interim pauses as market participants reassess risk premia.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading near the mid-to-low $60,000s, a level that sits above the volatility troughs of past retracements but below the earlier peak reached during the height of the previous cycle. The price action aligns with Alden’s framework: slow, methodical accumulation by long-term holders, paired with selective participation by traders seeking a favorable entry point after a drawdown. Additional data points, including price action and on-chain signals, will be essential to gauge whether the rotation thesis translates into a sustained uptrend or whether BTC remains tethered to a choppy, range-bound regime.

It’s also worth noting the broader narrative around AI equities and crypto’s role within it. The AI narrative has intensified investor focus on the most influential players in the space, including Nvidia, whose momentum is often viewed as a proxy for AI-sector health. While Nvidia’s immediate near-term path remains subject to quarterly results and market expectations, the story underscores a wider appetite for AI exposure that could indirectly benefit crypto assets if risk appetites normalize and capital flows diversify. In parallel, market observers have drawn attention to the ongoing debates about crypto policy, macro liquidity, and the pace at which institutional participants allocate to digital assets. The dialogue continues to evolve as regulators, miners, and developers respond to shifting market dynamics and evolving use cases for blockchain technology.

Beyond price action, industry watchers recall that Bitcoin’s network metrics provide context for how price might respond to evolving demand. For example, mining-difficulty dynamics and network security considerations serve as a backdrop to price speculation, with several pieces of coverage illustrating how miners adapt to the macro environment and electricity markets. The broader informational ecosystem also includes a spectrum of research and data sources that track BTC’s performance relative to macro risk signals, as well as on-chain indicators that illuminate the behavior of long-term holders versus short-term traders. In this sense, the rotation narrative intersects with fundamentals, psychology, and policy considerations that collectively shape Bitcoin’s path forward.

For readers tracking the genesis of the current debate, it’s helpful to recall earlier commentary that highlighted Bitcoin’s evolving role as a capital allocator during periods of AI-driven market exuberance. The assertion that Bitcoin could garnert capital when AI valuations pause is not a guarantee but a lens on potential cross-asset dynamics where a shift in capital allocation could favor non-traditional growth assets. As Alden and others emphasized, the market’s focus on AI can create dislocations that crypto markets might exploit, particularly if the rotation proves sustainable and broad-based rather than episodic. The evolving narrative invites a closer look at how BTC’s price structure interacts with risk sentiment, liquidity, and the tempo of capital inflows or outflows across major asset classes. For those who monitor the crosswinds of technology, finance, and macroeconomics, the current moment offers a case study in how narrative-driven flows can realign as the market digests successive waves of innovation and regulation.

In the near term, observers will be watching for signals that indicate the depth and durability of any potential rotation. The intersection of AI momentum and crypto markets is likely to remain a focal point for traders seeking asymmetrical risk-reward opportunities. While no one can predict a definitive turn, the conversation about whether AI valuations will normalize and how BTC might respond remains central to the current market discourse. The ongoing dialogue also reflects a broader truth about crypto markets: they are increasingly entangled with the same macro drivers that shape traditional assets, even as they maintain their own distinct risk-and-reward profile. As the story unfolds, investors will be evaluating BTC’s price action alongside AI-ecosystem developments, regulatory signals, and the evolving architecture of the digital asset space.

What to watch next

Watch Bitcoin price action for signs of a sustained breakout or renewed grinding below current levels, with attention to potential support zones around $60,000–$65,000.

Monitor AI sector momentum, particularly Nvidia’s earnings cadence, to gauge whether current AI enthusiasm remains intact or begins to cool.

Track capital flows into crypto from traditional risk assets as investor sentiment shifts, noting any shifts in cross-asset liquidity conditions.

Observe long-term holders’ behavior as the market tests new price levels and potential floor formation, indicating conviction in BTC’s longer-term value proposition.

Keep an eye on on-chain indicators and mining-related developments that could influence BTC’s supply dynamics and price resilience during periods of rotation.

Sources & verification

Lyn Alden’s discussion on the Coin Stories podcast with Natalie Brunell; YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0kNGaxLg18

Bitcoin price context and performance data (October high near $126,100; BTC price page in Cointelegraph) – https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-price

Nvidia (EXCHANGE: NVDA) coverage and analysis from Fox Business interview with Jason Ware – https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6389652121112

Bitcoin is now competing for capital link to Ethereum price narrative – https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-price-quantum-computing-fears-ethereum-developer

Bitcoin mining difficulty rebound coverage – https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-difficulty-rebounds-15-as-us-miners-recover-from-winter-outages

Rotation dynamics shaping Bitcoin’s next leg

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) sits at a crossroads as investors weigh whether the AI-driven surge can sustain its momentum and whether capital will reallocate toward crypto as a complementary growth narrative. In a recent dialogue with Natalie Brunell on the Coin Stories podcast, macroeconomist Lyn Alden outlined a rotation thesis: when AI stock valuations become difficult to justify, money tends to move toward assets that offer a more compelling risk-reward profile. The discussion, anchored in the idea that a fresh wave of demand is all that’s needed to alter price trajectories, emphasizes that BTC could benefit as market participants reassess where to allocate risk in a complex macro environment. The YouTube-embeds and podcast link in that discussion provide a direct thread to the source material for readers seeking further context.

The case for BTC as a beneficiary of rotation hinges on several interlocking dynamics. First, Bitcoin’s price action is framed by a sharp drawdown from its October all-time high of around $126,100. As Alden noted, the asset is down substantially from that peak, a development that invites a re-evaluation of BTC not as merely a risk-on asset but as a potential store of value and a non-sovereign alternative to traditional risk assets during periods of monetary tightening and liquidity shifts. The idea is not that Bitcoin will rally in a vacuum, but that its upside could be unlocked by a reallocation toward assets with different risk profiles when AI valuations come back to earth. The discussion also touches on how AI leadership may shape market expectations across asset classes, with the NFT and crypto ecosystems occasionally serving as counterweights to momentum-driven sectors.

Nvidia (EXCHANGE: NVDA), described by Ware as a cornerstone of AI infrastructure, remains a focal point for market participants assessing the sustainability of AI-driven growth. The tension between “the most concentrated, obvious winner in the AI build out” and a stock’s ability to justify further appreciation is a central question for investors watching both equities and crypto. The tension is not merely about the pace of AI-capital deployment; it is about how the broader risk appetite evolves. If AI stocks begin to trade at multiples that investors deem unsustainable, some capital could rotate into crypto assets that, for some participants, offer a different risk-reward proposition in a market that has grown more volatile and liquidity-driven. In this context, Bitcoin’s narrative as a potential beneficiary of a rotation in risk sentiment becomes increasingly plausible, even if a decisive up move remains elusive in the near term.

From a price-availability standpoint, Alden highlights that BTC does not require a flood of fresh capital to move higher; instead, a marginal amount of new demand could establish a floor, particularly if long-term holders maintain conviction while short-term players shift focus. The price landscape, characterized by a grinding pattern rather than a rapid V-shaped rebound, supports the view that BTC’s path is likely to be gradual and path-dependent. At the same time, the broader market’s liquidity regime and macro policy expectations will influence the speed and breadth of any rotation into crypto. The Bitcoin narrative is increasingly interwoven with the AI story, and as investors balance these competing drivers, the market will continue to search for price discovery in an environment shaped by policy, technology, and evolving risk sentiment.

As the market digests these ideas, observers will be attentive to on-chain signals and macro signals that could confirm or refute the rotation thesis. The discussion around AI momentum, regulatory developments, and the health of the broader crypto market will continue to shape BTC’s trajectory. In a landscape where AI leadership can still drive significant wealth creation, Bitcoin’s role as a potential beneficiary of shifting capital becomes a compelling line of analysis for traders, investors, and builders seeking to understand how sentiment translates into price movement across asset classes. The evolving narrative invites ongoing observation of how BTC responds to rotating flows, the pace of AI adoption, and the resilience of the crypto market in a world of rising macro uncertainty and policy evolution.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Bull Catalyst: AI Stocks Becoming ‘Silly Big’ Says Lyn Alden on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has traded in a narrow corridor, effectively flinging up a question mark over the next directional thrust for the market. The past week has seen the benchmark crypto oscillate between roughly $65,900 and $70,500, a range that has left traders parsing for catalysts amid a broader risk-off climate. While momentum has oscillated, the risk of a sudden liquidation cascade remains a live concern: a modest rally could force a wave of short-covering in futures, squeezing risk assets higher and drawing new buyers back into the market. Against this backdrop, the network’s fundamentals have shown resilience, even as macro data continues to shape sentiment.

Key takeaways

A 4.3% rise to about $69,600 could trigger more than $600 million in forced liquidations on short BTC futures, according to liquidation heatmaps. This dynamic underscores how quickly sentiment can flip on a price move.

Hashrate has rebounded toward multi-week highs, with the seven-day average hovering near 1,100 exahashes per second, challenging earlier fears that miners were diverting capacity away from BTC toward other sectors.

The BIP-360 proposal aims to bolster long-term security by enabling post-quantum protection through a backwards-compatible soft fork, addressing concerns about quantum threats while preserving on-chain privacy until spending.

Macro data in the United States showed slower growth than expected, with Q4 2025 GDP at an annualized 1.4%, while inflation remained persistent, complicating expectations for near-term rate cuts and potentially nudging traders toward on-chain hedges.

Futures funding dynamics show continuing pressure from bears, with periods of negative funding and persistent undercurrents that keep the market sensitive to any upside surprise that could trigger a short squeeze.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $NVDA

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Positive. A rally toward the $69,600 area could force substantial short liquidations and tilt momentum back toward bulls.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold.

Market context: The market sits at a crossroads where macro weakness and on-chain resilience collide: macro data suggests a slower economy and sticky inflation, while the Bitcoin network shows signs of structural strength through rising hashrate and post-quantum security planning, a combination that could set up a short squeeze if price action turns decisively higher.

Why it matters

The immediate price action for Bitcoin is heavily tethered to traders’ expectations about liquidity and leverage in the futures market. When the price nudges, as it did toward the $69,600 region, liquidations—especially on short positions—become a dominant driver of momentum. In recent cycles, a sharp move higher from a tight range has repeatedly triggered a cascade of liquidations, squeezing out speculative bets and luring fresh capital back into the market. This mechanism is particularly potent when the market trades below psychologically important levels and a sudden uptick can trigger a cascade that shifts market psychology from pessimism to renewed risk appetite.

On the fundamental side, the resurgence of network hashrate to around 1,100 exahashes per second signals that participants remain confident enough to invest in BTC mining hardware despite external price pressures. This resilience is notable because it counters early fears that mining capacity might drain away toward other sectors, including AI. The reacceleration in hashrate contributes to a sense of on-chain security and network durability, factors that historically underpin longer-term valuations rather than short-term price skews.

Another dimension of the story is the technical roadmap embodied by BIP-360, a proposal designed to address post-quantum security risks without disrupting current operations. By safeguarding the spend-path and concealing public keys on-chain until spend time, this plan reduces the potential exposure to quantum computing threats while preserving privacy in ordinary conditions. If such a soft fork progresses smoothly, it could restore some bullish confidence by clarifying the long-term security narrative for Bitcoin, helping to offset near-term macro headwinds.

Meanwhile, macro data remains a headwind for many traditional assets. The United States posted GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2025 at an annualized rate of 1.4%, below expectations, a development that tends to sap risk appetite in equities and dampen immediate expectations for aggressive monetary easing. Coupled with inflation data that showed the PCE price index excluding food and energy rising 0.4% month over month, investors have had to recalibrate their outlooks for rate trajectories. In this environment, on-chain markets can appear attractive to macro traders seeking uncorrelated or counter-cyclical exposure, even as the total market risk remains elevated.

Another layer to consider is the broader risk-off mood evident in traditional markets, including the S&P 500 and gold. As equities waver, gold has emerged as a potential hedge, but the relative stock-bond dynamic remains unsettled. The trading landscape—characterized by muted upside momentum yet persistent volatility—suggests that Bitcoin could act as a catalyst for a broader reallocation if fundamental improvements align with a technical breakout above key levels like $70,000.

In terms of funding dynamics, BTC perpetual futures have shown a mix of negative and neutral readings in recent sessions. This indicates that bears have remained committed to their positions even as price tests important supports. The combination of tighter funding and a risk-off tilt has kept upside momentum in check, even as the network-side improvements create a foundation for possible reversals should liquidity and sentiment align in favor of bulls.

For investors watching the space, the question remains whether this confluence of macro weakness, on-chain resilience, and a clearer security roadmap can coalesce into a sustainable rally or whether the market will continue to drift in a wide range until a new catalyst emerges. In the near term, the path of least resistance may hinge on the balance between fear of macro risks and the lure of a short squeeze driven by liquidations and forced unwindings on the downside bets.

In sum, Bitcoin remains at a pivotal juncture. The combination of a rebuilt hashrate, a tangible post-quantum roadmap, and an expected price re-pricing driven by liquidations could tilt sentiment in favor of bulls, but only if macro catalysts align and the market can sustain buying interest above critical thresholds. As traders monitor the interplay between on-chain fundamentals and macro headlines, the next move could redefine the near-term trajectory for BTC and potentially ripple through the broader crypto complex.

What to watch next

Watch for a move back above $70,000 and the subsequent response in long vs. short positioning in BTC futures.

Track the seven-day hashrate trend toward or above 1,100 EH/s and any updates on the deployment or consensus around BIP-360.

Monitor U.S. macro releases, including GDP and PCE data, for potential shifts in risk appetite and liquidity conditions.

Observe funding rates on BTC perpetual futures for signs of shifting trader sentiment or emerging short squeezes.

Follow ETF flows and commentary around the Bitcoin investment vehicle landscape for potential liquidity influx or withdrawal pressures.

Sources & verification

CoinGlass liquidation heatmap estimates for a move toward $69,600, illustrating potential short BTC futures liquidations exceeding $600 million.

U.S. GDP growth for Q4 2025 at 1.4% annualized, as reported by Yahoo Finance.

U.S. personal consumption expenditures price index ex food and energy rising 0.4% month over month, contributing to the inflation backdrop.

HashrateIndex seven-day hashrate data showing a recovery to around 1,100 EH/s.

BIP-360 post-quantum security framework and its intended soft-fork approach for hiding public keys on-chain until spending time.

BTC perpetual futures funding rate observations from market data providers, including notes on recent negative funding periods.

Bitcoin price dynamics and network resilience

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is navigating a delicate phase where on-chain security fundamentals converge with macro headwinds to shape the near-term path of least resistance. The range-bound price action has left the market vulnerable to abrupt shifts driven by leveraged positions, but it is precisely this dynamic that can catalyze swift reversals when liquidity returns and short positions are forced to unwind. CoinGlass estimates suggest that a move to around $69,600 could unleash substantial short liquidations, potentially flipping sentiment from fear to momentum if buyers reenter with conviction. This interplay between price, leverage, and liquidity remains a defining feature of the current market backdrop.

Beyond price, the on-chain story has gained clarity. The seven-day average hashrate has climbed back toward the high end of recent ranges, signaling ongoing mining activity and network resilience even in the face of price pressure. While early concerns that miners would pivot away from BTC toward other sectors have cooled, the resilience of hashrate underscores a broader risk-reward calculus: the network’s security and stability continue to be a central factor for long-term investors evaluating BTC’s role in diversified portfolios. The BIP-360 proposal further reinforces this narrative by addressing post-quantum threats through a backwards-compatible mechanism, significantly reducing the risk posed by quantum computing to on-chain security while preserving user privacy until spend moment.

Market participants are also weighing macro data that remains less than supportive of a rapid risk-on rebound. The GDP print and inflation metrics paint a picture of a still-fragile macro environment, where the quest for yield remains tempered and risk assets require a clear catalyst. In such an environment, Bitcoin’s potential for a short squeeze depends on a combination of technical breakouts, improved on-chain fundamentals, and a shift in risk sentiment—a trifecta that could redraw the balance of power between bears and bulls in the months ahead. Traders will be watching for sustained buying pressure above key levels, and the emergence of a decisive narrative that can both reassure existing holders and entice new entrants into the market.

As the market continues to digest these inputs, the path forward will likely hinge on how quickly macro volatility evolves and how effectively the Bitcoin ecosystem communicates its security and scalability roadmap to a broader audience. The balance between fear and opportunity remains delicate, but the confluence of improved network metrics, post-quantum safeguards, and the potential for liquidity-driven reversals means the coming weeks could redefine Bitcoin’s standing in the risk spectrum. For now, observers should remain cautious but attentive to any shift that could unleash a new cycle of momentum in this evolving market.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Bears Face $600M Liquidation Risk, Sparks $70K Rally on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) whale activity has begun signaling a shift back toward the stability seen before the late-2025 market wobble. In recent months, wallets holding between 1,000 and 10,000 BTC have rebuilt their collective balance, pushing the total amount held by this cohort to 3.09 million BTC from 2.86 million BTC on Dec. 10, 2025. That 230,000-BTC increase essentially restores position levels observed prior to the October 2025 market dip. Meanwhile, exchange data show whale-related outflows averaging about 3.5% of the total BTC held on exchanges over a 30-day window—the strongest such rate since late 2024—suggesting a continued shift of coins away from spot venues.

Across on-chain data, the broader pattern points to an ongoing reallocation among major holders. CryptoQuant analysis shows that the large wallet segment has reaccumulated aggressively after a period of net selling, with roughly 98,000 BTC added to whale reserves over the past 30 days. The market narrative since August 2025 has been defined by a distribution phase, triggered after BTC touched new highs around the $124,000 level, with many observers noting that a sustained rally remained challenging in the face of shifting risk sentiment. This backdrop helps explain why the current accumulation cycle by whales is notable, even as price action remains sensitive to macro cues and shifting liquidity conditions.

CryptoQuant spot market data underscores a resilience in large-order activity. Through 2026, the average BTC order size has oscillated between roughly 950 BTC and 1,100 BTC, marking the most sustained period of sizable retail and institutional orders since September 2024. This pattern aligns with the return of liquidity into the market and a reopening of appetite among buyers willing to place larger blocks, even as price levels teeter between regions of resistance and support. A broader look at the February–March 2025 correction showed a similar appetite for larger orders, though the cadence of big-ticket purchases varied with retail participation and the timing of institutional inflows.

Total BTC balance of large holders (1k-10k). Source: CryptoQuant

BTC whale reserves return to pre-October peak

Analysts at CryptoQuant point to a notable reversal in the drawdown of whale reserves, with the 30-day window marking a substantial uptick in accumulation. The net shift is most visible in the 98,000 BTC added to the whale category over the most recent month, reversing earlier declines and signaling renewed appetite among larger holders. This reaccumulation comes as part of a broader dynamic in which a growing portion of BTC activity originates from wallets with medium-to-large holdings, while smaller retail activity continues to surface in bursts. The sequential build-up in whale balances is consistent with a risk-off tilt in some segments of the market, even as other indicators suggest a more mixed mood among traders and institutions alike.

On the exchange side, inflows and outflows tell a nuanced story. CryptoQuant tracks roughly $8.24 billion in whale BTC flows moving to Binance over the past 30 days, a reading that marks a 14-month high and underscores how large players continue to reposition assets within major venues. At the same time, retail flows have climbed to about $11.91 billion in the same window, with the retail-to-whale ratio reported at 1.45—indicating that smaller participants remain active, albeit with the larger-ticket trades increasingly concentrated among the whale segment. This juxtaposition helps explain why net balances on exchanges have remained relatively stable despite higher gross inflows, as outbound transfers offset incoming liquidity.

Glassnode data reinforce the idea that the on-chain ecosystem is undergoing a rebalancing rather than a straightforward surge in exchange activity. The latest figures show gross exchange whale withdrawals averaging 3.5% of total exchange-held BTC supply over a 30-day period—an aggressive pace not seen since November 2024. If the withdrawal flow persists, it could imply a continued willingness among whales to migrate BTC off exchanges, potentially reducing the available supply for immediate selling pressure. Based on current exchange balances, this translates to a rough net withdrawal range of 60,000–100,000 BTC in the past month, offering a broader sense of the scale involved in the ongoing shift between custody models and trading venues.

Related: “Resilient” Bitcoin holders defend BTC, but bear floor sits 20% lower: Glassnode

In parallel, the market continues to parse larger macro and crypto-specific signals. The on-chain narrative remains complex: while whale accumulation signals confidence among major holders, the overall price tempo depends on a confluence of liquidity availability, risk appetite, and regulatory developments. The balance between inflows to exchanges and outflows from them appears to be moderating, with indicators suggesting that the market could continue to experience periods of consolidation as participants assess whether the current supply dynamics translate into sustained price support or whether macro headwinds reassert themselves. The dynamic is a reminder that liquidity conditions in crypto markets remain a key driver of price discovery, even as on-chain behavior points to a more resilient posture among large holders.

Related: Quantum fears aren’t behind Bitcoin’s 46% drop, says developer

Key takeaways

Whale holdings of 1,000–10,000 BTC climbed to 3.09 million BTC, up from 2.86 million BTC on Dec. 10, 2025, restoring levels seen before the October 2025 market wobble.

The three-month accumulation included a net addition of about 230,000 BTC, signaling renewed demand from medium-to-large holders.

Over the last 30 days, whale reserves reversed earlier declines with a gain of roughly 98,000 BTC, suggesting renewed on-chain interest.

BTC spot market data shows large-average order sizes in 2026, ranging from 950 to 1,100 BTC, the strongest stretch of meaningful blocks since late-2024.

Binance rail for whale flows reached about $8.24 billion in 30 days, a 14-month high, while retail flows were about $11.91 billion with a retail-to-whale ratio of 1.45.

Glassnode reports a 3.5% average withdrawal rate of exchange-held BTC from whales over 30 days, indicating net exchange balances may remain relatively stable despite rising inflows.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The observed on-chain activity unfolds against ongoing liquidity shifts and evolving risk sentiment in crypto markets, with whales reaccumulating as retail participation remains active and exchange balances show a mix of inflows and offsetting withdrawals.

Why it matters

The reaccumulation by larger Bitcoin holders suggests an orientation toward longer-term custody and potential readiness to absorb buying pressure if market conditions improve. While price action remains contingent on macro signals and liquidity, the on-chain readouts point to a market that is gradually shifting from a phase of dispersion toward a more balanced posture where large entities are rebuilding positions while smaller players continue to transact in smaller blocks.

For traders, the pattern underscores the importance of watching cross-venue flows and the balance between inflows to exchanges and outbound movements. If whales keep moving BTC off exchanges or into more secure custody, the available supply for immediate selling could decline, potentially reducing near-term downside risk in the event of broader market stress. Conversely, sustained large-order activity on the buy side could provide a floor under price discovery, especially if macro catalysts align with a pickup in risk appetite among institutional players.

For developers and investors, the data emphasize the value of analyzing on-chain signals in conjunction with exchange flows and the behavior of different holder cohorts. The evolving distribution among whales, retail participants, and exchange inventories offers a nuanced view of the crypto liquidity landscape and the strategies that might shape price action in the coming months.

What to watch next

Monitor whether the total balance of large holders (1k–10k BTC) continues to approach or exceed 3.1 million BTC in the coming weeks.

Track net exchange balances to see if withdrawals persist or if inflows begin to outpace outflows again.

Observe Binance inflows and outflows for whale BTC to gauge where large holders are moving portions of their stock and whether this signals shifting custody preferences.

Watch the 30-day moving averages of large-order activity to confirm whether the 950–1,100 BTC order-size trend persists beyond 2026.

Keep an eye on macro and regulatory developments that could influence risk appetite and liquidity across crypto markets.

Sources & verification

CryptoQuant quicktake: Whales reaccumulate everything they sold since October (https://cryptoquant.com/insights/quicktake/69983917c876a02133a04bc2-Whales-reaccumulate-everything-they-sold-since-October)

CryptoQuant quicktake: 82B in Whale BTC Flows to Binance (https://cryptoquant.com/insights/quicktake/69982730312550148f4ec237-82B-in-Whale-BTC-Flows-to-Binance-creating-a-14-Month-High)

CryptoQuant: BTC spot average order size (https://cryptoquant.com/asset/btc/chart/market-indicator/spot-average-order)

Glassnode data on exchange withdrawals (as cited in the article)

Cointelegraph: Related piece on resilient bitcoin holders and market dynamics (https://cointelegraph.com/news/resilient-bitcoin-holders-defend-btc-but-bear-floor-sits-20-lower-glassnode)

What to watch next

3–5 forward-looking checks (dates, filings, unlocks, governance votes, product launches, regulatory steps) ONLY if consistent with the source.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Whales Drive V-Shaped Accumulation, Offset 230K BTC Sell-off on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Dubai is moving ahead with a staged rollout of tokenized real estate, expanding a pilot program that couples regulated on-chain transfers with a real-world asset class. In parallel, the Maldives is drawing attention with a Trump-branded resort project that’s being explored for tokenization, signaling a broader push to finance large-scale developments through security tokens and distributed-ledger technology. The Dubai Land Department (DLD) said on Friday it would launch the second phase of its real estate tokenization pilot, following a prior milestone that tokenized roughly $5 million of property and produced about 7.8 million tradable tokens. The move underscores a growing belief among regulators and industry participants that tokenized real estate can unlock liquidity and widen investor access in markets where property is often illiquid and access is constrained. The effort uses a governance and settlement framework built by Ctrl Alt, a Dubai-licensed Virtual Asset Service Provider, to issue Asset-Referenced Virtual Asset management tokens intended for secondary-market trading. The on-chain transactions underpinning these tokens are recorded on the XRP Ledger (CRYPTO: XRP) and secured by Ripple Custody, illustrating a cross-border, regulated infrastructure that pairs real assets with blockchain settlement.

The plan, while ambitious, is grounded in concrete numbers. In its May 2025 forecast, Ctrl Alt and the DLD estimated that tokenization could contribute as much as $16 billion to Dubai’s real estate ecosystem by 2033—a figure equating to roughly 7% of the emirate’s overall property transactions over that period. Industry observers have noted that Dubai’s combination of a robust real estate market and a comparatively crypto-friendly regulatory environment helps explain why the emirate has emerged as a leading hub for tokenized assets. A veteran player in the Middle East crypto scene, Rep. Ripple’s footprint in the region has been discussed in multiple industry circles, including coverage linking Ripple’s leadership with regulatory engagement at the White House level.

The tokenization stack for the pilot hinges on Asset-Referenced Virtual Asset management tokens, a structure that allows the transfer of tokenized real estate units on secondary markets once the underlying property rights are tokenized and registered. Ctrl Alt, which operates with a Dubai license as a Virtual Asset Service Provider, is responsible for issuing these activity-backed tokens and enabling their circulation. All on-chain activity tied to these assets is recorded on the XRP Ledger (CRYPTO: XRP) and safeguarded by Ripple Custody, a custody solution designed for regulated digital assets. The architecture aims to pair familiar property investment mechanics with the transparency and settlement efficiency of blockchain rails, potentially broadening the pool of investors who can participate in high-value projects that historically required significant upfront capital.

While the DLD’s initiative is focused on Dubai’s boundaries, its implications resonate across the region. The project’s backers argue that tokenized real estate can unlock fractional ownership, streamline property sales, and enable more efficient price discovery in markets that have long relied on traditional, paper-based processes. In addition to the Dubai pilot, a related development is unfolding in the Maldives, where DarGlobal and World Liberty Financial—backed by interests connected to U.S. political circles—are pursuing a tokenization strategy for a Trump-branded resort development. The collaboration with Securitize aims to tokenize the development’s phased rollout, signaling a growing appetite among developers and fintech groups to use tokenized securities as a capital-raising tool for premium hospitality projects. A video presentation accompanying the Maldives project has circulated, with a public event at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate drawing notable attendees from both traditional finance and the crypto sector, including figures such as Goldman Sachs’ leadership and Coinbase’s chief executive, among others.

On a practical level, the Dubai project’s use of on-chain settlement backed by a regulated custodian reflects a broader industry trend: blending tokenized liquidity with real-world asset verification and custody to address risk and regulatory compliance. The CBD-led focus on asset-backed tokens aligns with ongoing discussions among policymakers about the role of digital assets in mainstream finance, particularly in real assets that can provide enduring value and tangible diversification for investors. The Dubai project’s framing as a pilot with a finite number of tokens and traceable on-chain activity helps test the viability of tokenized real estate as a legitimate financing mechanism rather than a speculative vehicle.

In parallel, the Maldives tokenization effort is framed as a tangible path for hospitality real estate to access a broader investor base. Ziad El Chaar, the CEO of DarGlobal, told Cointelegraph that tokenization could “take over the way other projects are being funded” by broadening participation beyond traditional high-net-worth circles. He emphasized that tokenization can democratize access to real estate investments by lowering the entry barrier for many potential investors who previously faced geographic, regulatory, or accreditation hurdles. World Liberty’s leadership championed the approach at a crypto-focused event hosted at Mar-a-Lago, highlighting the potential for tokenized offerings to accelerate capital formation for large-scale developments and to introduce new sources of liquidity to projects that were historically constrained by the capital markets’ tempo and risk profile. The event itself drew attention from a cross-section of participants, including leaders from traditional finance and the crypto industry, signaling that the lines between these realms continue to blur as digital asset structures mature.

As with any tokenization initiative, critical questions remain about regulatory alignment, investor protections, and the pace at which markets will absorb these instruments. The DLD’s May 2025 projection provides a target trajectory, but actual outcomes will depend on several factors, including the evolution of custody arrangements, the effectiveness of on-chain governance mechanisms, and the ability of the tokens to achieve reliable liquidity in secondary markets. Still, proponents argue that the Dubai model—grounded in a regulator-approved framework, a licensed tech partner, and a trusted custody solution—could serve as a blueprint for other jurisdictions seeking to harness tokenized assets to unlock liquidity in real estate while preserving investor protections. The Maldives project, if realized, would offer a high-profile test case for cross-border, hospitality-focused tokenization, potentially inspiring similar efforts in other tourism-heavy markets that require substantial capital for large-scale development projects.

For those tracking the intersection of crypto innovation and traditional property markets, these developments illustrate how nations with sophisticated real estate ecosystems are exploring how to use tokenization as a bridge to greater liquidity and broader investor access. While the path to broad adoption remains uneven and requires careful calibration of regulatory, custody, and market-making capabilities, the Dubai and Maldives initiatives underscore a wider move toward tokenized, asset-backed finance that could reshape how capital flows into real estate over the coming years.

Video and public discussions associated with the Maldives project are accessible via the accompanying materials, including a discussion that explored the role of tokenization in altering how projects are funded and who can participate in investment opportunities. A clip linked to the event and to related regulatory debates can be found here: Video discussion. The broader narrative around this trend includes references to policy dialogues and public-private collaborations that continue to shape how tokenized assets are perceived and regulated in different markets.

Related materials and commentary, including coverage of Ripple’s regulatory engagements and the evolving regulatory landscape for crypto-linked real estate, are referenced in the linked sources. For readers seeking to verify specifics, the primary documents and statements come from the Dubai Land Department’s press resources and Ctrl Alt’s official communications, as well as the associated press coverage of the Maldives project and the stakeholder discussions that accompanied the Mar-a-Lago event. The public-facing summaries of these initiatives highlight the ongoing collaboration between technology providers, property developers, and financial institutions as they experiment with tokenized real estate under regulated frameworks.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Why it matters

The Dubai and Maldives tokenization initiatives capture a moment when regulated digital assets and real assets begin to converge in practical, high-value applications. Tokenized real estate has the potential to lower barriers to entry for investors, improve liquidity for often illiquid property markets, and stimulate faster price discovery through transparent on-chain activity. If the Dubai pilot scales toward the projected $16 billion by 2033, it could influence how developers structure funding for large projects and how regulators balance investor protection with the need to foster innovation. The Maldives project, connected to a high-profile hospitality development, underscores how tokenization could redefine project finance for premium destinations that require substantial upfront capital. Taken together, these efforts reflect a broader shift in capital markets where asset-backed digital tokens are increasingly viewed as tools for efficient liquidity, cross-border investment, and regulatory-compliant innovation.

At the same time, the path forward will require careful attention to custody, governance, and auditability. The use of the XRP Ledger with a regulated custody framework provides a credible model for secure settlement, while the involvement of a licensed VASP signals a regulatory track record that investors increasingly expect when dealing with tokenized real assets. The cross-border nature of these projects—spanning Dubai and the Maldives—also highlights the importance of harmonizing standards and ensuring that digital asset transactions remain compliant with local laws and international best practices. As institutions observe the outcomes of these pilots, the market will gain clarity on how tokenized real estate can coexist with traditional property markets, potentially unlocking a new spectrum of investment opportunities for both regional players and global capital pools.

What to watch next

Milestones for Phase Two: timeline and go-live details from the Dubai Land Department.

Secondary-market activity: liquidity, pricing, and investor participation metrics for tokenized assets in Dubai.

Maldives project progress: partner confirmations with Securitize, issuance milestones, and regulatory updates.

Regulatory updates: developments in asset-backed tokens, custody standards, and cross-border tokenization guidelines.

Institutional interest: reactions from large financial players and potential participation in related tokenized offerings.

Sources & verification

Ctrl Alt and Dubai Land Department press release announcing the Phase Two tokenization pilot and the $16 billion by 2033 forecast (https://www.ctrl-alt.co/press-releases/ctrl-alt-dld-phase-two).

PR Newswire: Ctrl Alt and Dubai Land Department go live with tokenized real estate, forecasting $16B by 2033 (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ctrl-alt-and-dubai-land-department-go-live-with-tokenized-real-estate-forecasts-16b-market-by-2033-302464840.html).

Reece Merrick, Ripple’s managing director for the Middle East and Africa, with a cited post referenced in coverage (https://x.com/reece_merrick/status/2024761451060351272).

Cointelegraph coverage on the Maldives Trump-branded resort tokenization through DarGlobal and World Liberty Financial (https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-tradfi-execs-mingle-trump-crypto-event).

Related coverage on Ripple’s regulatory interactions and White House meetings (https://cointelegraph.com/news/ripple-ceo-white-house-meeting-crypto-banking-clarity).

Tokenized real estate moves accelerate in Dubai and Maldives

Dubai’s ambitious plan to tokenize real estate is designed to test whether regulated, asset-backed tokens can deliver faster settlement, greater liquidity, and wider access to property investments without compromising investor protections. By recording transactions on the XRP Ledger (CRYPTO: XRP) and securing them with Ripple Custody, the pilot attempts to bridge the traditional real estate sector with the demands of modern digital asset markets. Ctrl Alt’s role as a licensed VASP stands at the center of this architecture, providing the issuance framework, governance oversight, and technical infrastructure required to support asset-backed token transfers that can move quickly on secondary markets. The stated objective is not merely to tokenize a property tranche but to establish a repeatable model that could be scaled across additional properties and markets, provided the pilots demonstrate robustness and regulatory alignment.

Meanwhile, the Maldives initiative showcases the willingness of developers to leverage tokenization for increasingly premium projects. The collaboration between DarGlobal, World Liberty Financial, and Securitize points to a future where hospitality ventures may seek multiple financing channels, combining traditional equity with digital securities that enable global participation. The public announcements and the presence of high-profile attendees at a Mar-a-Lago event signal that the tokenization story has moved from niche experiments to discussions with mainstream financiers and policymakers. If these pilots succeed, they could influence how other jurisdictions structure real estate finance, offering a model where property rights are tokenized, traded, and settled with the efficiency of blockchain rails while preserving the governance and due-diligence standards expected by regulated markets.

The trajectory hinges on several key levers: the ability to maintain secure custody and compliant on-chain settlement; the clarity of regulatory expectations for asset-backed tokens; and the market’s appetite for fractionalized real estate exposure in a risk-managed format. The Dubai pilot already demonstrates a potential pathway for real estate tokenization that emphasizes transparency, custody, and on-chain traceability, which could help build trust among institutional investors who demand rigorous risk controls. As the landscape evolves, the industry will watch how these pilots influence the broader ecosystem of tokenized assets, including potential spillovers into related sectors such as infrastructure financing, urban development projects, and cross-border investment strategies. For investors and builders alike, the Dubai and Maldives efforts offer a glimpse into a future where real estate can be financed and traded with the tools and efficiencies of digital asset markets, while anchored in the solidity of regulated frameworks and custody assurances.

This article was originally published as Tokenized Real Estate Projects Surge in Dubai and Maldives on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday sharply curtailed the executive branch’s authority to deploy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a 6-3 ruling, the justices concluded that the President lacks inherent power to impose broad tariffs under peacetime conditions, signaling a significant check on executive power in U.S. trade policy. The majority’s view was clear: IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at the scale seen in recent years, and the presidential interpretation of the statute extended beyond its legitimate reach. The ruling hinges on historical precedent and the breadth of authority claimed by the administration, suggesting a reevaluation of the tariff policy framework used during peacetime emergencies. The decision was issued on Friday, February 20, 2026, with the court emphasizing the statute’s limited scope.

“In IEEPA’s half-century of existence, no president has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope. That ‘lack of historical precedent,’ coupled with the breadth of authority that the President now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President’s ‘legitimate reach.’”

At issue was whether tariffs imposed as a means of addressing perceived national emergencies could be sustained under IEEPA. The court’s opinion rejected that premise, noting that the administration had not demonstrated a statutory basis strong enough to justify the breadth and scale of the measures in question. The decision, while narrow in its focus on statutory interpretation, carries broad implications for how future administrations might leverage tariff tools in times of perceived distress. The ruling’s central thrust is that IEEPA does not authorize sweeping tariff regimes, and the absence of a sustained, historically grounded precedent undermines the President’s justification for such measures.

Trump criticizes court, says he’ll get tariffs reinstated

Following the ruling, former President Donald Trump blasted the justices who voted to strike down the tariffs and signaled that the policy would persist through alternative channels. A report noted that he pledged to pursue reinstatement via other avenues, raising questions about what policy instruments could replace tariffs as a means to influence trade dynamics. The courtroom decision, contrasted with Trump’s rhetoric, underscores a broader political debate over how the United States should calibrate its use of trade tools in pursuit of fiscal and industrial goals.

Trump asserted that tariffs were a lever to address perceived imbalances with Canada, China, and Mexico, and he framed the decision as a setback for U.S. economic strategy. Critics argued that tariff policy risks provoking retaliatory actions, disrupting supply chains, and injecting volatility into already fragile macro conditions. The clash between judicial limits and executive ambitions has intensified scrutiny over the federal policy toolkit available to safeguard domestic industries while maintaining competitive leverage on the global stage.

Historically, the tariff discourse has had tangible spillovers across asset markets. In 2025, for example, the prospect or announcement of new tariffs sent shockwaves through equities and cryptocurrencies alike, amplifying uncertainty at a moment when investors were already grappling with a shifting macro backdrop. The prevailing narrative suggested that aggressive tariff posturing tended to compress risk sentiment and tilt asset pricing toward risk-off dynamics, a trend that reverberated across multiple sectors of the market.

As policy discourse continues, observers will watch for how the administration retools its approach. The White House has indicated it may pursue alternate mechanisms to achieve similar objectives, but the legal and economic costs of doing so remain a focal point for lawmakers, market participants, and international partners alike.

Trump claims tariffs could replace income tax, but crypto markets are paying the price

Earlier in the campaign cycle, Trump floated a controversial idea that tariff revenue could be used to replace federal income taxes, a proposition he described as potentially lowering the budget deficit. He argued that tariffs would substantially reduce taxes for many households, a claim that fed into a broader debate about the role of tariffs in fiscal policy. The implications for tax structures, consumer prices, and corporate planning were hotly contested among economists and policymakers, but the idea underscored how tariff revenue could be framed as a substitute for conventional taxation in certain scenarios.

Public disclosures and posts on social platforms reflected a broader narrative that tariff policy could be a transformative fiscal tool. While supporters argued that tariffs might boost domestic production and protect strategic industries, skeptics warned of distortions, higher consumer costs, and diminished global competitiveness. The policy rhetoric matched a volatile market environment where crypto assets, equities, and risk assets had shown sensitivity to tariff-related headlines and policy signals.

In practical terms, the tariff episode left crypto markets exposed to policy-driven risk. When tariffs targeted China in 2025, investors watched liquidity and volatility as leading indicators of how risk assets would respond. In that episode, Bitcoin (BTC) traded with noticeable swings, reflecting the broader interplay between regulatory expectations and appetite for alternative stores of value during periods of uncertainty. The price action mirrored the tension between policy risk, macro fundamentals, and the evolving sentiment around decentralized finance as a potential hedge against traditional financial channels.

Market commentators pointed to a combination of leverage, liquidity constraints, and sentiment factors as drivers of the crypto drawdown observed during tariff episodes. A notable pattern emerged: traders frequently viewed tariff announcements as catalysts for broader risk-off moves, reinforcing the idea that policy shocks can function as macro triggers for price movements across digital assets. In the wake of the latest ruling, traders and investors are parsing how policy space will evolve and what that means for risk parity, hedging strategies, and the resilience of crypto markets to regulatory shocks.

Market context

Market context: The ruling arrives amid a broader phase of regulatory scrutiny and ongoing debate about the role of tariffs in U.S. economic policy, which continues to ripple through crypto markets and risk assets as investors reassess policy risk and liquidity conditions.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court’s decision narrows the executive branch’s tariff toolkit, potentially altering the trajectory of U.S. trade policy in an era of rapid technological change and global supply-chain disruption. For investors, the ruling clarifies what authorities the administration can credibly rely on to shape market dynamics, reducing the likelihood of ad hoc tariff shocks that could surprise markets. For crypto market participants, the episode underscores the sensitivity of digital assets to macro policy developments and the need for resilience in volatile environments. Firms building in this space must consider how shifting tariff and regulatory landscapes could affect cross-border operations, energy pricing, and financial infrastructure decisions. Finally, the ruling adds to the ongoing discourse about the balance between national policy interventions and market-based mechanisms, a debate that will continue to influence capital flows and innovation in the crypto ecosystem.

In the near term, traders will be watching how the administration navigates alternatives to tariffs and whether Congress steps in to provide clearer statutory guardrails. The decision may also spur renewed attention on how the U.S. coordinates with its trading partners to establish a more predictable policy environment, an outcome that could stabilize investor expectations and reduce speculative volatility in volatile assets like cryptocurrencies.

What to watch next

Clarification on any alternative measures the executive branch may pursue to influence trade, including potential regulatory or administrative actions.

Legislative responses or bipartisan discussions that could shape the future use of tariffs or trade tools.

Crypto market reactions to future tariff-related headlines and potential policy shifts, with attention to liquidity and volatility metrics.

Ongoing court considerations or challenges related to the scope of executive powers in economic policy.

Further official statements or documentation detailing the scope and limits of IEEPA in modern policy applications.

Sources & verification

Official Supreme Court ruling: The ruling PDF provides the Court’s reasoning and the formal holding on IEEPA’s authority (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf).

Politico coverage of Trump’s reaction to the ruling (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/20/donald-trump-tariff-supreme-court-reaction-00791245?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it).

Cointelegraph reporting on tariff-related market dynamics and related policy debates (https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-liberation-day-tariffs-markets-recession).

Truth Social posts by Donald Trump referenced in coverage (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114410073592204291 and https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115351840469973590).

Market analysis linking tariff news to crypto sentiment (https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-traders-us-donald-trump-tariffs-market-decline-santiment).

Key details and implications for markets

Introduction to the core finding: The Supreme Court has curtailed the scope of presidential tariff powers under IEEPA, reinforcing a constitutional check on executive actions in times of economic strain. The ruling, while focused on statutory interpretation, triggers a broader recalibration of policy risk and how market participants price macro surprises. In the immediate aftermath, the president’s reception of the decision and his stated intention to pursue tariffs through other channels raised questions about the timing and nature of any forthcoming policy shifts. Investors will be watching for any formal policy proposals or regulatory steps that could reintroduce tariff pressures, particularly around cross-border trade with major partners.

What to watch next

Dates for any anticipated policy proposals or regulatory actions outlining alternative tariff mechanisms.

Potential shifts in congressional discussions that could frame future tariff authority or trade policy instruments.

Monitoring of crypto market liquidity and volatility around new tariff-related announcements or debates.

Endnotes

Note: The coverage reflects developments reported across multiple outlets, including legal filings, political reporting, and market analysis linked above. The information should be verified against primary documents and official releases as policy positions evolve.

This article was originally published as SCOTUS Strikes Down Trump Tariffs as Alternative Plans Brew on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BGD Labs, a core technical contributor to the DeFi protocol Aave, announced it will conclude its involvement with the project’s DAO on April 1, ending a four-year collaboration that helped shape the protocol’s core subsystems. In a post on Aave’s governance forum, BGD cited an “asymmetric organizational scenario” and argued the DAO had not adequately accounted for contributors’ expertise. The team said the project had adopted an adversarial posture toward v3 in favor of features planned for v4, a shift it said impeded meaningful improvements. Nothing changes until April 1, but BGD signaled it will wind down its formal contributions while remaining engaged in certain areas through a defined transition. The forum note points to ongoing work on multiple fronts, even as the formal collaboration winds down.

Key takeaways

BGD Labs will end its involvement with the Aave DAO on April 1 after four years of work.

The departure is framed around an asymmetric organizational setup and perceived governance misalignment with technical contributors, particularly in the v3-versus-v4 prioritization debate.

Until the wind-down date, BGD will continue work on v3, Umbrella, chain expansions, security, and asset onboarding, with no immediate off-boarding path but a transition-focused plan.

A two-month, $200,000 security retainer has been proposed to support continuity beyond April as the community seeks a replacement for critical contributions.

Reactions within the user base were mixed-to-positive toward BGD, tempered by concerns about the loss of a significant DeFi builder; Stani Kulechov publicly praised BGD’s contributions.

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The development underscores ongoing governance and talent-retention dynamics within DeFi DAOs, where centralized expertise must coexist with decentralized decision-making, and where transition plans can influence security and upgrade trajectories.

Why it matters

The departure of a long-standing technical contributor from a high-profile protocol like Aave highlights how DeFi projects balance governance with engineering depth. BGD Labs’ four-year involvement positioned it at the center of critical subsystems, meaning its exit could ripple through areas spanning core protocol stability, security reviews, and on-boarding of assets. When a DAO relies on a limited set of builders for foundational components, even routine changes can take on outsized importance. In this case, the forum discussion that accompanied the announcement suggests a broader tension between centralized expertise and DAO-driven governance, a stakes-laden issue for communities that prize decentralization but depend on specialized knowledge to maintain robust, scalable systems.

The situation also spotlights the challenge of aligning long-term technical progress with a governance model that is, by design, open to diverse stakeholders. BGD’s public characterization of an “asymmetric organizational scenario” reflects concerns that the DAO’s governance structure may not always create the conditions necessary for sustained improvement, particularly when competing priorities between v3 stabilization and v4 feature development emerge. Such tensions are not unique to Aave; they echo broader discussions across the ecosystem about how to evolve upgrades and enhancements without fracturing consensus or stalling critical work.

From a practical standpoint, the two-month security-retainer proposal signals a pragmatic approach to continuity, allowing time for a replacement to come online while limiting risk exposure. In a space where security, asset onboarding, and cross-chain capabilities are high-stakes, transitional mechanisms like retainers can help calm the nerves of users and developers who rely on steady maintenance. The move may also influence how other DAOs outline transition plans when a core contributor departs, potentially becoming a template for similar exits in the future.

For the broader market, the episode reinforces that DeFi projects remain highly collaborative efforts where governance decisions, technical leadership, and risk management intersect. Talent mobility — from one protocol to another or toward new ventures — is a reality of the space. The emphasis on sustaining critical subsystems while seeking a replacement provider reflects an industry-wide trend toward clearer transitional governance and more explicit continuity strategies as ecosystems scale and mature.

In the immediate term, the community’s reaction—largely positive toward BGD’s contributions while raising concerns about the loss of foundational expertise—highlights a nuanced sentiment: appreciation for past work alongside vigilance regarding ongoing development and security assurances. The public response from Aave’s founder suggests confidence in the ecosystem’s resilience, even as the project navigates a meaningful personnel shift.

“I respect BGD’s decision, though I am sad to see them go. The DeFi ecosystem is better for having a team like BGD in it and I hope they continue to build and make contributions to the industry.”

What to watch next

April 1 milestone as BGD’s formal wind-down begins and responsibilities are reallocated or retired.

Whether Aave’s DAO moves to nominate or contract a replacement for BGD’s technical leadership on v3, Umbrella, and related areas.

Groundwork or approval for the proposed two-month, $200,000 security retainer or alternative continuity arrangements.

Any governance updates or votes touching on the prioritization of v3 stabilization versus v4 feature development and how contributors are engaged in those decisions.

Sources & verification

BGD leaving Aave governance post on governance.aave.com

Stani Kulechov’s response to BGD’s departure

Related: Aave founder pitches $50T ‘abundance asset’ boom to drive DeFi

BGD Labs exits Aave DAO after four years of technical leadership

BGD Labs, a core technical contributor to the DeFi protocol Aave, announced it will conclude its involvement with the DAO on April 1, ending a four-year collaboration that helped shape the protocol’s core subsystems. In a post on Aave’s governance forum, BGD cited an “asymmetric organizational scenario” and argued the DAO had not adequately accounted for contributors’ expertise. The team said the project had adopted an adversarial posture toward v3 in favor of features planned for v4, a shift it said impeded meaningful improvements. Nothing changes until April 1, but BGD signaled it will wind down its formal contributions while remaining engaged in certain areas through a defined transition. The forum note points to ongoing work on multiple fronts, even as the formal collaboration winds down.

The decision reflects BGD’s long-running role as a builder for the Aave ecosystem, involving substantial hands-on work across technical subsystems and security-related tasks. The forum post emphasizes that BGD’s work extended beyond a narrow scope, with the team frequently leading or collaborating on critical components that the community recognizes as part of Aave’s technical backbone. While the departure focuses on governance dynamics and organizational structure, the practical implications are real: what happens to ongoing maintenance, security audits, and cross-chain initiatives when a primary contributor steps back?

As part of the wind-down plan, BGD noted that “nothing changes” immediately after the announcement and that the group will continue supporting v3, Umbrella, chain expansions, security, and assets onboarding up to and beyond the April deadline. The firm argued that the current environment—where improvements to v3 are expected to be constrained by governance dynamics—undermined its ability to push forward effectively. It also proposed a two-month, $200,000 security retainer intended to bridge the gap while Aave searches for a suitable replacement and while the community weighs longer-term continuity options.

From a governance perspective, the episode illustrates a broader conversation about how DAOs sustain momentum when essential contributors depart. The Aave community’s response—varying from appreciation for BGD’s contributions to concern about the impact on ongoing development—mirrors a wider tension across the DeFi landscape: decentralization versus the practical need for specialized, ongoing expertise. Stani Kulechov’s public reply to the forum thread underscores the ecosystem’s resilience and willingness to recognize value created by core teams, even as leadership transitions take place.

In the weeks ahead, observers will be watching for concrete steps toward replacing BGD’s functions, the fate of the proposed security retainer, and any governance actions that influence the prioritization of v3’s stabilization versus v4’s feature set. The move also serves as an implicit reminder that even established contributors can re-evaluate alignment with a DAO’s evolving objectives, and that a thoughtful transition plan may prove essential to maintaining user trust and system reliability in a rapidly evolving DeFi environment.

This article was originally published as Aave DAO Loses Its Core Technical Contributor on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A US federal judge in Tennessee granted Kalshi a temporary reprieve from state gambling enforcement, allowing the prediction-market operator to continue offering sports-related event contracts while litigation unfolds. Judge Aleta Trauger of the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued the preliminary injunction on Thursday, siding with Kalshi’s argument that Tennessee’s attempt to regulate these markets runs afoul of federal commodities law. The court classified Kalshi’s sports event contracts as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, a designation that confers exclusive jurisdiction to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The order also requires Kalshi to post a $500,000 bond as the case advances, and targets state officials rather than the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council itself. The ruling was issued in a decision linked to CourtListener, which records the docket and order for KalshiEx LLC v. OrgEl. An earlier temporary restraining order had paused enforcement of a cease-and-desist letter, which had demanded Kalshi halt its sports contracts and reimburse deposits.

Key takeaways

Kalshi can continue offering sports-related event contracts in Tennessee while the case proceeds, per the preliminary injunction.

The court found Kalshi’s sports event contracts are “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act, implying federal preemption of Tennessee’s enforcement efforts.

The injunction extends to named state officials; the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council was dismissed on sovereign-immunity grounds, with Kalshi posting a $500,000 bond.

The decision reflects a broader clash over how event contracts should be regulated in the United States and underscores potential federal primacy in this space.

The CFTC has signaled its stance, filing a friend-of-the-court brief to defend exclusive federal jurisdiction over prediction markets.

Kalshi’s broader legal activity spans multiple states, including actions in Nevada, New Jersey, and Connecticut, where regulators have pursued similar enforcement actions.

Market context: The Tennessee ruling arrives amid a broader regulatory tug-of-war over prediction markets in the United States, with federal authorities stressing federal preemption and states pursuing licensing or enforcement actions. The CFTC’s reiteration of its exclusive jurisdiction over swaps used in prediction markets could influence how these platforms operate nationwide, particularly as parallel challenges play out in other jurisdictions.

Why it matters

The dispute sits at the intersection of commodities law and state gaming authority, highlighting how federal rules may constrain state attempts to police prediction markets. If federal preemption withstands further scrutiny, Kalshi and similar platforms could enjoy more predictable operation across multiple states, reducing the friction created by a patchwork of state bans or cease-and-desist actions. The ruling also clarifies how courts may interpret Kalshi’s products — not as conventional gambling, but as derivatives that fall under the CEA’s remit when tied to sporting events and outcomes.

The decision reinforces the Commission’s asserted primacy in this space. In a video message, CFTC Chair Michael Selig explained that the agency has filed a friend-of-the-court brief to defend the “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets, signaling that federal authorities intend to push back against attempts to regulate these markets at the state level. This stance aligns with ongoing efforts to delineate the boundaries between state gaming regulation and federal financial-market oversight, a conversation that has become increasingly salient as the market for digital derivatives expands.

For Kalshi, the Tennessee result potentially broadens the strategic pathway for its litigation, while for state regulators, it underscores the risk of losing enforcement leverage where federal law governs the core mechanics of these products. The case is part of a wider pattern in which courts have issued divergent rulings as a series of Kalshi-related challenges wind through different state jurisdictions, including Nevada, New Jersey, and Connecticut, each with its own regulatory posture. Earlier coverage of Nevada’s action against Kalshi, for example, framed these tensions as a stress test for state cease-and-desist authority in the face of federal preemption arguments. See also related reporting on developments in New Jersey and Connecticut as courts weighed similar injunctions and relief.

In practical terms, traders and platform operators watch how courts navigate the boundary between gambling regulation and derivative markets. The Tennessee injunction does not settle whether prediction markets are illegal under state law; rather, it pauses enforcement while the federal question plays out. The decision may encourage other platforms to pursue federal preemption defenses, potentially slowing the momentum of state-level crackdowns that have persisted in various forms across the country.

For observers and participants, the evolving landscape underscores the need to monitor both court filings and regulator communications. The CourtListener docket in KalshiEx LLC v. OrgEl remains a primary resource for the latest procedural developments, while federal statements from the CFTC provide a potential compass for how courts may approach similar cases in the future. The interplay between state actions and federal oversight will likely shape the pace and scope of prediction-market activity in the United States over the coming months.

What to watch next

Await the merits briefing schedule and any subsequent rulings on the core preemption question.

Follow Kalshi’s ongoing obligation to post the $500,000 bond and any related conditions tied to the injunction.

Monitor how other Kalshi-related actions in Nevada, New Jersey, and Connecticut proceed, including any further court rulings or settlements.

Track CFTC activity and new briefs or statements that could affect the federal-state regulatory balance for prediction markets.

Sources & verification

Court filing: preliminary injunction and docket for KalshiEx LLC v. OrgEl, as cataloged on CourtListener (CourtListener).

CFTC activity: chair statements on exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets and the agency’s brief supporting federal oversight.

Related state actions and coverage in Nevada, New Jersey, and Connecticut assessing Kalshi’s cease-and-desist actions (as reported in contemporaneous coverage).

Context from prior enforcement actions and injunctions regarding Kalshi’s operations in various states referenced in the docket and public filings.

Judicial ruling redefines federal preemption for prediction markets

A Tennessee federal judge has placed a temporary hold on state enforcement against Kalshi’s sports-prediction contracts, carving out a narrow lane for the platform to operate as legal under the federal framework while the case advances. The decision rests on a careful reading of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and its reach over new financial products tied to sporting events. By characterizing Kalshi’s contracts as swaps, the court asserts that the CFTC—not state gaming authorities—should regulate the core mechanics of these markets. That distinction matters not only for Kalshi but for other platforms seeking a stable operating environment in a crowded regulatory landscape.

The ruling underscores a broader jurisprudential trend: federal preemption arguments are increasingly central in disputes surrounding novel financial instruments that resemble both gambling and securities. The court’s analysis hinges on whether the state can effectively regulate something the federal government has already deemed to fall under its exclusive jurisdiction. In this case, the court found a strong likelihood that Kalshi will succeed on the merits of preemption, marking a potential inflection point for how similar products are treated across multiple jurisdictions.

As Kalshi proceeds with the litigation, the decision sets up a structured interaction between state cease-and-desist actions and federal regulatory oversight. The injunction, which binds identified state officials and not the entire state agency, reflects a cautious approach aimed at preserving room for further judicial review. The $500,000 bond requirement also serves as a tangible compliance mechanism, ensuring dispute-related costs are covered as the legal process unfolds. Court documents and related briefs will be closely watched by industry participants seeking clarity on whether prediction markets can be reconciled with existing regulatory regimes or if a broader federal framework will eventually take precedence.

This article was originally published as Tennessee Judge Blocks State Move Against Kalshi with Injunction on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

As cryptocurrency becomes increasingly intertwined with traditional finance, it is also forming the backbone of a parallel, shadow financial system that operates beyond conventional rails. A January report from TRM Labs highlighted a surge in illicit or illegal crypto use, climbing to an all-time high of $158 billion in 2025, with sanctions evasion accounting for a notable share of the activity. The analysis points to a major driver: a ruble-backed stablecoin and its ecosystem, built around the A7A5 project, which has moved billions in sanctioned value through on-chain channels. The rise of A7A5 underscores how crypto is becoming a strategic instrument for state-aligned actors seeking alternative settlement mechanisms amid growing financial restrictions.

Key takeaways

Illicit crypto activity reached $158 billion in the referenced period, with sanctions evasion comprising a substantial portion of flows according to the TRM Labs report.

A7A5, a ruble-based stablecoin, emerged as a focal point, with about $39 billion of sanctions-related flows attributed to its wallet cluster.

The project is co-owned by Ilan Shor, a Moldovan-Russian political figure under sanctions, and the state-owned Promsvyazbank (PSB), linking the digital asset to established financial interests.

Trading has shifted across multiple platforms after sanctions targeted central exchanges, with Grinex serving as a key on-ramp and other venues like Meer and Bitpapa facilitating activity despite OFAC restrictions.

Regulators and researchers note that the A7A5 network reflects a more deliberate, state-aligned approach to crypto-enabled cross-border transfers, rather than merely opportunistic illicit use.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The expansion of crypto-enabled flows in sanctioned environments occurs amid broader regulatory tightening, shifting risk sentiment in digital assets, and the emergence of alternative rails as traditional payment networks retreat from sanctioned jurisdictions.

Why it matters

The TRM Labs report situates A7A5 within a wider ecosystem where crypto is not just a tool for illicit finance but a potential backbone for sanctioned regimes seeking to maintain cross-border commerce. The $39 billion attributed to the A7 wallet cluster signals the scale at which a state-backed crypto network can influence the global settlement landscape, particularly as Western payment rails recede from Russia and allied actors. This development raises questions about the resilience and resilience testing of on-chain infrastructures in regions where sovereign finance is constrained, and about the evolving role of stablecoins in state-aided economic activity.

Analysts emphasize that the illicit crypto economy has evolved beyond the darknet and ransomware into a more formalized financial system that supports sanctioned activities. Ari Redbord, global head of policy at TRM Labs, described the A7A5 network as not merely experimenting with crypto but building durable, on-chain infrastructure linked to state objectives. The finding that wallets tied to the A7 network handled tens of billions in flows in 2025 illustrates how such systems are designed to operate at scale, with intent that aligns with national economic strategies rather than narrow illicit aims.

From a regulatory standpoint, A7A5’s trajectory has drawn scrutiny from researchers who point to a pattern of cross-border transfers and a cluster of related entities under the A7 umbrella, including A7-Agent, A7 Goldinvest and A71. The involvement of a sanctioned figure and a state bank creates a tightly interwoven financial ecosystem that can withstand pressure from conventional sanctions regimes, at least in the near term. Russia’s broader approach to digital assets—evolving from a prohibition to the development of sanctioned, but potentially globally accessible, crypto rails—adds an additional layer of complexity to how policymakers view digital currencies and their use in geopolitical contexts.

Industry voices stress that the picture is not solely about evading sanctions, but about enabling state-aligned economic flows that leverage the on-chain nature of modern finance. Chainalysis highlighted patterns such as weekday-dominant trading activity, suggesting that the A7A5 network is functioning within a structured, business-oriented framework rather than sporadic, criminal use. The implication is that sanctioned actors may be constructing repeatable, auditable workflows that resemble legitimate cross-border commerce in many respects, even as they operate in a legally gray area in others.

On the corporate front, spokespeople and officials have defended the project, arguing that it operates within regulatory boundaries and adheres to standard KYC/AML practices. Oleg Ogienko, A7A5’s director for regulatory and overseas affairs, emphasized that the company complies with Kyrgyzstan’s laws where it operates and follows due diligence processes. Critics, however, point to the broader implications of a sanctioned network becoming an alternative payment rail, potentially enabling a broader set of sanctioned actors to bypass established financial channels.

The story also intersects with Russia’s domestic policy trajectory. In December 2024, the Russian government signaled a shift by allowing foreign trade in “digital financial assets” and Bitcoin mined domestically, framing crypto as part of the future of global payments settlement rather than as a conventional investment vehicle. This context helps explain why a ruble-based stablecoin project could gain traction as a cross-border instrument, particularly in environments facing sanctions and currency controls.

During 2025, the A7A5 ecosystem broadened its footprint across multiple trading venues after the initial rollout on a Moscow-based exchange. Garantex—an exchange previously prominent in the region—was sanctioned and subsequently shut down, but trading persisted on Grinex, a Kyrgyzstan-based platform that Chainalysis identified as the confirmed successor to the Russian partner and that continued to accept transfers from Garantex after its closure. Additional listings appeared on Kyrgyz and regional platforms such as Meer and Bitpapa, even as OFAC sanctions targeted some of these venues. The growth in token activity across these platforms, despite sanctions, underscored how quickly crypto ecosystems can adapt to regulatory pressure while still enabling significant value transfer.

The industry narrative includes questions about why such networks persist and how they will be treated under evolving sanctions regimes. Some observers argue that the A7A5 project represents a strategic experiment rather than an isolated anomaly—a deliberate attempt to build an alternative payment rails infrastructure that can operate in parallel with traditional channels when those channels are constrained by policy actions. As the geopolitical landscape remains fluid, the balance between enabling legitimate commerce and curbing sanctioned activity will continue to be tested through on-chain technologies and cross-border finance strategies.

Beyond the technical and regulatory discussion, the ecosystem’s expansion sparked practical developments. In mid-2025, PSB cardholders were announced to be able to purchase A7A5 tokens with cards, with plans to broaden this service to additional banks. The move signals a broadening push to integrate the token into conventional consumer financial flows, blurring the lines between digital assets and everyday payments—even as the regulatory status of such use remains under close scrutiny.

As policymakers and researchers monitor the trajectory of A7A5 and related networks, the broader question remains: to what extent can sanctioned actors leverage stablecoins and on-chain rails to sustain international trade when conventional channels are constrained? The answer may hinge on regulatory clarity, on-chain transparency, and the capacity of authorities to enforce restrictions without stifling legitimate economic activity in sanctioned regions.

For readers seeking to explore the broader context of how state actors are interacting with crypto and how financial systems adapt under sanctions, related discussions, including analyses on the global reserve currency implications of such moves, provide additional angles on the evolving crypto-finance interface.

What to watch next

Regulatory updates on OFAC and other sanctions bodies regarding A7A5 and related exchanges (Garantex, Grinex, Meer, Bitpapa) in 2026.

Any formal government statements or legislative steps in Russia or allied states about digital financial assets and cross-border crypto trade.

Follow-on analyses from TRM Labs and Chainalysis that quantify flows linked to sanctioned networks and their evolution over the year.

Adoption signals from PSB or other banks about expanding card-based purchases of A7A5 and similar tokens.

Sources & verification

TRM Labs 2026 Crypto Crime Report detailing the surge in illicit crypto activity and sanctions-related flows.

Chainalysis analysis on the A7A5 ecosystem, Grinex, and sanctions-related activity, including platform handoffs after exchange sanctions.

Astraea Group assessment of A7 as co-owned by Ilan Shor and Promsvyazbank (PSB), with links to the relevant corporate and regulatory context.

Russian government commentary on digital financial assets and Bitcoin mining within foreign trade contexts, including corroborating reporting linked to official statements.

Cointelegraph coverage of sanctions-related disputes and official responses from A7A5 representatives regarding allegations of sanctions evasion.

This article was originally published as A7A5 Stablecoin Expands Parallel System for Sanctioned Firms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Metaplanet’s chief executive Simon Gerovich pushed back against criticisms from anonymous accounts alleging that the company misrepresented its Bitcoin treasury strategy and disclosures. Critics on X argued that Metaplanet delayed or withheld price-sensitive information about large BTC purchases and options trades funded with shareholder capital, and that losses from its derivatives program were not fully disclosed. In a detailed public post on X, Gerovich contends that the company has consistently reported all Bitcoin purchases, option strategies and borrowings, and that readers have misinterpreted the financial statements rather than uncovering any misconduct.

Key takeaways

Metaplanet disclosed four Bitcoin purchases in September 2025 totaling 11,832 BTC (1,009 on Sept. 1; 136 on Sept. 8; 5,419 on Sept. 22; 5,268 on Sept. 30), with the company asserting prompt disclosure for each move.

The firm’s public dashboard corroborates the September buys, and Bitcointreasuries.net also lists the transactions along with related announcements and filings.

Gerovich said selling put options and put spreads were designed to acquire BTC below spot and monetize volatility for shareholders, rather than betting on short-term price swings.

Metaplanet reported fiscal 2025 revenue of 8.9 billion yen (about $58 million), up roughly 738% year over year, but posted a net loss near $680 million due to a decline in the value of its Bitcoin holdings.

As the debate around Bitcoin treasury strategies grows, Metaplanet’s disclosures and borrowing activities—including a credit facility set up in late 2025—remain under scrutiny by investors and regulators alike.

Beyond Metaplanet, the sector faces broader questions about the sustainability of BTC-heavy treasuries, with peers such as Strategy posting large quarterly losses despite signaling a long-term outlook.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The controversy surrounding Metaplanet’s Bitcoin treasury approach unfolds as crypto markets experience liquidity shifts and ongoing scrutiny of corporate crypto holdings. The sector’s dynamics are further colored by notable market moves and annual results from other BTC holders, including Strategy, which reported a $12.4 billion net loss in Q4 2025 as Bitcoin declined, highlighting the tension between revenue opportunities from BTC-related activities and material impairment risks tied to price swings.

Why it matters

For investors tracking crypto-native treasuries, Metaplanet’s disclosures illuminate how such firms balance disclosure requirements with the volatility of digital assets. The company’s strategy—using option structures to monetize volatility while seeking BTC below spot via puts—shows a deliberate approach to acquiring exposure without entirely relying on directional bets. The earnings mix, where revenue from Bitcoin-related activities rose substantially while the balance sheet reflected non-cash losses tied to price movements, underscores a broader accounting challenge: treating asset impairments as business costs can mask underlying revenue growth and cash-generation potential.

From a governance standpoint, the incident underscores the importance of transparent, timely disclosures as markets increasingly scrutinize how corporate treasuries operate in real time. The availability of data on Metaplanet’s public analytics dashboard and third-party trackers adds a layer of accountability, but it also raises questions about the sufficiency of disclosures for complex derivatives programs and loan facilities tied to crypto assets. The sector’s trajectory will hinge on how well such disclosures align with investor expectations and how regulators interpret leverage and protections within crypto-backed borrowings.

For builders and users in the crypto space, this episode reinforces the need for robust risk management and clear accounting treatment for digital assets. As platforms experiment with diversified revenue streams tied to BTC, including options income and structured borrowings, maintaining clarity around valuation, impairment, and liquidity is essential to sustain investor confidence during periods of price volatility.

What to watch next

Updates to Metaplanet’s disclosures page detailing borrowing terms, collateral, and facility conditions following the October 2025 credit line.

New BTC purchase or sale disclosures that align with the September timeline and any subsequent months, including any changes to the company’s public dashboard.

Additional commentary from Metaplanet’s leadership on X and any subsequent investor communications clarifying accounting treatment of asset impairments.

Public trackers like Bitcointreasuries.net updating holdings in response to new disclosures or market moves.

Regulatory or market developments affecting crypto-treasury strategies, including any updates to lending terms or disclosure requirements for listed BTC-holding vehicles.

Sources & verification

Metaplanet analytics page: https://metaplanet.jp/en/analytics

Bitcointreasuries.net listing: http://bitcointreasuries.net

X post by Metaplanet on September purchases: https://x.com/Metaplanet/status/1962340921049309536

Gerovich’s explanatory post: https://x.com/gerovich/status/2024646152877133907

September BTC purchases previously disclosed: https://x.com/tenb1/status/2024099604044890455

Metaplanet revenue and impairment discussion: https://cointelegraph.com/news/metaplanet-revenue-jumps-738-percent-bitcoin-generates-95-percent-revenue

Impairment-related revenue context: https://cointelegraph.com/news/metaplanet-raises-revenue-forecast-bitcoin-impairment

Bitcoin-backed borrowings and disclosures: https://metaplanet.jp/en/shareholders/disclosures

Related coverage of BTC treasury strategies and performance: https://cointelegraph.com/news/strategy-reports-12b-loss-q4-2025

Big questions on macro and gold references: https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/china-stockpiling-gold-yaun-global-reserve-us-dollar/

Metaplanet defends Bitcoin treasury strategy amid investor scrutiny

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) sits at the center of Metaplanet’s corporate strategy, a fact that has drawn sharp questions from observers about disclosure timeliness, asset valuation and the company’s approach to risk management. In a detailed post on X, Simon Gerovich laid out the sequence of events that led to September 2025’s Bitcoin purchases and the accompanying derivative strategies designed to generate income while controlling entry points for BTC exposure. He emphasized that the company’s real-time dashboard and public disclosures provide a transparent view of the purchases, option strategies and borrowing activity that underpin the treasury program.

According to Metaplanet, the September buys were executed in four distinct transactions: 1,009 BTC on Sept. 1; 136 BTC on Sept. 8; 5,419 BTC on Sept. 22; and 5,268 BTC on Sept. 30. The total of these maneuvers equates to 11,832 BTC acquired over the month, a figure the company asserts was promptly disclosed. The public dashboard, which is accessible to investors and researchers alike, corroborates these entry points and offers a transparent ledger of the company’s Bitcoin holdings and related activity. The Bitcointreasuries.net tracker, which aggregates corporate BTC holdings and their disclosures, also reflects these transactions and the accompanying public announcements.

Gerovich defended the use of put options and put spreads as a mechanism to acquire BTC at levels below the spot price while monetizing volatility in a way that benefits shareholders, rather than speculating on sprint-to-the-close price moves. The approach, he argued, is aligned with a risk-managed treasury strategy that seeks to build a long-term Bitcoin position through measured, disclosed steps rather than abrupt, undisclosed trades. He further highlighted that the company has historically disclosed all relevant purchases, borrowings and option strategies, urging readers to examine the financial statements with this context in mind.

Beyond operational disclosures, Metaplanet’s 2025 financial results painted a mixed picture. The company reported revenue of 8.9 billion yen (roughly $58 million), a surge of about 738% year over year, reflecting the strength of its Bitcoin-related activities. Yet the firm also recorded a net loss of approximately $680 million, attributed to the marked impairment in the value of its Bitcoin holdings as prices slumped. Gerovich contended that non-cash impairment charges are an accounting consequence of asset valuation rather than a reflection of trading missteps or misalignment with the treasury plan. In other words, the revenue line demonstrates activity and monetization potential, while the impairment line reflects the price-driven realities of holding a volatile asset.

Metaplanet has not shied away from highlighting the non-cash nature of certain losses, arguing that the accounting treatment of digital assets does not imply strategic failure. The company underlined that it established a credit facility in October 2025 and disclosed subsequent drawdowns in November and December, including information on borrowing amounts, collateral and general terms on its disclosures page. The lender’s identity and specific rates were kept confidential at the counterparty’s request, Gerovich noted, but he stressed that the borrowing terms were favorable and that the balance sheet remained strong despite Bitcoin’s movements.

The broader industry backdrop adds another layer of context to Metaplanet’s defenses. A cluster of Bitcoin treasury plays has come under scrutiny as investors weigh the sustainability of long-term BTC-based financing strategies. Strategy, historically the largest corporate holder of BTC, reported a substantial quarterly loss in late 2025 as Bitcoin’s price deteriorated, even as the company emphasized a longer horizon and a robust capital structure. This juxtaposition—strong revenue streams from BTC activities against sizable impairments in asset values—helps explain why market participants are closely scrutinizing disclosure practices, risk controls and governance around crypto treasuries.

As Metaplanet continues to publish data and respond to scrutiny, the industry will likely watch not only for new purchases or borrowings but also for the consistency and clarity of its accounting disclosures. The balance between revenue growth from Bitcoin-derived activities and the non-cash losses tied to asset valuations will remain a focal point for investors evaluating the viability of BTC-heavy treasury models in a volatile market environment.

This article was originally published as Metaplanet CEO Refutes Claims of Hidden Bitcoin Trades on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitdeer Technologies Group (NASDAQ: BTDR), a Singapore-based operator of data centers and Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) mining infrastructure, unveiled a private placement of US$300 million in convertible senior notes, with an option for purchasers to subscribe to an additional US$45 million. The offering marks Bitdeer’s second convertible debt sale since a US$150 million issue in April 2024, a move that coincided with a notable decline in the stock price at the time. The notes are scheduled to mature in 2032, carry semiannual interest payments, and can be converted into cash, shares, or a combination of both. Proceeds are earmarked for data-center expansion, AI cloud growth, the development of mining rigs, and general corporate purposes. Bitdeer operates globally, with data centers in the United States, Norway, and Bhutan, while maintaining its headquarters in Singapore.

Key takeaways

The company is offering US$300 million in convertible senior notes, with a potential additional US$45 million via private placement.

These notes mature in 2032, are senior unsecured, and pay semiannual interest; holders may convert to cash, stock, or a mix.

The funds will support data-center expansion, AI cloud initiatives, mining-rig development, and general corporate purposes.

This is Bitdeer’s second convertible-note sale, following a US$150 million offering in April 2024 that coincided with a roughly 18% drop in the stock at the time.

To offset potential dilution, the deal includes capped-call transactions and a concurrent registered direct share offering aimed at repurchasing notes due in 2029.

Traders punished Bitdeer shares on the news, with the stock down about 17% on the session before closing near the year’s lows.

Tickers mentioned: $BTDR, $BTC

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Negative. Bitdeer’s stock fell roughly 17% on the news, underscoring dilution concerns and investor sensitivity to capital-structure changes.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold. The combination of convertible issuance and dilution-offset mechanisms warrants caution, even as the proceeds underpin ambitious expansion plans.

Market context: The transaction reflects a broader pattern among crypto miners financing growth with convertible debt, a structure that can dilute equity if notes convert and that often arrives with offsetting strategies to manage equity dilution.

Why it matters

The planned private placement of convertible notes signals Bitdeer’s continued appetite for aggressive expansion in a capital-intensive sector. By targeting data-center capacity and AI cloud services alongside mining-rig development, the company is positioning itself to scale its infrastructure footprint in multiple jurisdictions. The convertible structure offers investors upside if the stock appreciates, while providing downside protection through bond characteristics. However, the potential for future dilution remains a live concern for existing shareholders, especially if the notes are converted as Bitdeer’s equity price strengthens.

From a corporate-finance perspective, the use of convertible debt aligns with investor demand for instruments that balance debt-like safety with equity-like upside. The inclusion of capped-call transactions is designed to mitigate dilution, but it does not eliminate the fundamental trade-off between raising capital and preserving share value. The concurrent share offering intended to repurchase notes due in 2029 adds another layer of capital-management activity, signaling a deliberate attempt to optimize the capital stack while pursuing growth objectives.

For market participants, the development underscores how mining-focused operators are navigating a landscape where capital-structure decisions can materially impact stock performance. As miners race to expand capacity and enter adjacent growth areas like AI cloud services, financing decisions—particularly those involving convertibles—will continue to draw scrutiny from investors who weigh dilution risk against potential long-term value creation. The broader environment for crypto equities remains sensitive to macro signals, sector volatility, and regulatory developments, making the next steps for Bitdeer—such as the final terms of the private placement and the effectiveness of dilution-offset strategies—worth watching closely.

What to watch next

Closing terms and timing of the US$300 million convertible note offering, including whether the additional US$45 million private placement is exercised.

Results and milestones tied to data-center expansion and AI cloud initiatives, including capacity additions and any operational KPIs.

Details of the capped-call transactions and how they are structured to offset dilution, along with the timing and terms of the concurrent registered direct share offering to repurchase 2029 notes.

Any further commentary from Bitdeer on its use of proceeds and how debt financing affects its capital-structure strategy amid ongoing market volatility for crypto equities.

Sources & verification

Bitdeer announces proposed private placement of US$300 million convertible notes. https://ir.bitdeer.com/news-releases/news-release-details/bitdeer-announces-proposed-private-placement-us3000-million-0

Strategy to equitize convertible debt over next 3-6 years: Saylor. https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/strategy-plans-equitize-convertible-debt-over-next-3-6-years-saylor

What are convertible senior notes? How MicroStrategy uses them to buy Bitcoin. https://cointelegraph.com/explained/what-are-convertible-senior-notes-how-microstrategy-uses-them-to-buy-bitcoin

Bitdeer Ohio mining facility fire stock coverage. https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitdeer-ohio-mining-facility-fire-stock

Bitdeer 150m notes offering expansion stock drop. https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitdeer-150m-notes-offering-expansion-stock-drop

Debt financing and expansion goals drive Bitdeer’s latest convertible note offering

Bitdeer Technologies Group (NASDAQ: BTDR), a Singapore-based operator of data centers and Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) mining infrastructure, has unveiled a private placement of US$300 million in convertible senior notes, with a potential extension of up to US$45 million via a private placement. The move marks Bitdeer’s second foray into convertible debt after a US$150 million offering in April 2024, an issue that coincided with a sharp retreat in the company’s share price. The newly proposed notes carry a maturity date in 2032, and they are described as senior unsecured obligations with semiannual interest payments. In a convertible arrangement, investors can choose to convert their holds into cash, shares, or a combination of both, depending on the terms at issue and market conditions at the time of conversion.

The use of convertible notes taps into a common financing channel for crypto miners seeking to fund rapid capacity expansion without immediately diluting equity. Bitdeer’s stated use of proceeds—data-center expansion, AI cloud growth, mining-rig development, and general corporate purposes—highlights a strategy focused on bolstering both scale and diversification beyond strictly mining revenues. The company’s operations span multiple geographies, with data centers in the United States, Norway, and Bhutan, underscoring the geographic footprint often required to manage energy costs, regulatory considerations, and resilience in a capital-intensive industry.

The market’s reaction to the announcement was swift. Bitdeer’s stock moved lower on the news, underscoring investor anxiety around potential dilution and the timing of a sizable capital raise. The announcement also references the company’s earlier convertible-note activity; the April 2024 US$150 million offering previously produced an 18% slide in the share price, illustrating how these structures can be priced into equity performance even when the underlying business objectives are growth-oriented. To partially counteract dilution, Bitdeer plans to employ capped call transactions as part of the convertible-note framework, a technique often used to mitigate the dilution impact when notes convert to equity. In parallel, the company is pursuing a registered direct share offering tied to a program to repurchase a portion of its existing convertible notes due in 2029, highlighting an ongoing effort to manage the capital stack in a way that blends financing flexibility with equity preservation.

In the broader context, this approach mirrors a recurring theme among mining and crypto infrastructure players who rely on convertible debt to finance expansion while attempting to shield existing shareholders from excessive dilution. Market observers will be watching not only the terms of the 2032 notes but also the practical effectiveness of the capped-call strategy and the impact of the 2029-note repurchase plan on Bitdeer’s future earnings and share count. The situation also sits within a larger narrative about how crypto-focused companies balance growth ambitions with the need for disciplined capital management amid fluctuating crypto prices and evolving regulatory signals.

This article was originally published as Crypto Miner Bitdeer Slumps 17% After $300M Debt Offering on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and broader on-chain activity are entering a period of recalibration as Parsec, a five-year-old analytics firm focused on DeFi and NFTs, announces its winding down. Launched in January 2021, Parsec grew alongside a nascent wave of on-chain research and funding from notable industry players, only to find the current market environment diverging from the original playbook. In its X post, Parsec framed the closure as a strategic retreat from a market that “zigged while we zagged a few too many times,” underscoring a misalignment between its niche focus and where the ecosystem has since progressed. The company’s exit comes amid a pronounced shift in on-chain dynamics, with NFT volumes and DeFi activity not repeating the patterns seen during the prior cycle.

Key takeaways

Parsec—the five-year analytics firm backed by Uniswap, Polychain Capital, and Galaxy Digital—will shut down as it pivots away from DeFi and NFT-centric tracking.

NFT market data shows a 2025 decline to about $5.63 billion in sales, down 37% from 2024’s $8.9 billion, while average sale prices slid from $124 to $96 per unit (CryptoSlam data).

The wider crypto sector is watching consolidation unfold, with Entropy also closing and returning capital to investors, signaling a shift in how startups scale in a crowded landscape.

Bitcoin’s price action remains critical context, having fallen roughly 46% from its October peak to around $67,246, amid evolving risk sentiment and macro headwinds.

Industry voices, including Nansen’s Alex Svanevik, reflect on a period of transformation as the market recalibrates, with a focus on sustainability and product-market fit rather than rapid expansion.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Negative. BTC’s extended drawdown in 2025 reflects broader risk-off dynamics that accompany sector consolidation and shifting on-chain activity.

Market context: The downturn in specialized on-chain analytics and the push toward consolidation align with a broader transition in crypto markets, where venture-backed experimentation is giving way to more measured, winner-take-more dynamics amid tightening liquidity and cautious investor sentiment.

Why it matters

Parsec’s closure marks a notable inflection for a segment of the crypto ecosystem that has long relied on on-chain signals to interpret market health, DeFi leverage trends, and NFT activity. The firm’s exit signals more than just a single business story; it points to a shift in how participants measure value in a landscape that has undergone seismic changes since 2022. Parsec’s avatar—once backed by industry heavyweights such as Uniswap, Polychain Capital, and Galaxy Digital—illustrates how capital and talent have redistributed as the market evolves. The decision to close underscores the reality that post-FTX market dynamics altered leverage structures in DeFi, making it harder for a highly specialized analytics company to sustain a product-market fit built around a subset of the ecosystem.

From a broader market perspective, NFT volumes and average selling prices have cooled. CryptoSlam’s data for 2025 show sales of approximately $5.63 billion, a notable drop from 2024’s $8.9 billion, while average prices slipped from about $124 to $96. This shift compounds the pressure on firms whose value proposition rested on analyzing a thriving NFT market and high-velocity NFT trades. The collision of shrinking volumes with a more selective investor appetite for specialized analytics platforms helps explain why Parsec chose to exit now rather than pursue a protracted pivot.

Industry observers view Parsec’s shutdown through a consolidation lens. A related thread in the sector notes Entropy’s closure and the return of funds to investors, a move often framed as a pragmatic recentering rather than a collapse. The narrative of consolidation gained further traction when a prominent crypto executive predicted that the space would see more M&A activity, with larger players acquiring smaller projects in the months ahead. This theme—fewer, larger, better-capitalized entities—stands in contrast to the earlier cycle’s fragmentation and rapid experimentation. It’s a shift that could influence who becomes a dominant source of on-chain insights and market data in the next phase of the market cycle.

Price dynamics provide a practical backdrop to these structural shifts. Bitcoin’s drawdown—from an October all-time high near $126,100 to roughly $67,246—frames the risk-off mood permeating markets. Such price action often correlates with reduced appetite for experimental or niche analytics services, especially those tied to discretionary sectors like DeFi lending or NFT markets. In parallel, search interest around Bitcoin’s prospects—“Bitcoin going to zero”—has surged to levels not seen since the post-FTX panic in late 2022, underscoring the fragility of investor confidence when prices retreat and headlines crowd the narrative. These macro and on-chain signals together illuminate why Parsec’s departure feels consequential beyond a single corporate exit.

As the industry recalibrates, voices from within the space emphasize a pragmatic pivot toward sustainability and broader product-market fit. Alex Svanevik, the CEO of on-chain analytics platform Nansen, described Parsec as having “a great run,” signaling respect for the team’s contributions even as the market moves in a different direction. The liquidity and talent reallocation that typically accompany consolidation can seed new, more resilient offerings in the analytics arena, but the transition is unlikely to be seamless or immediate for any single player. In the near term, investors and builders will watch for how competing firms adapt—whether through product diversification, partnerships, or strategic acquisitions that promise more scalable data insights than what was historically possible in a market with highly idiosyncratic cycles.

What to watch next

Follow any formal wind-down announcements or final reports from Parsec to understand remaining liabilities, data access terms, and customer transitions.

Monitor announcements of consolidation among on-chain analytics and data firms, including potential acquisitions or fundraisings by rivals seeking scale.

Track NFT market metrics and DeFi activity in early 2026 to gauge the pace of recovery or further slowdown in the segments Parsec focused on.

Observe Bitcoin price action and macro risk sentiment for signals about market-wide demand for research and data services.

Stay attentive to ETF inflows/outflows and regulatory developments that could influence institutional demand for crypto data and analytics tools.

Sources & verification

Parsec X post announcing the shutdown and its remark about market dynamics.

CryptoSlam NFT market data showing 2025 sales and average sale prices.

Entropy shutdown announcement and refund details.

CNBC interview with a crypto industry executive discussing consolidation and M&A expectations.

Bitcoin price data from CoinMarketCap for context on the 2025 price trajectory.

Market reaction and implications for on-chain analytics

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has traded amid a broader re-pricing of risk as analysts weigh the implications of Parsec’s exit and the shifting demand for specialized on-chain insights. The closure of a five-year analytics firm highlights a market recalibration where niche services tied closely to NFT and DeFi activity face a tougher environment than during the early expansion phase. Parsec’s investors—Uniswap, Polychain Capital, and Galaxy Digital—were early testaments to the crypto market’s willingness to fund data-centric ventures that promised deeper market clarity. Their involvement underscored a belief that on-chain metrics could shape investment and risk decisions in a highly volatile domain, but the current cycle’s transformation has altered the economics of those bets.

The NFT space, once a robust growth engine for on-chain signals, has cooled considerably. CryptoSlam’s figures for 2025 illustrate a market maturing past its frenetic growth phase, with sales down and average prices eroding. That reality, in turn, compresses the value proposition of analytics platforms whose strengths rested on measuring and interpreting rapid shifts in NFT demand and liquidity. Parsec’s exit reflects the market’s demand for flexibility and resilience—an emphasis on broader data products and sustainable business models rather than a singular focus on a high-volatility segment.

At the same time, the crypto industry’s consolidation thesis is gaining more empirical ballast. The Entropy shutdown and similar moves paint a portrait of a sector moving away from the diffuse, experimental setup of the last cycle toward a more concentrated ecosystem dominated by fewer, larger participants. This trend does not guarantee immediate profitability for survivors, but it does shape the kind of partnerships and products that can scale in a market characterized by tighter liquidity and more selective investor scrutiny. The market context, including price trajectory and investor sentiment, will continue to influence which firms succeed in delivering credible, actionable on-chain intelligence in a rapidly evolving landscape.

Ultimately, Parsec’s departure underscores a broader truth about crypto analytics: success increasingly hinges on being able to deliver durable, product-market fit across multiple market regimes. The coming months will reveal whether the remaining players can fill the void left by Parsec by expanding their data pipelines, strengthening distribution channels, and coordinating more closely with institutional stakeholders seeking clear signals in a market defined by swift regime shifts.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This article was originally published as Parsec Closes as Crypto Market Remains Volatile on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The White House is pressing ahead with negotiations between crypto industry representatives and banking lobbyists to shape stablecoin provisions within a broader crypto market-structure bill. In the third face-to-face session held in about two weeks, participants attempted to close gaps that have stalled the legislation amid broader regulatory scrutiny. While no deal emerged on Thursday, attendees signaled progress as a White House adviser urged a compromise: allow third parties, such as exchanges, to offer stablecoin rewards only in connection with transaction activity rather than linking yields to customers’ idle balances. The talks followed earlier meetings on February 2 and February 10, underscoring the urgency of delivering a coherent framework for how U.S. regulators would police the evolving crypto landscape.

Key takeaways

The current round of talks produced incremental language alignment but stopped short of a binding agreement on how stablecoin rewards should be governed under the market-structure bill.

A prominent proposal centers on tying stablecoin rewards to transactional activity rather than balances, a stance intended to address banking concerns about competitive pressures.

Participants highlighted the need for clear legislative language to unlock broader crypto-market structure reform, with industry and banking voices urging pragmatism and collaboration.

Public remarks from executives at Coinbase (EXCHANGE: COIN) and Ripple underscored a constructive and cooperative tone, even as substantive policy divides remain.

The Senate’s path for the related market-structure bill remains uncertain, with prior House passage of a CLARITY Act variant not yet mirrored in Senate approval.

Plans for continued negotiations were already on the table, with banks slated to reconvene to decide whether the trade-off could win broader support.

Tickers mentioned: $COIN

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The unfolding discussions sit at the crossroads of regulatory clarity, innovation incentives, and risk management as policymakers weigh how to normalize stablecoins within the traditional financial system while maintaining consumer protections and financial stability.

Why it matters

At stake is a path to regulatory clarity that could unlock broader participation in the crypto economy while preserving the safeguards that lawmakers insist are necessary for a rapidly evolving sector. The debate over stablecoin rewards directly touches liquidity, market integrity, and how digitized fiat-backed assets integrate with traditional banking rails. By steering a compromise toward transaction-based rewards rather than balance-based yields, policymakers aim to strike a balance between incentivizing innovative finance and preventing scenarios that could undermine deposit stability or create unfair competitive dynamics for banks.

The discussions reflect a broader tension in Washington: policymakers want to enable responsible innovation without ceding market stability or consumer protection. The involvement of high-profile industry players signals that the issue has moved beyond a narrow policy skirmish and into a cornerstone debate about how stablecoins will function within the U.S. financial system over the coming years. As negotiators press on, the outcome could influence how wallets, exchanges, and other third parties design reward structures and attract user participation in a regulated, compliant manner.

Observers note that the White House is prioritizing a pragmatic, language-driven approach—one that narrows disagreements step by step while keeping the door open to a broader legislative package. The degree of progress achieved in the latest talks—though not a resolution—suggests that a consensus on core concepts may still be within reach, provided sufficient alignment on the role of third-party reward programs and the safeguards designed to protect depositors and the broader financial system.

What to watch next

Whether banks will sign off on the transaction-based rewards framework and what concessions might be required to gain bipartisan support.

The timing and framing of the next White House-facilitated session, including any public statements from the involved parties.

Any movement in the Senate on the market-structure bill or related amendments, following earlier House passage of a CLARITY Act variant.

Follow-up remarks from Coinbase (EXCHANGE: COIN) and Ripple, and whether new language clarifies the role of third-party reward programs.

Sources & verification

Statement from Ripple’s chief legal officer on X about the session and language work: Alderoty post

Coinbase legal head’s comments on X regarding the meeting’s tone: Grewal post

Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger’s remarks on X about the session: Mersinger post

Semafor reporting on Patrick Witt’s leadership role and the negotiation dynamics: Mueller post, Terrett post

Context on the House-passed CLARITY Act and Senate progress: House/ Senate negotiations coverage

Progress, trade-offs shape White House discussions on stablecoins and market structure

The third formal session between White House policy staff, crypto executives, and banking lobbyists unfolded as part of a broader push to finalize language for a market-structure bill that would redefine how regulators oversee the crypto sector. The gathering, described as constructive but inconclusive, occurred roughly 16 days after the initial February meeting and followed a second discussion eight days later. A central theme was a proposed compromise that would permit third parties—such as exchanges and other service providers—to offer stablecoin rewards only in relation to transaction activity, not as returns on idle balance holdings. This shift aims to dampen potential incentives for large sums to accumulate in wallets simply to generate yield, a factor cited by banks as a competitive pressure that could distort traditional banking models.

During the talks, participants signaled progress in narrowing differences on language that would codify how stablecoins are treated within the broader regulatory framework. The dynamic highlighted the delicate balance between fostering innovation and maintaining financial stability. In a notable development, the session included representatives from the crypto industry who advocate for reward programs that align with transaction-based engagement, balanced by bankers’ concerns about depositor protection and systemic risk. The discussions also foregrounded the practical role of third-party platforms in delivering stablecoin rewards, a line of inquiry that could influence how wallets, exchanges, and payment rails interoperate under a regulated regime.

On the record, executives from the involved crypto firms described the session as a step forward. After the meeting, Ripple’s chief legal officer offered a succinct update: the teams had “rolled up our sleeves and went through language today,” signaling that specifics were being mapped out in detail. In parallel, Coinbase described the tone as constructive and cooperative, underscoring a shared interest in advancing policy that would provide clarity without stifling innovation. A separate note from the Blockchain Association framed the meeting as a productive progression toward resolving outstanding questions about stablecoin rewards and moving the legislation closer to a vote.

The concessions under discussion would have to survive scrutiny from both chambers of Congress and the White House, given the competing priorities that have characterized crypto regulation for years. A point of friction remains the concept of “idle balance yields” versus activity-based rewards, a distinction that lawmakers and industry participants have wrestled with since early discussions. Semafor’s coverage referenced internal discussions and comments from participants indicating that the debate has shifted toward activity-based incentives, while the idea of earning yield simply from holding stablecoins has been effectively sidelined in the near term.

The banking sector has framed its concerns around competitive pressures more than deposit flight, a nuance echoed by some participants who emphasized that the issue is as much about maintaining a level playing field as about liquidity risk. The broader regulatory conversation includes a separate line of analysis around the potential macro implications of widespread stablecoin use, with Treasury authorities having previously estimated that rapid mass adoption could catalyze significant deployment shifts within the traditional banking system. Those considerations underscore why the White House and lawmakers are approaching the negotiation with both urgency and caution, seeking a policy that can be implemented without triggering abrupt dislocations in financial markets.

Looking ahead, observers expect another round of discussions among banking groups to determine whether the proposed language can gain acceptance. The next steps will likely hinge on a mutual willingness to compromise on the reward structure, as well as a clear signal from lawmakers about how quickly the bill could progress through committee and to a floor vote. The ongoing negotiations illustrate the complexity of delivering a unified U.S. stance on stablecoins—one that accommodates the rapid evolution of digital assets while preserving the oversight and safeguards that underpin the mainstream financial system.

This article was originally published as White House Floats Limited Stablecoin Rewards in 3rd Crypto, Bank Mtg on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

New data from blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs shows illicit actors moved roughly $141 billion through stablecoins in 2025—the highest annual tally in five years. The report, issued this week, cautions that the uptick does not signal a broad acceleration in crypto-enabled crime, but rather a deeper reliance on stablecoins for activity where speed, liquidity, and cross-border movement offer clear operational advantages. The analysis highlights sanctions-linked networks and large-money-movement services as the dominant channels for these flows, underscoring how stablecoins have become a preferred rails for moving value outside traditional financial controls.

According to the TRM study, sanctions-related activity accounted for a staggering 86% of all illicit crypto flows in 2025. Of the $141 billion in stablecoin activity, roughly half—about $72 billion—was tied specifically to a ruble-pegged token known as A7A5, whose operations are almost entirely concentrated within sanctioned ecosystems. The institutional emphasis on these tokens points to a striking trend: stablecoins are not merely a tool for everyday commerce but a specialized infrastructure supporting state-linked evasion and enforcement-evading finance.

Beyond the A7A5 concentration, the report notes that Russian-linked networks intersect with other state-backed ecosystems, including actors connected to China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. In TRM’s words, these findings illuminate how stablecoins have evolved into connective infrastructure for sanctioned actors seeking to move value outside conventional financial controls. This interlocking web raises questions for regulators and financial institutions about how to monitor cross-border flows that ride the rails of stablecoins—even when the majority of legitimate activity remains robust and mainstream.

On the demand side, the report draws attention to the way illicit marketplaces deploy stablecoins in perimeter markets. While scams, ransomware, and hacking still occur, those activities tend to stage their crypto use in multiple steps, often beginning with Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) or other crypto assets, before shifting to stablecoins later in the laundering sequence. The research also identifies categories such as illicit goods and services and human trafficking as showing “near-total stablecoin usage,” suggesting operators prioritize payment certainty and liquidity over potential price appreciation. In practical terms, this means stablecoins provide predictable settlement rails that are less sensitive to price volatility, a feature that illicit networks value highly when moving funds across jurisdictions.

Volume in guarantee marketplaces—digital platforms that facilitate risk-sharing or settlement for illicit services—surged to more than $17 billion by late 2025, with most activity denominated in stablecoins. TRM argues that because roughly 99% of this volume is settled in stablecoins, these platforms function more as laundering infrastructure than speculative venues. The implication is that stablecoins have become a preferred vehicle for moving large sums with speed and liquidity, even if much of the activity occurs outside legitimate markets. The report also notes that the role of stablecoins in such ecosystems is not a sign of crypto’s inherent criminality, but rather a signal about the ways illicit actors adapt to enforcement regimes and capital controls.

Corroborating the broader picture, Chainalysis has previously highlighted a rise in crypto flows to suspected human trafficking networks, reporting an 85% year-over-year increase in 2025. In that analysis, international escort services and prostitution networks were noted to operate almost entirely on stablecoins, reflecting demand for payment certainty in illicit networks as well as a preference for cross-border liquidity. These findings reinforce the TRM Labs assessment that stablecoins serve as the backbone of value transfer for several high-risk activities, even as the sector as a whole remains far larger and more diverse than illicit use patterns would suggest.

From the perspective of scale, TRM Labs observed that total stablecoin activity exceeded $1 trillion in monthly transaction volume on multiple occasions in 2025. By extrapolating from these monthly bursts, the study estimates approximately $12 trillion in annual stablecoin activity, implying illicit use accounts for around 1% of the total. That proportion stands alongside global estimates from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which place money laundering at roughly 2% to 5% of global GDP—an amount roughly in the $800 billion to $2 trillion range. The juxtaposition of these figures underscores a persistent tension: stablecoins are pervasive in legitimate finance while simultaneously enabling sophisticated illicit networks that regulators continue to scrutinize. The findings come amid ongoing policy discussions about how best to balance innovation with robust compliance and risk controls, particularly as sanctions regimes evolve and enforcement benchmarks tighten.

In context, the TRM report adds momentum to a broader industry debate about how to enforce sanctions and combat illicit finance without stifling legitimate use. The intertwining of sanctioned actors with state-linked and non-state networks, as described by TRM, points to the need for enhanced on-chain analytics, cross-border collaboration, and more granular controls on stablecoin issuance and settlement. While the vast majority of stablecoin activity remains legitimate, the visibility of the illicit segment—especially in high-value sanctions-related flows—signals that both policymakers and market participants should pay closer attention to the liquidity and settlement rails that crypto ecosystems have become. The report’s findings are a reminder that, for good or bad, stablecoins occupy a central role in modern finance, shaping how value moves across borders even as regulators adapt to a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Why it matters

The TRM Labs findings illuminate a nuanced reality for crypto markets and policymakers. Stablecoins have matured into a core settlement layer that supports everyday commerce but also serves as a critical infrastructure for illicit finance during sanctions crises. For cryptocurrency exchanges, wallet providers, and fintechs, the report underscores the importance of implementing robust sanctions screening and address-level risk assessments, especially for counterparties with ties to sanctioned economies or gray-market corridors. The concentration of illicit activity in a handful of stablecoins also highlights the need for precise tagging, traceability, and real-time monitoring to deter misuse while preserving legitimate liquidity and cross-border payments.

For regulators, the data underscore the limits of traditional financial controls when confronted with borderless digital rails. The stability and speed of stablecoins offer undeniable advantages for legitimate commerce, remittances, and cross-border trade, but they also create friction for enforcement. The TRM analysis reinforces calls for clearer stablecoin‑related disclosure, standardized compliance frameworks, and international cooperation to address sanctions evasion without inadvertently curbing innovation. Investors and builders can glean that the risk landscape remains dynamic: reputational and regulatory risk around stablecoins can shift rapidly as enforcement priorities evolve and new tools emerge to monitor on-chain behavior.

For users and the broader market, the message is twofold. First, illicit use represents a relatively small share of overall stablecoin activity, but its visibility matters because it intersects with sanctions policy and macroeconomic stability. Second, the events of 2025 demonstrate how quickly stablecoin liquidity can be redirected toward restricted channels when governance gaps or enforcement actions fail to keep pace with innovation. The ongoing dialogue between analytics firms, policymakers, and industry participants will shape how stablecoins evolve—from mere payment rails to potential risk vectors requiring more rigorous risk management and governance standards.

What to watch next

Further methodology updates and breakdowns from TRM Labs detailing which stablecoins and sanction-related corridors dominate illicit flows.

Regulatory responses and enforcement actions tied to sanctioned networks identified in the report, including cross-border cooperation and sanctions-compliance initiatives.

Monitoring of stablecoin issuance and circulation patterns as policymakers consider stricter controls or new compliance requirements for issuers and custodians.

Ongoing research from Chainalysis and other firms on the role of stablecoins in human trafficking networks to assess whether new tracking tools reduce illicit activity over time.

Regulatory developments related to sanctions packages and related crypto-exposure rules in jurisdictions highlighted by the report.

Sources & verification

TRM Labs, Stablecoins at Scale: Broad Adoption and Highly Concentrated Illicit Networks (official blog)

Sanctions-related activity accounted for 86% of illicit crypto flows in 2025 (Cointelegraph article)

Russia-linked networks and the EU sanctions package context (Cointelegraph article)

Tether challenges report on illicit activity involving USDT (Cointelegraph article)

Chainalysis report on crypto use in human trafficking networks

UNODC money laundering overview

Illicit stablecoins: sanctions networks and laundering rails

Illicit actors moved an estimated $141 billion through stablecoins in 2025, reflecting a shift in how sanctioned operations leverage digital rails to bypass traditional financial controls. In the study’s framing, sanctions-related activity dominates the illicit crypto landscape, signaling that enforcement regimes are shaping the channels through which criminal actors move funds. The data show a pronounced concentration around a ruble-pegged stablecoin known as A7A5, with about $72 billion of the total tied to this single asset. This clustering hints at a specialized ecosystem where asset choice aligns with the operational requirements of sanctioned networks, rather than with speculative profit-seeking behavior.

Within this ecosystem, the report highlights networks that blur geographic boundaries—Russia-linked actors intersecting with spheres connected to China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. The analysis underscores how stablecoins have become connective fabric for sanctioned actors seeking to move value beyond conventional controls, reinforcing stability in cross-border transfers while complicating enforcement. In parallel, the data point to a broader pattern: illicit activity in the realm of sanctions and large-scale money movement dominates the illicit use of stablecoins, even as other categories rely increasingly on these digital rails for liquidity and certainty of settlement.

On legitimate terms, stablecoins continue to support a wide range of uses, including remittance and cross-border payments, with total stablecoin activity surpassing $1 trillion in monthly volume on multiple occasions in 2025. If one projects the annual scale, the figure nears $12 trillion, of which the illicit portion—ranging around 1%—belongs to highly regulated, high-risk activity tied to sanctions and related networks. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s own estimates place global money laundering at 2%–5% of GDP, which aligns with the broader recognition that illicit finance persists at scale despite improvements in detection and policing. These numbers collectively illustrate a crypto environment that is large, interconnected, and continually adjusting to enforcement pressures and policy shifts.

The picture is nuanced: the same rails that power legitimate payments and global commerce also offer resilience and speed that illicit actors have learned to exploit. As policymakers and market participants absorb these insights, the path forward involves targeted improvements in monitoring, reporting, and cross-border information sharing to mitigate risk without stifling the legitimate benefits of stablecoins. The ongoing dialogue among analytics firms, regulators, and the crypto industry will shape the contours of stablecoin adoption in the years ahead, balancing innovation with the imperative of robust AML/CFT controls.

This article was originally published as Illicit Stablecoins Reach 5-Year High at $141B in 2025, TRM Labs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kraken’s tokenized equities platform, xStocks, has surpassed $25 billion in total transaction volume in under eight months since its launch, signaling accelerating adoption of tokenized assets among mainstream investors. Kraken disclosed the milestone on Thursday, noting that the figure covers trades executed across both centralized and decentralized venues, as well as minting and redemption activity. The jump represents a 150% increase from the $10 billion milestone reached in November, the point at which xStocks first crossed that threshold. The tokens are issued by Backed Finance, a regulated asset provider delivering 1:1 backed tokenized representations of publicly traded equities and exchange-traded funds, with Kraken serving as a primary distribution and trading venue. Since its 2025 debut, xStocks has expanded to more than 60 tokenized equities, including notable exposures to major U.S. technology leaders such as Amazon, Meta Platforms, Nvidia and Tesla. The momentum in on-chain activity has been a central driver of growth, with on-chain trading volume totaling $3.5 billion and more than 80,000 unique on-chain holders. On-chain trading, conducted directly on public blockchains, offers transparency and self-custody of assets, a contrast to trading confined to centralized exchange order books. The rise in on-chain participation suggests users are not only trading tokenized equities but also integrating them into broader decentralized finance ecosystems. Eight of the 11 largest tokenized equities by unique holder count are now part of the xStocks ecosystem, underscoring its growing market share in this nascent segment.

Key takeaways

xStocks reached $25 billion in total transaction volume within eight months of launch, incorporating centralized, decentralized, minting, and redemption activity, a 150% rise from the $10 billion mark seen in November.

On-chain activity is a major growth driver, with $3.5 billion in on-chain trading volume and more than 80,000 unique on-chain holders to date.

At launch, xStocks offered more than 60 tokenized equities; eight of the 11 largest tokenized equities by holder count are now within the xStocks ecosystem.

Tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) continue to gain traction, with tokenized RWAs up 13.5% in the past 30 days and tokenized stocks reaching a $1.2 billion market capitalization in December.

The structure involves Backed Finance issuing 1:1 backed tokenized representations of publicly traded securities, while Kraken remains a key distribution and trading channel.

Sentiment: Bullish

Market context: The ongoing expansion of tokenized equities fits into a broader trend toward real-world asset tokenization, where liquidity, transparency, and cross-venue settlement are increasingly appealing to investors seeking alternative exposure beyond traditional markets. While the broader crypto market has experienced volatility, demand for tokenized RWAs and on-chain settlement continues to grow, reflecting a diversification dynamic within digital asset ecosystems.

Why it matters

The milestone achieved by xStocks matters for several reasons. First, it demonstrates tangible monetizable traction for tokenized equities in a relatively short window, suggesting that institutions and individual investors are testing the feasibility of on-chain settlement and custody for traditional securities. By reaching $25 billion in total volume, xStocks signals that tokenization is moving beyond a niche experiment toward a scalable model that could reshape how investors access equity exposure. The fact that nine-figure volumes are now a routine attribute of a regulated tokenized product adds a layer of credibility to the broader tokenization narrative.

Second, the architecture underpinning xStocks—where Backed Finance issues 1:1 backed tokenized shares and Kraken provides distribution and liquidity—highlights a credible pathway for regulatory-aligned asset digitization. The 1:1 backing is a key feature designed to address concerns about the legal and financial solidity of tokenized assets, while Kraken’s established trading infrastructure offers a familiar on-ramp for traders who want to access tokenized equities without abandoning traditional market workflows. This combination could help bridge traditional exchanges and on-chain markets, potentially accelerating adoption among both retail and institutional participants.

Third, the on-chain growth underscores a broader DeFi-enabled use case for tokenized equities beyond mere trading. With $3.5 billion in on-chain volume and more than 80,000 unique holders engaging on public blockchains, participants are increasingly integrating tokenized stocks into cross-contract and cross-chain strategies. This points to a maturing ecosystem where tokenized assets intersect with liquidity protocols, lending and yield-generating strategies, and other DeFi innovations. If on-chain participation continues to rise, it could spur new product possibilities — such as on-chain custody solutions, collateralization for loans, or liquidity provisioning keyed to tokenized stock tokens — expanding the utility of tokenized equities beyond price discovery alone.

Lastly, the data showing eight of the 11 largest tokenized equities by holder count being part of xStocks signals meaningful market share gains. It suggests that a core subset of tokenized equities is achieving stronger network effects, attracting more funds and holders, and potentially driving more issuers and asset classes into the tokenization fold. While tokenized RWAs have demonstrated resilience and growth in a challenging market environment, tokenized stocks now appear to be carving out a distinct, investable niche within the broader crypto and digital asset landscape.

The outlook remains contingent on several external factors, including regulatory clarity across jurisdictions and the pace of mainstream adoption. As tokenized assets evolve, observers will be watching for new tokenized equities, expanded custodial and settlement mechanisms, and additional platforms embracing tokenized securities with similar architectures to Backed Finance. The trend toward real-world asset tokenization is not a fleeting one; it represents a structural development in how markets can be accessed and transacted on-chain, potentially altering liquidity dynamics and the composition of investment portfolios for years to come.

What to watch next

Continued growth in on-chain trading volume and the number of unique on-chain holders for xStocks, with a focus on whether momentum persists beyond the current milestone.

Expansion of tokenized equities beyond the initial lineup of more than 60 tokens, including new assets and potential broadened access to additional market segments.

Regulatory developments affecting tokenized securities and standardized on-chain settlement, including any jurisdictional approvals or clarifications that could facilitate broader deployment.

Integration opportunities with DeFi ecosystems, such as enhanced liquidity provision, collateralization options, and new yield-based use cases for tokenized equities.

Sources & verification

Kraken’s public disclosure detailing the $25 billion total transaction volume milestone and the scope of trade types (centralized, decentralized, minting, redemption).

Launch specifics: xStocks initially offered over 60 tokenized equities, including exposure to Amazon, Meta Platforms, Nvidia and Tesla, as cited in the disclosure.

On-chain activity metrics: $3.5 billion in on-chain trading volume and 80,000+ unique on-chain holders as reported by Kraken.

Tokenized RWAs performance: 13.5% growth in tokenized RWAs over 30 days and Token Terminal data indicating tokenized stocks reached a $1.2 billion market cap in December.

Momentum for tokenized equities grows as xStocks hits $25B in total volume

Kraken’s tokenized equities platform, xStocks, has demonstrated unaudited momentum by surpassing $25 billion in total transaction volume less than eight months after launch. The achievement spans a blend of centralised and decentralised trading activity, as well as the minting and redemption of tokenized assets. In a market environment where crypto prices have fluctuated, the acceleration in tokenized equity volumes showcases growing investor curiosity about on-chain settlement, transparent asset representation, and regulated issuance models. The milestone is framed by the fact that xStocks began life in 2025 with a catalogue of more than 60 tokenized equities, a roster that included shares tied to Amazon, Meta Platforms, Nvidia and Tesla, among others.

According to Kraken, the $25 billion figure captures trading that occurs across both traditional exchange venues and decentralized trading channels, reflecting a broader push to digitize publicly traded securities. The platform’s issuer, Backed Finance, provides 1:1 backed representations of the underlying stocks and ETFs, offering a structured path for investors to own tokenized shares with clearly defined backing. Kraken positions itself as a gateway for such instruments, handling distribution and trading while Backed Finance shoulders the task of token issuance and alignment with real-world assets. This arrangement aligns with a growing appetite for regulated tokenized products that can be traded with familiar market mechanics while benefiting from the transparency of blockchain settlement.

On-chain activity has emerged as a major growth lever. With $3.5 billion in on-chain volume and more than 80,000 unique holders interacting with tokenized equities on public blockchains, the ecosystem is differentiating itself from conventional off-chain trading. On-chain participation implies that investors are comfortable with self-custody and direct visibility into transactions, a dynamic that complements the more traditional off-chain trading seen on centralized exchanges. The increased on-chain activity is also indicative of broader market interest in DeFi-native use cases for tokenized assets, including potential liquidity access, programmable settlement, and cross-venue arbitrage opportunities that leverage the transparent, verifiable nature of blockchain records.

Competitive dynamics within tokenized equities become more meaningful as data show eight of the 11 largest tokenized equities by unique holder count now belong to the xStocks ecosystem. This concentration hints at a rising market share within the tokenized equities space, where a core group of assets is attracting a growing community of holders. The development cements xStocks’ role as a leading force in the early-stage tokenization wave, signaling to issuers and investors that there is tangible, scalable demand for tokenized representations of real-world assets.

Beyond the headline numbers, the broader context underscores a market increasingly comfortable with tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). Tokenized RWAs grew by 13.5% in value over the last 30 days, a period when the overall crypto market moved lower by roughly $1 trillion in market capitalization. Market observers have likened tokenized stocks to a potential “stablecoin moment” for asset tokenization—where rapid early adoption leads to widespread acceptance and predictable use cases. Supporting data from Token Terminal shows tokenized stocks reached a market capitalization of about $1.2 billion in December, marking a notable emergence from a period of minimal presence just half a year prior. This trajectory suggests a broadening base of participants and a more robust, diversified ecosystem for tokenized asset products.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This article was originally published as Kraken xStocks Tops $25B in Volume, 80K+ On-Chain Holders on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) faced renewed selling pressure after failing to clear the $71,000 threshold, slipping toward the $66,000 zone that had provided support in the prior days. The move comes as options markets reveal growing caution among professional traders who are paying a premium for downside protection while hedging risk in a mixed macro backdrop. Despite strength in equities and gold, institutional risk appetite appears to have cooled, with market participants scrutinizing potential catalysts for a deeper pullback. Data during the week showed traders defending the $66k line, but buyers did not mount a decisive comeback, leaving the door open to a retest of lower levels. The dynamic underscores a broader tension between bullish sentiment that sparked a recent rally and a risk-off mood that has crept into crypto trading.

Key takeaways

Professional traders are paying a 13% premium for downside protection as Bitcoin struggles to maintain support above $66,000.

While stocks and gold remain resilient, $910 million in Bitcoin ETF outflows since Feb. 11 signal rising institutional caution amid macro uncertainty.

Put options dominated Deribit activity, with bear diagonal spreads, short straddles and short risk reversals among the most traded strategies in the last 48 hours.

The delta skew between put and call options remained unconventionally bearish, suggesting traders are hedging against downside moves rather than betting on immediate upside.

Stablecoin dynamics point to modest outflows, with a 0.2% discount to parity relative to USD/CNY, improving from a prior 1.4% discount.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Negative. A break below key support and persistent hedging pressure hint at further near-term softness for Bitcoin.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold. The market backdrop remains tethered to macro cues and evolving ETF flows, so a cautious stance is warranted until clearer catalysts emerge.

Market context: The narrative surrounding Bitcoin is increasingly entwined with broader liquidity concerns, risk sentiment shifts, and ETF flow dynamics that continue to influence institutional exposure amid a volatile macro environment.

Why it matters

For market participants, the current configuration—soft price ceilings around $71,000 giving way to a test of the lower band near $66,000, alongside a persistent premium on downside hedges—highlights a fragile balance between optimism and risk management. The 13% delta skew in put versus call options signals that professional traders are prioritizing protection over speculative bets, which can compress upside opportunities if selling accelerates. This is not merely a Bitcoin story; it reflects how institutions are sizing risk in a backdrop of mixed signals from equities, precious metals, and cross-asset liquidity conditions.

The ETF backdrop compounds the narrative. With US-listed Bitcoin ETFs recording about $910 million in net outflows since Feb. 11, traders are re-evaluating the appetite of large funds to hold or add exposure through traditional wrappers. While broad U.S. equities and gold have shown resilience, crypto-specific demand appears tempered, underscoring the pace at which macro concerns can seep into digital-asset markets. The dislocation between crypto price action and broader risk assets underscores a broader market mood: crypto remains highly sensitive to capital allocation shifts, even as some macro indicators remain supportive for risk-taking in other sectors.

In this environment, traders are not simply playing for a bounce; they are positioning for a potential downside scenario without incurring significant upfront costs. The behavior of the Deribit order book—where bear diagonals, short straddles, and short risk reversals dominated activity in the last 48 hours—illustrates a risk-off posture that seeks to profit from limited price movement in Bitcoin while capping potential losses if liquidation accelerates. The strategy mix effectively lowers the upfront cost of a bearish bet while exposing traders to the risk of a sharp decline, a combination that speaks to growing caution rather than outright pessimism about a rapid collapse.

Beyond price action, the stablecoin channel offers another lens into market sentiment. A 0.2% discount relative to USD/CNY—versus a neutral 0.5% to 1% premium expected under normal conditions—points to moderate outflows or a cautious stance on offshore capital flows. This dynamic can reflect tighter risk appetite in the near term, even as on-chain activity and other on-ramp/off-ramp metrics present a more nuanced picture. The comparison to a prior 1.4% discount earlier in the week signals a partial stabilization, yet it remains a reminder that stablecoin markets often act as a liquid proxy for risk tolerance amid turbulent conditions.

The ETF dynamic remains central to the narrative. While the broader macro environment has not collapsed, crypto-specific inflows have cooled, suggesting that institutional demand for Bitcoin via exchange-traded vehicles is not currently robust enough to sustain a bullish tilt. In parallel, reference to industry coverage suggests that Bitcoin ETFs still sit on substantial net inflows overall—though not enough to offset the near-term outflows and price softness—highlighting a tension between longer-term demand signals and short-term sentiment shifts.

As the market digests these signals, a key question remains: will Bitcoin defend the $66,000 floor, or will sellers reassert control and push the price toward the next set of targets? The answer may hinge on a confluence of factors, including upcoming options activity, regulatory developments, and macro catalysts that can alter the risk calculus for institutions. In the near term, the balance of evidence points to a cautious posture among traders, with hedges and selective exposure dominating the narrative rather than broad-based buying appetite.

Overall, the current environment underscores the complexity of pricing risk in a market where crypto-specific headlines can swing quickly, while cross-asset indicators offer a more tempered read. The juxtaposition of a resilient stock market and a fragile crypto setup creates a dynamic in which investors may rotate away from high-beta crypto exposure until a clearer catalyst emerges. In this sense, Bitcoin’s fate in the weeks ahead will likely depend as much on external liquidity and macro cues as on internal crypto-specific developments, with options markets acting as a barometer for the evolving risk appetite among sophisticated participants.

What to watch next

Watch Deribit option flows and delta skew in the coming days for signs of renewed hedging or a shift toward riskier bets.

Monitor Bitcoin ETF net flows over the next two weeks to gauge institutional appetite and potential catalysts for price moves.

Track stablecoin market dynamics (premium/discount to USD) as a proxy for offshore risk sentiment and liquidity conditions.

Assess macro catalysts (regulatory developments, inflation data, or Fed commentary) that could reframe risk appetite for crypto assets.

SOURCES & verification

Deribit option activity and delta skew data cited in Laevitas data (bear diagonal spreads, short straddle, short risk reversal as top strategies over the past 48 hours).

Stablecoin premium/discount relative to USD/CNY data (OKX) as an indicator of on-chain/FX-related risk flows.

$910 million in total outflows from US-listed Bitcoin ETFs since Feb. 11; reference to recent ETF flow coverage.

Bitcoin ETF inflow/outflow context and comparisons to gold and the S&P 500 performance as macro backdrop.

Bloomberg report noting that Bitcoin ETFs still sit on $53B in net inflows despite recent outflows (as a broader ETF context).

Bitcoin options reflect risk-off mood as ETF outflows weigh on price

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is moving in a cautious mode as buyers struggle to push through the $71,000 barrier, with the asset testing the lower support near $66,000. The latest data indicates that professional traders are prioritizing downside hedges, evident in the premium paid for put options and the selective use of bearish strategies on Deribit. In a market where equities and bullion have shown resilience, crypto traders appear to be prioritizing risk management over speculative bets, a stance reinforced by notable ETF outflows and a cautious stance toward new positions.

The premium structure in the option market—specifically a 13% put premium relative to calls on a recent trading day—suggests a market not confident in a rapid revival of momentum. This condition aligns with the broader narrative of risk-off sentiment, where hedges are favored as a way to mitigate the potential for a sharper drawdown should volatility spike or macro catalysts disappoint. The existence of bearish formations such as bear diagonals, short straddles, and short risk reversals among the most active trades over the last two days further underscores a cautious posture among institutional participants who are navigating a delicate balance between preserving capital and seeking incremental exposure.

The ETF story adds another layer of nuance. With $910 million in net outflows since Feb. 11, the flow data reflects a degree of institutional hesitation that cannot be fully explained by price alone. While gold and the broader stock market have been robust, crypto-specific demand appears to be cooling, at least in the near term. The divergence between crypto price action and the appetite of large funds to deploy capital in standard wrappers is a telling indicator of how investors are reassessing risk in a landscape where cross-asset liquidity can tighten quickly, especially in times of macro uncertainty.

On stablecoins, a modest 0.2% discount to parity relative to USD/CNY signals a transitional phase in which cross-border liquidity and currency controls influence how capital moves in and out of crypto markets. That said, the improvement from a prior 1.4% discount suggests some stabilization, but it remains to be seen whether this will translate into stronger on-chain demand or simply reflect a temporary reprieve in selling pressure.

For the broader market, the “risk-off but not outright bearish” stance in Bitcoin contrasts with the relative strength seen elsewhere. A comparison of market conditions suggests that the crypto sector remains more reactive to liquidity flows and sentiment shifts than to standalone fundamental catalysts. This dynamic can produce outsized volatility within short windows, even as longer-term macro considerations remain in flux. Investors and traders alike should stay vigilant for any shifts in ETF flows, option activity, or regulatory signals that could reconfigure the risk premium embedded in BTC and related instruments.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Options Market Signals $60K Retest in February on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin is sculpting what could become a five-month red stretch, a pattern that would mark the longest losing run for the largest crypto asset since the 2018 bear market. With BTC down about 15% this month after four consecutive negative closes, traders are weighing whether March might bring a contrarian turn. Data from CoinGlass underscores the current malaise, while some analysts point to historical precedents suggesting a relief rally could follow a protracted drawdown. Yet others caution that the narrative this time could be structurally different, complicating parity between history and the present price action.

Key takeaways

Bitcoin is on its fifth straight red monthly candle, placing it on the longest losing streak since 2018 if the pattern persists into March.

Historical analogs show that multi-month declines have sometimes been followed by substantial rallies, with Milk Road suggesting as much as a 316% gain over the next five months if history repeats.

A potential reversal could begin as early as April 1, according to an analyst-led interpretation of prior cycles.

In 2022, BTC endured four consecutive red quarters, culminating in a 64% annual drawdown and a year-end close near $16,500 after opening near $46,230.

Some market voices argue the current bear market is fundamentally different, pointing to RSI behavior and other indicators that diverge from prior cycles, complicating traditional bottoming expectations.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Neutral. While patterns hint at a possible rebound, no definitive price move is confirmed yet.

Market context: The Bitcoin narrative sits amid a broader backdrop of historic drawdowns, with weekly and quarterly signals suggesting a mixed path ahead. Analysts note that the current bear period may not mirror past cycles, even as the same asset class contends with macro and liquidity dynamics that shape risk appetite across crypto markets.

Why it matters

The persistence of downbeat monthly candles keeps a number of questions at the forefront for investors and builders alike. If Bitcoin’s streak ends in the near term, it could validate a patience-driven approach in a market where volatility remains a defining feature. The potential for a sizable rebound — should the cycle mirror past recoveries — would have implications for institutional engagement, risk management, and the development of on-chain infrastructure that often aligns with price cycles.

From a risk-management perspective, the divergence between monthly patterns and weekly or quarterly signals matters. While a five-month red run would align with the memory of 2018’s late-stage bear, the more nuanced pattern observed in 2022 — four red quarters culminating in a brutal annual drawdown — suggests that the bottoming process can be uneven and drawn out. This nuance is essential for traders who rely on calendar-based expectations, as opposed to a purely price-driven narrative. The discussion around whether the bear is structurally different adds another layer to how market participants interpret leverage, liquidity provisioning, and hedging strategies within the crypto ecosystem.

Analysts emphasize that a bottom is not a singular event but a process that unfolds across multiple timeframes. The contrast between longer, slower-moving monthly candles and shorter, more volatile weekly candles can produce whipsaws or false signals, challenging even seasoned traders. The current discourse also highlights how historical reference points can both illuminate potential paths and mislead when the fundamentals have shifted — for example, the RSI, a widely watched momentum indicator, is said to be at levels that resemble prior bear-market lows, which some observers interpret as either a cap on upside or a prelude to a reversal depending on the broader setup.

In practical terms, this means market participants should remain vigilant for changes in liquidity conditions, risk sentiment, and macro drivers that influence appetite for risk across crypto assets. The evolving narrative around whether this bear is “different” matters not just for price trajectories but for how developers, investors, and miners approach long-horizon planning, supply dynamics, and the deployment of new financial products tied to BTC exposure.

What to watch next

Monitor April 1 as a potential pivot point if the historical pattern repeats, with attention to whether the fifth red month translates into a sustained rebound.

Track weekly candle formations and RSI behavior for signs of a bottom or renewed downside pressure.

Follow commentary around the notion that the current bear cycle is fundamentally different, to assess whether this changes risk management and capital allocation approaches.

Observe any shifts in macro sentiment and liquidity that could influence BTC’s risk-on/risk-off dynamics in the near term.

Sources & verification

CoinGlass data on Bitcoin’s fifth consecutive red month and the 15% monthly decline.

Milk Road analysis and X post citing the potential 316% upside over the next five months if history repeats, with an April 1 timeframe mentioned.

Historical quarterly performance in 2022 showing four red quarters and a 64% annual drawdown, as contextualized by on-chain and price-history analysis.

Analyst commentary noting a potentially different bear market structure in 2026 relative to prior cycles, as discussed by market observers.

Solana Sensei’s chart discussion focusing on Bitcoin’s weekly performance and the persistence of a five-candle streak.

Bitcoin’s latest drawdown and what it changes

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) finds itself at a crossroads as a fifth consecutive monthly red candle looms, a scenario that would mark the longest such streak since the 2018 downturn. CoinGlass’s data frames the cue: BTC has declined around 15% this month after finishing the four preceding months in the red. The most notable parallel in recent history is the 2018 bear, a period that preceded a protracted decline before a multi-times rally years later. This context frames the current debate: are we approaching a traditional bear-market bottom, or is this cycle signaling a new regime with different dynamics?

Within this debate sits a striking counterpoint from Milk Road, which highlighted that prior episodes of extended debits often culminated in powerful rallies. The analysis notes a potential 316% gain in the subsequent five months if the pattern repeats, with an initial pivot anticipated around early April. While such projections draw on historical analogs, they do not guarantee future outcomes, and market participants remain mindful of the speed and scale of moves that can occur in crypto markets. The possibility of a rapid reversal exists, but it is contingent on a confluence of favorable conditions that historically have proven elusive to time with precision.

The 2022 bear period adds another layer of caution. That year, BTC endured four consecutive red quarters, culminating in a total drawdown of roughly 64% as the price collapsed from a starting point near $46,230 to around $16,500 by year-end. The stark difference between that season and the present has led some to question whether history offers a reliable playbook for all cycles. In a broader sense, the bear narrative for 2026 has permeated analysis, with voices warning that a similar stretch could push prices toward new lows if macro and liquidity conditions deteriorate further. One linked discussion even imagines a scenario where the decline might extend below the 15-month support band near $60,000, underscoring the potential for further downside if selling pressure intensifies.

Within the microstructure, weekly performance has drawn the attention of traders as well. A well-known analyst in the space highlighted that Bitcoin printed its fifth consecutive weekly down candle, marking the longest such streak since 2022 and positioning it as the second-longest losing run on record. The 2022 period saw nine red weeks and a descent to around $20,500, illustrating how abrupt and protracted declines can be, even after substantial drawdowns. The interplay of monthly, weekly, and quarterly signals underscores the challenge of diagnosing a bottom with a single timeframe in mind and highlights the risk of misreading the onset of a durable recovery.

Beyond the numbers, a divergence in narrative is shaping market sentiment. Veteran analyst Sykodelic argues that the current bear phase is fundamentally different from earlier cycles, pointing to the monthly RSI having already touched levels associated with prior bear-market lows in 2015 and 2018. The assertion is that the absence of a classic overbought expansion in the bull phase can complicate expectations of symmetric contractions. In other words, traders may be dealing with a regime where the typical playbook fails to capture the full complexity of price action, making caution and disciplined risk management all the more important as the market tests key psychological and technical thresholds.

All of this occurs as broader market narratives evolve around risk tolerance and the appetite for crypto exposure. The tension between potential upside and the risk of renewed downside remains a core feature of the current price environment. For market participants, the central question is whether the repeated red candles are signaling a deeper pattern or simply a fraught interim phase that could resolve in a relatively swift re-pricing if buyers step back in with confidence. The answer will likely hinge on a mix of on-chain signals, liquidity conditions, and macro developments that influence whether BTC can sustain any rally beyond a few weeks or months.

What to watch next

April 1 as a potential inflection point if the historical pattern repeats, with close attention to price action in the days that follow.

Confirmation signals from weekly candles and RSI stabilization, which could indicate a bottoming process even amid ongoing volatility.

Shifts in risk sentiment and liquidity that may tilt BTC toward a risk-on or risk-off regime in the near term.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s record monthly losses; history says a brewing turnaround on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Washington’s ongoing push to align crypto policy with traditional finance took another step as White House officials hosted a second meeting with industry representatives and banking executives to refine a proposed market-structure bill in the U.S. Senate. The talks, aimed at narrowing gaps on stablecoin yields and other guardrails, arrive amid broader efforts to reconcile consumer protections with U.S. competitiveness in crypto innovation. In a Thursday Fox News appearance, Ripple (the company) CEO Brad Garlinghouse said his company’s chief legal officer, Stuart Alderoty, joined White House officials at the discussions earlier in the day. The remarks followed unconfirmed reports that the administration would push ahead with the CLARITY Act, a framework designed to establish a market structure for digital assets, though no deal was announced at the time of reporting. The evolving dialogue underscores the delicate balance lawmakers seek between enabling financial innovation and safeguarding taxpayers and markets.

Key takeaways

White House discussions with crypto and banking representatives continue as lawmakers weigh stablecoin yield provisions and market-structure safeguards.

Ripple’s leadership participated in the talks, signaling high-level interest from the sector in shaping policy deliberations.

The CLARITY Act remains a focal point in Congress, having passed the House earlier in the year but facing delays in the Senate and ongoing committee scrutiny.

Coinbase (EXCHANGE: COIN) CEO Brian Armstrong has publicly challenged certain provisions, arguing they could curb the regulatory role of the CFTC in favor of the SEC and raise concerns about tokenized equities.

Crypto policy advocates described the White House meeting as constructive and aimed at a framework that preserves American competitiveness while protecting consumers.

Tickers mentioned: $COIN

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The discussions sit within a broader regulatory backdrop as lawmakers and agencies navigate the overlap between traditional securities rules and crypto tokens, with market participants watching for signals on how a potential framework may affect liquidity and risk appetite.

Why it matters

The conversations in Washington reflect a policy environment where the United States is attempting to define a national standard for digital assets without stifling innovation. While lawmakers have advanced parts of their market-structure agenda in some committees, others have pressed pause or demanded clarifications. A central tension is how to treat stablecoins and yield mechanisms—areas that could influence capital flows and the attractiveness of the U.S. as a hub for crypto and blockchain experimentation. The involvement of high-profile industry voices, including Ripple’s Alderoty and Coinbase’s Armstrong, signals that the stakeholder community is intent on shaping the legislative design rather than merely reacting to it.

The CLARITY Act has been a cornerstone in this debate. Passed by the House but hampered by delays in the Senate and internal concerns about conflicts of interest and the scope of regulation, the bill’s path forward hinges on finding consensus around DeFi rules, tokenized equities, and stablecoin governance. The ongoing discourse also highlights the role of regulators—specifically the CFTC and the SEC—in delineating authority over different asset classes. As policy debates intensify, market participants are weighing how any forthcoming framework could alter trading venues, custody standards, and the treatment of tokenized assets within investor portfolios.

From a market perspective, the immediate impact of policy discussions tends to be less about dramatic price shifts and more about positioning and expectations. Traders monitor committee schedules, public statements by key figures, and any formal markup dates that could signal a near-term stance or a shift in trajectory. The meetings also underscore a broader operational reality: policy clarity is often valued more than policy speed, as clearer rules can reduce regulatory risk and encourage longer-horizon project development in the crypto economy.

What to watch next

Rescheduling and outcome of the Senate Banking Committee markup on digital asset market structure legislation.

Public commentary from White House crypto advisers and other senior policymakers on the CLARITY Act and related regulations.

Further statements from the private sector, including the participation of major exchanges and industry groups, on provisions affecting stablecoins and tokenized equities.

Any new revelations from meetings hosted at high-profile venues (e.g., discussions linked to industry events or forums) about governance and enforcement expectations.

New official documents or filings that detail how the proposed rules might interact with existing CFTC and SEC authorities.

Sources & verification

Congress.gov — Text of the CLARITY Act and details on its legislative timeline.

YouTube — Brad Garlinghouse Fox News interview referencing Alderoty’s attendance at the White House meeting.

Crypto Council for Innovation — Public statements describing the discussions and their constructive tone.

Cointelegraph coverage — Reporting on the Mar-a-Lago forum and related policy discussions, including sentiment from lawmakers.

Market reaction and key details

The White House’s latest round of talks with cryptocurrency and banking representatives illustrates a persistent drive to harmonize digital-asset policy with traditional financial oversight. The aim is to craft a framework that resists regulatory fragmentation while ensuring robust protections for consumers and market integrity. In a Thursday appearance on Fox News, Ripple (the company) CEO Brad Garlinghouse reiterated that Alderoty attended the White House discussions earlier in the day, signaling the depth of the policy engagement from the industry side. The remarks followed media speculation about how the administration would approach the CLARITY Act—the House-approved package designed to regulate digital assets and present a coherent market structure—now navigating Senate committees and potential amendments.

The CLARITY Act’s journey through Congress has been irregular. After passing the House in July, the bill faced a series of delays in the Senate, with lawmakers weighing provisions that would influence conflicts of interest and extend governance for decentralized finance, tokenized equities, and stablecoins. The evolving legislative signal is that the administration seeks to balance innovation with safeguards rather than rushing to a verdict. In this context, the meeting with White House officials, as described by Crypto Council for Innovation chief Ji Hun Kim, was noted as constructive and aimed at building a framework that preserves American consumer welfare while maintaining competitive edge in global crypto markets.

Meanwhile, the broader legislative calendar remains complex. The Senate Agriculture Committee earlier advanced its own version of a digital-asset market-structure bill in January, a development that underscores the multi-committee path such legislation often travels before markup and potential floor votes. Yet opposition from some industry players has complicated the process. Coinbase (EXCHANGE: COIN) CEO Brian Armstrong publicly challenged certain provisions that would cap rewards on stablecoin holdings and warned that the bill risks weakening the CFTC’s role in favor of the SEC. These concerns illustrate a familiar tension in U.S. policy debates: how to allocate regulatory authority without constraining innovation or market functionality.

As policymakers navigate these issues, the policy discourse has also touched on high-profile gatherings. A private forum at Mar-a-Lago, attended by policymakers and industry representatives, added another layer to the conversation around the CLARITY Act’s prospects. Senator Bernie Moreno, present at the event, suggested that the act could reach a point where it could be signed into law by spring, though the legislative reality remains uncertain given the ongoing committee reviews and potential revisions. The episodic nature of such appearances reflects the evolving, often negotiation-heavy, path that digital-asset policy typically follows in Washington.

Overall, the latest round of meetings and public statements suggests a cautious but forward-looking stance from both policymakers and industry participants. The objective appears to be a framework that discourages harmful practices, clarifies regulatory jurisdiction, and supports responsible innovation in crypto markets—without stifling the capital flows that underpin a growing ecosystem. For investors and builders, the near-term takeaway is to monitor committee calendars, regulatory updates, and official statements from the White House and key agencies for hints about the direction of risk management, disclosure requirements, and the scope of oversight that a forthcoming bill could impose.

Interim guidance and verbatim quotes from executive statements will likely continue to influence sentiment, particularly as the Senate Banking Committee and other panels recalibrate their approach to market structure, stablecoins, and tokenized assets. In the interim, the market context remains one of guarded optimism, with careful attention paid to regulatory clarity as much as to any immediate policy actions. The interplay between public policy, industry feedback, and the practical realities of operating in a highly dynamic crypto landscape will continue to shape liquidity conditions and risk sentiment in the months ahead.

Notes from the coverage and the primary sources referenced above should be verified for any updates to committee schedules, official statements, or new voting outcomes as the legislative process evolves.

This article was originally published as Ripple CEO Confirms White House Meeting With Crypto and Banking Reps on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin has moved into a phase where on-chain metrics and the behavior of larger holders are shaping short- to medium-term risk levels. A freshly published CryptoQuant analysis identifies four key realized-price levels that market participants watch for evidence of a long-term floor or renewed downside pressure, with the nearest line in the sand sitting around $58,700 and another around $54,700. The narrative suggests a fragile balance between momentum and capitulation risk as BTC hovers near critical support zones and as exchange-driven selling cooled after a recent dip near $59,000. In this context, market participants are closely watching how the realized price framework interacts with exchange-derived cost bases, especially on Binance, and how these factors could influence the next leg of the cycle.

Key takeaways

Four key realized-price levels are identified as essential for tracking Bitcoin’s long-term trend, with liquidity pressure and potential support near the 58.7K and 54.7K marks.

Realized price represents the aggregate cost basis of BTC that has moved on-chain, serving as a potential support or resistance zone depending on the direction of price action.

Binance deposit cost basis (UDA RP) sits between the current price and other critical levels, functioning as a near-term safety net in the event of renewed selling pressure.

The share of BTC supply held at an unrealized loss has climbed to the high 40s percentage range, approaching levels not seen since the end of the 2022 bear market, signaling a potential capitulation risk if prices weaken further.

Older and newer whale cost bases provide a spectrum of pressure points: newer whales around $88,700 and older whales near $41,600, with the overall cost basis around $54,700.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Negative. The analysis points to risk of further downside as realized-price barriers are tested and unrealized losses rise among holders.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold

Market context: The market remains sensitive to on-chain signals and macro liquidity trends, with a cautious tone prevailing as investors evaluate long-term cost-basis milestones against current spot prices.

Why it matters

At the core of the discussion is the concept of realized price—the average price at which BTC moved on-chain for a given cohort. This metric can act as a magnet for price actions, especially when the market experiences cascading moves. CryptoQuant’s analyst Burak Kesmeci emphasizes that four realized-price levels are essential for mapping Bitcoin’s trajectory over a prolonged downturn or potential bottom formation. The proximity of these levels to current prices matters not only for immediate liquidity but for the psychology of holders who evaluate whether this cycle is generating a fresh undercurrent of selling pressure or laying the groundwork for a durable base.

Indeed, the analysis points to the Binance UDA RP (the realized-price marker for deposit addresses on the exchange) as a near-term anchor that sits between prevailing prices and the deeper levels identified by longer-term holders. The logic is simple but consequential: once the price dips below a major realized-price threshold, there is historical tendency for price action to retest that marker, potentially triggering further selling that could push BTC toward the lower bound around 58.7K. The quote from the analyst underscores this dynamic: the only substantial support between the current level and the next test of realized price rests near 58.7K, creating a palpable risk of a test of the realized-price framework if price pressure intensifies.

Beyond the price action itself, the data reflect broader supply dynamics. The proportion of BTC supply currently at an unrealized loss has surged to levels not seen since the end of the 2022 bear market. Analysts have highlighted the speed with which this metric has climbed during the latest drawdown, pointing to rapid changes in holders’ on-chain costs as a key indicator of potential capitulation risk. Observers note that, while the extreme losses observed during the last bear cycle dwarfed today’s figures (with historic peaks well above 90,000 BTC in realized losses), the current level is still a meaningful signal that a phase of distribution may have intensified. The combination of elevated unrealized losses and a price break below key realized-price thresholds could increase the probability of a test of major anchors in the days ahead.

The story is nuanced by the behavior of different cohorts on-chain. Newer Bitcoin whales have a buy-in around $88,700, while older, longer-held addresses show a realized price near $41,600. The broad market’s cost basis sits around $54,700, providing a spectrum of pressure points that market participants monitor as price moves unfold. Between the current price and these thresholds lies the Binance UDA RP, creating a near-term focal point for traders who watch whether the market will hold above that line or slide toward the next substantial marker. A line from CryptoQuant summarizes the practical implication: once Bitcoin falls below the New Whales’ cost basis, it has historically tended to test the realized price, and the 58.7K level remains the pivotal buffer between here and that eventual test.

To illustrate the sense of risk, recent exchange-driven momentum has cooled after Bitcoin’s dip from multi-month highs near the $60,000+ zone. Yet the combination of rising unrealized losses and a price structure that now brackets several critical cost bases means the market remains vulnerable to renewed drawdown if buyers fail to reassert demand at or above these anchor points. The on-chain narrative, therefore, remains a crucial prism through which traders assess whether the market is carving out a sustainable floor or merely pausing before another leg lower.

The analysis is not isolated to one metric or one exchange narrative. It sits at the intersection of realized prices, exchange-specific cost bases, and the evolving behavior of large addresses that have shown significant exposure to price swings in recent months. As investors parse the implications of these data points, the broader market context—ranging from liquidity conditions to risk sentiment and macro developments—continues to shape which side of the range the market tests next. In short, the realized-price framework provides a structured lens for understanding where support might emerge and how far the market could fall before buyers re-enter with conviction.

What to watch next

Bitcoin’s price reaction around 58.7K and 54.7K, and whether the market tests those thresholds again in the near term.

Movement in Binance UDA RP: any shifts that indicate a critical mass of deposit-address cost-basis pressure is bearish or bullish for the next leg.

Changes in the composition of unrealized losses across the BTC supply, especially in relation to newly active whales versus older holders.

Updates to CryptoQuant’s Quicktake analyses or similar on-chain signals that might recalibrate the four-key-level framework.

Macro or regulatory developments that could influence risk appetite and liquidity in the broader crypto space.

Sources & verification

CryptoQuant Quicktake by Burak Kesmeci: Bitcoin’s Roadmap to the Bottom — 4 Levels to Watch (link to cryptoquant quicktake).

Cointelegraph discussion on realized price and aggregate cost basis as a market metric (link to aggregate cost basis article).

Cointelegraph coverage of New Whales’ cost basis and related on-chain signals (link to New Whales cost basis article).

Cointelegraph reporting on Bitcoin price action during the February swing lows and peaks near $60,000 (link to Bitcoin rally and derivatives metrics article).

Cointelegraph piece on early 2024 BTC buyers steadying price and the $52K level projection (link to 2024 buyers article).

Market reaction and key details

Bitcoin’s current setup centers on a four-fold realized-price framework that coinside with near-term support considerations, particularly the 58.7K and 54.7K markers. The Binance UDA RP line and the broader realized price for deposit addresses play a decisive role in shaping how the market traverses this zone. Realized losses have climbed, signaling that, even if price action stabilizes, the path toward a durable bottom may require a balance of renewed demand and patience from long-term holders. The pattern aligns with past cycles where downside pressure thins after a bear-market rally, but it also warns that a decisive break below the major anchors could accelerate a testing sequence toward lower support bands. As always, the on-chain narrative remains a critical counterpart to conventional price analysis, contributing to a more nuanced view of where Bitcoin could go next and what investors should monitor as events unfold. (CRYPTO: BTC)

This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s Roadmap to Bottom: $58.7K Hint, Binance Cost Basis Critical on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.