Crypto Breaking

Animoca Brands has secured a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) license from Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), enabling a broader, regulated footprint for crypto activities within the emirate. The license authorizes broker-dealer services and investment management related to virtual assets in Dubai, excluding the Dubai International Financial Centre, and targets institutional and qualified investors. The public record shows the license was issued on Feb. 5, reinforcing Dubai’s ongoing push to formalize digital-asset operations under a clear governance framework. Animoca says the license strengthens its ability to engage with Web3 foundations and global institutions within a well-defined regulatory environment. The move comes as Dubai continues to position itself as a regional hub for regulated crypto activity.

Key takeaways

Animoca Brands obtains a VARA VASP license to offer broker-dealer services and asset-management activities related to virtual assets in Dubai, focused on institutional and qualified investors.

The license excludes the Dubai International Financial Centre, signaling a mainland-and-free-zone approach to oversight under VARA.

The development aligns with Animoca’s broader strategy in Web3, including support for projects such as The Sandbox, Open Campus, and Moca Network, while expanding its investor access in the region.

Dubai has a growing roster of licensed crypto operators, underscoring a deliberate shift toward a regulated, institution-friendly crypto ecosystem in the emirate.

Animoca’s recent activity includes the January acquisition of Somo, integrating playable and tradable digital collectibles into its portfolio.

Market context: Dubai’s VARA framework is part of a broader regional trend toward regulated digital-asset markets within the UAE, with enforcement actions signaling a clear stance against unlicensed activity and marketing breaches. The emirate’s approach contrasts with looser regimes elsewhere, drawing institutional participants seeking compliant environments and predictable governance.

Why it matters

The VARA license marks a meaningful expansion point for Animoca Brands in a market that has openly courted Web3 and blockchain-driven enterprise. By enabling broker-dealer functions and asset-management capabilities under VARA’s oversight, Animoca gains a regulated on-ramp for institutional and qualified investors, potentially accelerating large-scale partnerships and liquidity channels for its portfolio companies. This is particularly relevant as the company maintains a diversified portfolio—encompassing The Sandbox, Open Campus, and Moca Network—while continuing to back early-stage projects that align with its long-term strategy in decentralized ecosystems.

For Dubai, the approval reinforces a deliberate effort to attract structured capital and sophisticated investment strategies into digital-asset ventures. The license depiction in VARA’s public register confirms a formal recognition of Animoca’s operations within the emirate and suggests a framework under which the company can collaborate with Web3 foundations and other international players—an important signal for both developers and financiers looking for regulated access to Dubai’s growing crypto infrastructure.

On the corporate side, the move dovetails with Animoca’s ongoing efforts to broaden its influence in the blockchain space. The company has been expanding its reach through portfolio expansion, strategic acquisitions, and partnerships that blend gaming, digital collectibles, and interoperable ecosystems. The Somo acquisition in January, which added playable and tradable digital collectibles to Animoca’s repertoire, underscores a strategy to combine asset-backed experiences with a regulated, institution-facing platform. This combination could help the firm monetize digital assets through more formalized channels while maintaining its emphasis on creator economies and user-owned ecosystems.

Altogether, the Dubai license positions Animoca at the intersection of regulated finance and Web3 innovation—a space that investors and builders have increasingly prioritized as crypto markets mature. The licensing choice also aligns with a broader UAE narrative of modernization and regulatory clarity, where oversight is paired with a deliberate openness to institutional participation in digital-asset markets.

What to watch next

VARA’s ongoing oversight of licensed entities: continued monitoring of market conduct and compliance expectations for broker-dealer activities in the emirate.

Expansion of Animoca’s regional activities: potential collaborations with Dubai-based institutions and Web3 foundations, and integration of Somo and other assets into regulated product offerings.

Further licensing activity in Dubai: follow-on approvals for additional asset classes or service models, signaling the pace of institutional crypto adoption in the region.

Regulatory alignment within the UAE: broader moves to harmonize crypto frameworks across Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and among allied Gulf markets.

Sources & verification

VARA public register entry for Animoca Brands Middle East Advisory FZCO (license issued Feb. 5)

Animoca Brands announcement: Animoca Brands secures VASP licence from Dubai’s VARA

Animoca Brands expands portfolio with Somo acquisition

BitGo awarded VARA broker-dealer license for its Middle East and North Africa unit

Dubai license expands Animoca’s Web3 footprint

Dubai’s VARA granted Animoca Brands a virtual-asset service provider license that unlocks broker-dealer and investment-management capabilities for virtual assets within the emirate, excluding the Dubai International Financial Centre. The license, officially issued on Feb. 5 and logged in VARA’s public register, opens the door for Animoca to serve institutional and qualified investors under VARA’s supervision. The registry entry confirms the formal scope of permitted activities and marks a notable milestone for a company whose portfolio spans The Sandbox, Open Campus, and Moca Network, along with a broad set of early-stage projects in the blockchain and gaming landscape. In comments accompanying the license, Omar Elassar, Animoca’s managing director for the Middle East and head of global strategic partnerships, described the move as a way to deepen partnerships with Web3 foundations and global institutions within a well-regulated framework.

The Dubai license is part of a broader pattern in which the emirate has actively cultivated regulated pathways for digital assets to foster institutional participation while maintaining oversight. VARA, established in 2022 to regulate asset issuance, trading, and related services across Dubai’s mainland and its free zones, has signaled a firm stance against unregistered activity. The regulator has also been active in enforcement, including financial penalties assessed against entities for unlicensed operations and marketing violations, underscoring the balance Dubai seeks between encouraging innovation and ensuring consumer protection and market integrity.

Animoca Brands’ footprint in the region extends beyond licenses. The company has built a diversified Web3 platform ecosystem that includes The Sandbox, a leading virtual world, along with Open Campus and the Moca Network. These projects are designed to integrate user-generated content, creator economies, and interoperable assets across multiple experiences. The company has also been expanding its investment thesis in digital collectibles and blockchain-based entertainment, backing a wide array of initiatives across the ecosystem.

In January, Animoca expanded its strategic capabilities by acquiring Somo, a gaming and digital-collectibles company, which brought playable and tradable collectibles into Animoca’s asset mix. The acquisition aligns with Animoca’s broader strategy of combining interactive experiences with a regulated, institution-facing platform, potentially enabling new revenue models and liquidity channels for Web3 projects within Dubai’s regulatory framework. While Somo’s integration is ongoing, the deal illustrates how Animoca intends to leverage regulatory access in Dubai to accelerate growth and broaden its reach in the Middle East’s burgeoning crypto market.

As Dubai continues to refine its regulatory approach and attract more institutional players, Animoca’s VARA license stands as a tangible signal of the emirate’s commitment to structured, compliant innovation in digital assets. For industry observers, the development highlights how major Web3 builders are moving toward regulated environments that can support scalable, investor-grade activity while preserving the decentralized and creator-centric ethos at the core of the sector.

This article was originally published as Animoca Brands Wins Dubai Crypto License Expands Middle East Services on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) started 2026 with a steep slide and is on track for a challenging first quarter, echoing patterns seen in prior bear markets. The largest cryptocurrency by market cap has fallen about 22% since January, slipping from roughly $87,700 to the mid-$60k range, with recent prints near $68,000. If that pace holds, Q1 could mark the worst start to a year since the 2018 bear market, when BTC tumbled almost 50%, according to data tracked by CoinGlass. Ether (CRYPTO: ETH), the second-largest asset, has also pushed lower in the year’s early weeks, though its losses have been comparatively milder, aligning with a broader risk-off mood across crypto markets.

Key takeaways

Bitcoin is down roughly 22% year-to-date, trading around $68.6k after opening near $87.7k, signaling entrenched near-term softness.

The first quarter could become the worst since 2018 for BTC, with 2018 data showing a 49.7% quarterly decline according to CoinGlass.

Ether has fared similarly in its own context, with about 34.3% losses in the current Q1—the third-worst start among nine observed first quarters historically.

BTC has posted five straight weeks of losses, including a January drop of around 10.2% and a February trend that remains negative, needing a reversal above $80k to avert further red printing in February.

Analysts describe the move as a routine correction within a longer-term backdrop of rising institutional interest and halving-cycle dynamics, rather than a structural breakdown.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $ETH

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Negative. The price has declined to about $68,670, indicating ongoing downside pressure in the near term.

Market context: The sector remains sensitive to macro headwinds and liquidity conditions, with a focus on how institutional adoption and supply-side cycles could shape a potential rebound later in the year.

Why it matters

From a market structure perspective, the current pullback highlights how crypto assets are trading in a risk-off environment even as macro narratives evolve. Bitcoin’s retreat from the high-70s and into the 60k territory reflects a mix of profit-taking, cautious positioning by retail participants, and a broader test of support levels after a period of elevated volatility. The context matters because BTC’s price level often informs broader risk appetite in the sector, influencing altcoins and the trajectory of liquidity in the ecosystem.

Historically, the first quarter has displayed pronounced volatility for crypto. In 2018, during a brutal bear market, BTC shed almost half of its value within three months, a benchmark often cited by traders and analysts when assessing risk. In 2025 and 2020, Q1 saw notable declines as well, though the magnitude varied. The current quarter’s descent—paired with ETH’s sharp, yet comparatively less severe, slide—appears to align with a broader pattern: macro uncertainties tend to weigh on risk assets early in the year, even as final-year catalysts or structural developments remain in view.

One factor driving the current mood is the perpetual tug-of-war between risk-off sentiment and the long-run thesis for crypto assets. On one hand, institutions have continued to explore exposure and on-chain activity has shown resilience in certain metrics. On the other hand, macro headwinds—rising rates expectations, liquidity considerations, and geopolitical dynamics—can confine upside moves in the near term. In this context, market participants are watching crucial levels to gauge whether the pullback is a temporary correction or the onset of a more protracted downturn.

Within the price action, BTC’s five-week losing streak underscores a persistent near-term weakness. A slide of around 2.3% in the preceding 24 hours, with prices hovering around $68,670 at press time, suggests a market that remains sensitive to any fresh negative catalysts. CoinGecko tracks Bitcoin’s price and confirms the current trading range, reinforcing the view that a meaningful rebound would require catalysts beyond mere technical bounce—potentially including improved macro clarity or a renewed wave of institutional buying interest.

What to watch next

Price level to watch: Whether BTC can reclaim the $80,000 threshold to halt or reverse the February red trend.

Near-term performance: The next weekly closes to determine if the five-week streak of losses ends or extends.

ETH trajectory: Whether Ether’s decline moderates alongside BTC or diverges due to sector-specific catalysts.

Macro and on-chain signals: Monitoring shifts in liquidity conditions, risk sentiment, and any halving-cycle-related dynamics that could bolster a longer-term recovery.

Institutional flow indicators: Any uptick in demand from well-funded participants that could support a sustained move higher once macro conditions stabilize.

Sources & verification

CoinGlass data on Bitcoin’s quarterly performance and historical comparisons to 2018 (bear market) data.

CoinGecko price data confirming BTC around $68k–$69k and daily movement metrics.

LVRG Research commentary from Nick Ruck on BTC’s correctional phase and long-term resilience.

Twitter/X reference to DaanCrypto’s assessment of Q1 volatility and its historical context.

Bitcoin’s Q1 trajectory amid macro headwinds and halving dynamics

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is navigating a challenging start to 2026, with a renewed sense of caution across markets. After opening the year near $87,700, the benchmark asset has ceded roughly a quarter of its value, slipping into the mid-60k zone as headlines about liquidity and policy remain in focus. The decline mirrors patterns seen at the outset of prior downturns, where quarterly losses in the double-digit range have not always translated into a permanent downturn but instead have persisted until a new phase of accumulation takes hold. CoinGlass data help frame the severity: the first quarter of 2018, for example, remains the gold standard for a severe quarterly drawdown in the BTC bear era. The current slide has revived debates about whether the market is entering a longer-term correction or simply testing support before a potential resumption of upside.

Ether (CRYPTO: ETH) is not immune to the broader risk-off tone, though its drawdown has followed a somewhat different cadence. The leading altcoin has faced substantial selling pressure in Q1, with losses that stand at roughly 34% so far this quarter. Historically, ETH has shown red in a minority of its first quarters, but the current figure places it among its harsher starts. The divergence between BTC and ETH’s path underscores the nuanced dynamics within the crypto market, where Bitcoin often drives overall market psychology while the altcoin complex trails in response to sector-specific catalysts and cross-asset risk metrics.

Market observers have pointed to a recurring theme: the first quarter has a reputation for volatility in crypto markets, a fact that traders reference when calibrating risk and exposure. Daan Trades Crypto, an analyst cited in recent commentary, notes that quarterly fluctuations tend to be self-contained at the outset of a given year, and that early-year losses do not always predict how the rest of the year will unfold. Such commentary is supported by a broader body of historical data indicating that while Q1 performance can be harsh, it does not invariably preface a structural market decline, particularly when halving cycles and institutional adoption offer longer-term catalysts.

Current price action places BTC at a crossroads. When prices last crossed into the $70k range, buyers often argued for a swift rebound on improved macro sentiment or renewed liquidity. That level has since yielded to selling pressure, and a sustained breach of price levels around $68k–$69k raises the question of whether the market is undergoing a deeper retracement or simply pausing before the next leg up. For traders and investors, the key remains whether macro signals align with on-chain activity and whether the next set of data points—be it inflation prints, rate expectations, or regulatory developments—could tilt the balance in favor of buyers or sellers over the coming weeks.

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

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Drops 22%: Could Q1 Be the Worst Since 2018? on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy founder Michael Saylor unveiled a plan to convert roughly $6 billion of convertible debt into equity, a move designed to ease balance‑sheet pressure while preserving the firm’s Bitcoin holdings. The company maintains a Bitcoin treasury of about 714,644 BTC, valued at roughly $49 billion at current prices, a substantial cushion for its leverage profile. Equitizing the debt—converting bonds into equity rather than repaying cash—would turn bondholders into shareholders and reduce near‑term debt obligations. The announcement, prompted by a Sunday post on X, followed a public assertion that the plan could withstand a dramatic BTC price drop and still fully cover the debt, a claim the firm made in a message linked to a Saylor post. The news comes as the market contends with sharp volatility and a price environment that has kept BTC trading in a wide range around the high 60,000s.

Key takeaways

Strategy plans to convert about $6 billion of convertible debt into equity, reducing debt exposure without a cash repayment.

The firm’s Bitcoin treasury stands at approximately 714,644 BTC, underpinning the balance sheet with a sizeable asset base worth tens of billions of dollars at current prices.

Bond-to-equity conversion hinges on BTC price sensitivity; the firm argues that BTC would need to fall about 88% for the debt and equity to be equivalent on a value basis.

Equitization could dilute existing shareholders by issuing new stock, though it also eases pressure on cash flow and debt servicing.

The company has continued accumulating BTC, signaling a persistent long‑term thesis even as market prices dip.

Strategy’s stock has fallen roughly 70% from its all‑time high, reflecting broader declines in crypto markets and investor sentiment as BTC fluctuates near $68,000–$70,000.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $MSTR

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Neutral. The described debt conversion is a balance‑sheet adjustment rather than a direct price move.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold. The company is pursuing structural relief through equity issuance while continuing to accumulate BTC, which could support downside protection if BTC stabilizes or recovers.

Market context: The strategy reflects a broader approach among BTC‑heavy firms to balance debt with control over equity issuance, as crypto markets experience episodic volatility and shifting investor risk appetite.

Why it matters

The move to convert debt into equity spotlights a pragmatic path for crypto‑native companies seeking to de‑risk their balance sheets without selling large BTC holdings into a volatile market. If successful, the conversion could limit cash obligations and preserve a strategic BTC reserve that could support future liquidity needs. For investors, the key question is how the equity dilution will affect existing shareholders and whether the new capital structure will provide a clearer path to profitability as BTC remains a cornerstone of Strategy’s balance sheet.

From a market perspective, Strategy’s strategy tests how far a BTC‑backed business can lean on its crypto reserves while weathering price swings and volatility in both digital assets and traditional equity markets. The company contends its BTC hoard provides a robust cushion, even if the price of BTC experiences extended drawdowns. The dynamic between debt relief and equity dilution will be watched closely by investors and analysts, particularly as BTC prices hover in a historically elevated but highly cyclical band and as the broader market evaluates the durability of corporate treasury strategies tied to crypto assets.

What to watch next

Details on the final terms of the debt‑to‑equity conversion, including any changes to voting rights, dilution thresholds, and timing of the issuance.

Any updates to the BTC accumulation program, including changes to the size of the reserve and the cadence of purchases.

Regulatory developments around convertible notes and crypto treasuries that could influence balance‑sheet choices for BTC‑heavy companies.

Further commentary from Michael Saylor or Strategy on future buy signals or treasury strategy, including additional posts on X.

Sources & verification

Strategy’s official posts and remarks on X detailing the debt conversion and BTC holdings.

Historical data on Strategy’s stock price (MSTR) and Bitcoin price data from referenced sources (Google Finance, CoinGecko).

Previously published articles referenced in the original piece about Saylor’s buy signals and prior accumulation episodes.

Strategy’s balance sheet reshaped by a debt-to-equity plan

Strategy’s planned move to convert about $6 billion of convertible debt into equity reflects a deliberate effort to pare back leverage while preserving governance and the strategic advantage of its bitcoin reserves. Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is central to this approach, and the company publicly states that its 714,644 BTC stack creates a substantial cushion that could sustain debt obligations even as market prices swing. The conversion turns creditors into shareholders, realigning incentives with long‑horizon investors who expect the BTC treasury to underpin future growth and liquidity.

From a structural standpoint, the strategy has a double effect. On the one hand, it reduces the near‑term debt load on the balance sheet and eliminates cash interest obligations tied to the convertible notes. On the other hand, it introduces equity dilution, which can dilute existing owners’ ownership and shareholder earnings per share if the new stock issuance expands the float. The firm emphasizes that the conversion would be fully backed by BTC reserves; in other words, the risk on debt coverage remains anchored by the crypto asset base, even if BTC experiences a meaningful price correction.

The financial calculus is anchored to a striking data point: the conversion would effectively require an 88% drop in BTC price for the debt and the resulting equity to be value‑balanced. The math underscores how much the reserve acts as a backstop and also highlights the sensitivity of the plan to BTC’s price trajectory. The firm’s public statements to date suggest that even under severe stress scenarios, the strategy could sustain debt coverage while giving bondholders an ownership stake rather than a cash repayment at maturity, thereby avoiding forced sales in a downturn.

Meanwhile, Strategy has continued to accumulate BTC, a pattern that has persisted through recent market turbulence. The company’s average entry price for Bitcoin sits around $76,000, implying that even with current prices near $68,400, the overall position remains underwater on a cost basis. The ongoing accumulation is part of a broader narrative wherein the company uses its treasury not simply as a reserve but as a cornerstone of its equity‑backed financial stance. The public posts and related coverage indicate a steady cadence of purchases, including mentions of multiple weeks of continued accumulation as BTC price action fluctuates.

Beyond the internal balance‑sheet mechanics, the market response to Strategy’s leadership has been a mix of caution and curiosity. Strategy’s stock (MSTR) has endured a significant drawdown from its all‑time high, illustrating how crypto equities can decouple from the performance of BTC during periods of broad risk aversion. The latest trading, with shares near a fraction of the peak, showcases the tension between a potentially stabilizing balance‑sheet strategy and the market’s perception of dilution risk and growth prospects. As BTC attempted to reattain key levels in late trading and again faced pressure, investors weighed whether the new equity issuance would unlock a clearer path to profitability or simply reset the capital structure without delivering immediate earnings momentum.

The ongoing narrative also intersects with broader market sentiment about crypto treasuries and convertible debt, a topic covered in prior industry discussions. The company’s approach, while tailored to its own assets and obligations, mirrors a broader trend in which BTC‑centric businesses seek structural options to weather cycles of drawdown without sacrificing long‑term exposure to the asset that forms the core of their strategic thesis.

This article was originally published as Saylor’s 3-6 Year Strategy to Equitize Convertible Debt on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Grayscale has filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to convert its Aave-tracking trust into an exchange-traded fund, signaling a continuing push to bring decentralized-finance exposure to mainstream investors. The filing, disclosed via a Form S-1 on February 13, 2026, envisions renaming the vehicle the Grayscale Aave Trust ETF and listing on NYSE Arca under the ticker GAVE, with Coinbase serving as custodian and prime broker. If approved, the product would hold AAVE tokens directly, rather than using a mix of securities and assets. Aave, a cornerstone of DeFi, currently dominates borrowing and lending activity across multiple chains and has drawn sustained investor interest despite broader market softness.

Key takeaways

Grayscale aims to convert its Aave Trust into an NYSE Arca-listed ETF (GAVE) with a 2.5% management fee, and Coinbase would act as custodian and prime broker.

The filing makes Grayscale the second U.S. firm to seek regulatory approval for an ETF tied to AAVE, joining Bitwise in a growing field of altcoin ETFs.

Grayscale would hold AAVE tokens directly in the fund, contrasting with Bitwise’s approach that blends a substantial token stake with traditional securities to track AAVE exposure.

AAVE remains the largest DeFi protocol by total value locked, a lens through which the ETF product could unlock liquidity for users and risk-managed investors alike.

EU-listed products, including 21Shares’ AAVE ETP in Nasdaq Stockholm, illustrate a global appetite for regulated crypto access even as the U.S. market weighs its own framework.

Tickers mentioned: $AAVE

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The push for crypto ETFs persists even as risk sentiment remains cautious in the broader markets. Regulators are scrutinizing novel structures that blend regulated investment vehicles with direct token holdings, a trend that continues to shape the way institutions access DeFi assets.

Why it matters

The Grayscale filing underscores a sustained appetite among traditional market participants to provide regulated access to key crypto rails, particularly in decentralized finance. By proposing to hold AAVE tokens directly, the Grayscale Aave Trust ETF would deliver a relatively simple, token-centric exposure that mirrors the underlying protocol’s on-chain activity. This structure could appeal to investors seeking a transparent, single-asset vehicle that tracks a well-established DeFi protocol without the complexities of a blended equity-and-token approach.

From a market-theory perspective, a direct-token ETF has the potential to increase liquidity and price discovery for AAVE, a token that sits at the core of a multi-chain lending and borrowing ecosystem. AAVE (CRYPTO: AAVE) powers collateralized lending across different networks, and its token economics include staking opportunities that reward participants for securing the platform’s stability. If the fund gains approval, it would provide a familiar, U.S.-listed conduit for macro investors to gain leverage to DeFi yields and protocol growth while mitigating some idiosyncratic risk through ETF mechanics. The decision could also influence how other altcoins are packaged into ETFs, potentially accelerating similar filings across the sector.

The competition landscape is notable. Grayscale is not entering a vacuum; Bitwise currently seeks regulatory clearance for the Bitwise AAVE Strategy ETF, a plan that would allocate up to a majority of assets to AAVE tokens and place a substantial portion in securities linked to the token’s performance. The contrast between Grayscale’s direct-token approach and Bitwise’s mixed-asset strategy highlights a broader debate about how best to structure crypto exposure for institutional portfolios. As the two filings advance, regulators will weigh issues such as custody, liquidity, and investor protection in the context of a market where on-chain activity can diverge from traditional equity markets.

Beyond the United States, the appetite for regulated Aave exposure is evident. In Europe, 21Shares launched an Aave exchange-traded product on Nasdaq Stockholm in November, joining earlier European efforts by Global X in Germany. These products reflect a broader trend of creating accessible, regulated pathways for investors to participate in the DeFi economy without directly managing private keys or navigating on-chain custody. The cross-border momentum matters because it signals that crypto-native products can find distribution channels outside the U.S., even as policymakers refine the domestic framework for crypto-asset ETFs.

From a price perspective, the market has not fully priced in the regulatory drama and potential upside from a US-listed AAVE ETF. The AAVE token has hovered around the mid-$100s, with price swings often reflecting broader crypto market sentiment as well as protocol-specific developments, such as staking mechanics and governance changes. Market data show that the token’s trajectory remains sensitive to both macro risk appetite and the evolving regulatory landscape for crypto funds and custodians.

As this story unfolds, the sector’s growth narrative continues to hinge on clarity from regulators, custody capabilities, and the ability of managers to deliver transparent, liquid products that align with investor expectations. The Grayscale filing does not guarantee approval or listing, but it does reinforce that, even in a downturn, there is continued demand among asset managers to bridge the gap between DeFi innovation and traditional market access.

What to watch next

Regulatory decision on Grayscale’s Form S-1 for the Grayscale Aave Trust ETF, including potential timing for a decision.

NYSE Arca listing logistics and the official launch timeline for GAVE, if approved.

Regulatory progress on Bitwise’s AAVE Strategy ETF and any subsequent outcomes for U.S.-listed altcoin ETFs.

Developments in European AAVE-linked ETFs/ETPs, including any new products or regime changes that affect cross-border distribution.

Market reaction in AAVE pricing and liquidity as ETF chatter intensifies and custody arrangements mature.

Sources & verification

Grayscale’s Form S-1 registration for the Grayscale Aave Trust ETF filed with the SEC (aave-20260213.htm).

Bitwise’s SEC filing for the Bitwise AAVE Strategy ETF.

DefiLlama data confirming Aave’s market position as a leading DeFi protocol with significant TVL.

21Shares’ Aave ETP on Nasdaq Stockholm as an example of Europe’s regulated exposure to the token.

CoinGecko price data for the AAVE token and on-chain activity references used to illustrate the current market context.

Grayscale targets Aave ETF, expanding US access to DeFi exposure

AAVE (CRYPTO: AAVE) has become a focal point in a growing wave of regulated products designed to mirror the performance of decentralized finance assets. Grayscale’s filing with the SEC outlines a structure in which the Grayscale Aave Trust ETF could hold the token directly on its balance sheet. The move—should it clear regulatory hurdles—would place a U.S.-listed, token-backed vehicle alongside existing crypto ETFs and ETPs, potentially broadening the investor base for Aave and the DeFi ecosystem more broadly.

In the current filing framework, the Grayscale vehicle would be listed on NYSE Arca under the symbol GAVE, with a management fee of 2.5% and a custody arrangement described as handled by Coinbase. The direct-token approach contrasts with other ETF strategies that blend token holdings with traditional securities or derivatives to achieve exposure. The difference may matter to fund sponsors and investors alike, particularly around liquidity profiles, redemption mechanics, and custody risk management in a landscape where on-chain activity can precede off-chain valuations.

The regulatory backdrop for a token-backed ETF remains nuanced. While the SEC has shown openness to crypto investment products, it has also emphasized investor protection, disclosure, and custody standards. Grayscale’s S-1 indicates a careful alignment with those expectations, aiming to provide transparent access while maintaining robust safeguards around token custody and exchange mechanisms. The broader market context—where Bitwise is pursuing a similar filing and European issuers have already brought Aave-linked products to market—suggests a multi-regional competition to offer the most liquid and compliant versions of DeFi exposure.

From a product design standpoint, the choice between direct token ownership and a blended allocation represents more than a stylistic preference. Direct token holdings could simplify the fund’s tracking error relative to the underlying asset but require sophisticated custody and liquidity planning. In contrast, a partially token-weighted ETF can diversify risk by incorporating securities linked to the token’s performance, potentially smoothing volatility but introducing tracking complexities. As both Grayscale and Bitwise move through the regulatory process, the evaluation of these trade-offs will inform not just AAVE ETFs, but the future shape of DeFi-focused investment products in the United States.

The evolving narrative around Aave ETFs also intersects with activity on other fronts. Europe’s active ETP pipelines and ongoing discussions about crypto product approvals in the U.S. highlight a broader market interest in regulated crypto access. The Aave ecosystem—where users lend, borrow, and earn yield across multiple blockchains—remains a compelling case study for what “regulated DeFi exposure” could look like in practice. Investors watching the Grayscale filing should consider how direct token exposure compares to more traditional ETF constructs, and what this implies for the future of institutional participation in the DeFi economy.

What to watch next

The SEC’s decision timeline for Grayscale’s Aave Trust ETF filing and any subsequent amendments to the Form S-1.

Timing and logistics for an NYSE Arca listing if the ETF receives regulatory approval.

Regulatory and market updates on Bitwise’s AAVE Strategy ETF and any related product developments.

Regulatory developments in Europe and other regions, where Aave-linked ETPs have already gained traction.

Market reactions to the potential launch, including AAVE price dynamics and liquidity indicators on major exchanges.

This article was originally published as Grayscale to Turn AAVE Trust into ETF on NYSE Arca on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The lack of privacy for on-chain transactions is a core obstacle to mainstream crypto payments. Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao argues that privacy gaps deter businesses from using crypto to settle expenses, including payroll. He highlighted a scenario in which a company paying employees in crypto on-chain could have salary details exposed simply by inspecting sending addresses. The remark underscores a broader debate about whether public ledgers can sustain enterprise-level use without compromising sensitive information. In a separate exchange with Chamath Palihapitiya, host of the All-In Podcast, CZ connected these concerns to physical security, suggesting that transparency could heighten corporate risk even beyond financial data. The conversation comes as privacy-focused narratives—rooted in crypto’s cypherpunk origins—reassert themselves in a landscape where AI and data security add new layers to the discussion.

Key takeaways

The privacy question sits at the center of enterprise crypto adoption, with executives arguing that transparent on-chain activity deters payrolls and other payments.

A concrete example cited by CZ shows how salary information could be inferred from transfer histories, illustrating a tangible risk for corporate use cases.

The revival of cypherpunk values in crypto debates signals a shift toward prioritizing user control over data and resistance to pervasive surveillance on public ledgers.

Industry voices warn that as AI-powered tools become more capable, centralized servers and on-chain data could become more attractive targets for attackers, elevating the need for privacy-preserving technologies.

Policy and product developments around on-chain privacy—alongside pragmatic privacy narratives in media and research—are likely to shape how institutions view crypto as a payments and settlement layer.

Tickers mentioned:

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The privacy debate in crypto intersects with ongoing discussions about regulatory expectations, enterprise data handling, and the evolving threat landscape. As institutions weigh the benefits of programmable money against the risks of exposure, privacy-preserving technologies are entering broader conversations, alongside calls for pragmatic privacy implementations in the industry. The issue sits within a wider trend of renewed Cypherpunk-inspired discourse and a cautious approach to on-chain transparency in corporate contexts.

Why it matters

Privacy is not a niche concern but a practical constraint on the practical use of blockchain technology for everyday business. The payroll example alone illustrates how a lack of on-chain privacy can undermine a core financial function, potentially stalling broader corporate adoption. For enterprises, the risk is twofold: accidental data leakage that reveals payroll structures, vendor relationships, or strategic alliances, and the more subtle threat of data aggregation by adversaries who can piece together a company’s financial health from transaction patterns.

Industry voices emphasize that corporate workflows—trade secrets, supplier networks, and internal budgets—rely on confidentiality even when the underlying infrastructure aims to be transparent. The Kaspa project’s privacy emphasis, echoed in conversations about enterprise adoption, highlights that a meaningful on-chain privacy layer can be a prerequisite for companies to feel safe transacting with crypto as a payment method. As AI systems grow more capable, the ability to infer sensitive information from on-chain activity could become easier, making robust privacy protections not just desirable but necessary for security of business data.

These threads align with a broader narrative about cypherpunk values resurfacing in crypto discourse: the principle that encryption and privacy are foundational to a decentralized, censorship-resistant financial system. The idea that privacy tools can coexist with auditability and compliance is increasingly a focal point for developers building privacy-enhanced protocols and for policymakers considering how to balance innovation with consumer protection. The conversation is not about anonymity at all costs but about ensuring that legitimate users—businesses and individuals—have the ability to shield sensitive data while preserving the integrity of financial ecosystems.

In parallel, industry commentators point to a future in which on-chain privacy becomes a standard part of enterprise-grade crypto infrastructure. This includes recognition that centralized data stores and surveillance risks will attract AI-assisted threats, making privacy technologies a strategic requirement for any organization looking to deploy blockchain-based financial solutions. The discussion is complemented by media and research highlighting pragmatic privacy innovations and the potential for privacy-centric architectures to coexist with regulated, auditable systems. These developments suggest a trajectory where privacy enhancements are not a tech niche but a core governance and risk-management consideration for the crypto economy.

As regulators scrutinize the balance between transparency and confidentiality, the industry is watching for concrete privacy implementations that can satisfy both corporate needs and compliance frameworks. The dialogue around privacy has also gained renewed attention from mainstream voices who emphasize that the absence of privacy could undermine trust and slow adoption, particularly in areas like cross-border payments, supply chain finance, and employee compensation. The culmination of these conversations points to a broader, more nuanced approach to privacy in crypto—one that enables legitimate use while guarding sensitive information from exposure and misuse.

Further reading on related privacy themes includes discussions on the cypherpunk ethos and the evolving privacy landscape in crypto, including analyses of pragmatic privacy strategies and infrastructural approaches to privacy-preserving transactions. For a broader view of where privacy discussions are headed and how they intersect with industry and policy, see discussions on cypherpunk values in crypto, the role of privacy in CBDCs, and analyses of AI’s impact on on-chain data security.

What to watch next

Regulatory and industry acceptance of privacy-preserving on-chain transactions for enterprise use, including payroll and treasurer workflows.

Advancements in privacy-focused protocols and projects, with attention to practical implementations that can meet corporate governance standards.

Analysis of how AI-enabled data analytics could exploit on-chain transparency and what mitigations are being proposed.

Public discourse around cypherpunk values and their influence on product design, governance, and interoperability in crypto networks.

Emerging coverage and research on pragmatic privacy in crypto, highlighting specific case studies and measurable privacy gains.

Sources & verification

Changpeng Zhao’s comments on on-chain privacy and payroll visibility, via his X post: https://x.com/cz_binance/status/2023016538677371079

Cypherpunk values and their place in modern crypto debates: https://cointelegraph.com/news/cypherpunk-values-dying-but-not-dead-yet-show

Ray Dalio on privacy concerns around CBDCs: https://cointelegraph.com/news/zero-privacy-highly-controlled-cbdcs-coming-soon-warns-ray-dalio

Kaspa’s perspective on enterprise privacy and adoption drivers: https://cointelegraph.com/news/institutions-wont-embrace-web3-without-privacy-options-dop-exec

On-chain privacy in the context of AI and security threats: https://cointelegraph.com/news/onchain-privacy-necessity-age-ai-shielded-ceo

Privacy as the missing link for on-chain adoption

The on-chain privacy dilemma is not a theoretical debate but a practical bottleneck that could shape how quickly crypto-based payments move from pilot projects to everyday business operations. CZ’s remarks place a spotlight on concrete use cases—like payroll—where public visibility of transactions may undermine trust and willingness to adopt crypto at scale. The ongoing discussion around cypherpunk principles, combined with rising concerns about data security and AI-enabled threats, suggests that the next phase of crypto development will hinge on privacy-by-default features that preserve confidentiality without sacrificing auditable and compliant frameworks.

Ultimately, the market will look for a balanced path: privacy tools that protect sensitive information, clear governance around data handling, and privacy-preserving infrastructure that supports legitimate business needs. As projects and policymakers continue to test and refine these approaches, the industry’s ability to reconcile transparency with confidentiality could determine whether crypto payments become a mainstream, trusted option for corporate finance and everyday transactions alike.

Further reading on privacy’s role in the crypto era includes explorations of pragmatic privacy implementations and the revival of cypherpunk philosophies in today’s landscape, offering a framework for how technology and policy might converge to empower users while mitigating risk. The conversation remains dynamic, with developments that could redefine what “privacy” means in a decentralized economy and how enterprises securely participate in the programmable money revolution.

This article was originally published as CZ: Lack of On-Chain Privacy Holds Back Crypto Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy, the Bitcoin treasury vehicle co-founded by Michael Saylor, extended its unbroken buying streak to week 12 as the broader crypto market faced renewed volatility. The company has kept up a publicly visible accumulation cadence, signaling a long-term conviction in Bitcoin as a treasury reserve. The latest activity underscores a pattern that has drawn attention across crypto markets, with Saylor using the firm’s accumulation chart on X to communicate pace and scale. The most recent purchase, executed in early February, adds to a balance sheet that already ranks among the largest publicly disclosed BTC reserves. Taken together, Strategy’s holdings have surged to a substantial level, with the firm noting its forthcoming 99th BTC transaction in public messaging, a milestone that has become a hallmark of the strategy’s capital deployment.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has weathered a bear market that began in 2022, and Strategy’s approach has remained steadfast through periods of drawdown. The company’s last publicly disclosed BTC purchase occurred on Feb. 9, when it acquired 1,142 BTC for more than $90 million. That trade lifted Strategy’s total BTC holdings to 714,644 coins, a sizable stake by any measure, with a reported market value in the vicinity of $49.3 billion based on prevailing prices at the time of publication. The accumulation pattern is publicly traceable through Saylor’s social posts and the company’s historical buy chart, which has become a proxy for the pace of Strategy’s purchases and its longer-term thesis around Bitcoin’s role in corporate treasuries. A visual history of these purchases is maintained at SaylorTracker, which aggregates the company’s transaction timeline.

The broader crypto sector, by contrast, has faced notable headwinds. An October flash crash sent BTC tumbling from its peak, along with a wave of selling that left investors wary. The selloff rekindled questions about liquidity, risk appetite, and the ability of large treasury-like entities to weather downturns. In this context, Strategy’s ongoing accumulation stands out as a counterpoint to headlines of market distress. The firm’s trajectory also intersects with debates about the sustainability of crypto treasury models, particularly as some market participants questioned whether large holders would pause or reverse acquisitions during adverse conditions.

Even as it presses forward, Strategy has not been immune to the sector’s broader strains. Earlier this month, the company disclosed a quarterly loss that contrasted with the heavy emphasis on reserve accumulation. The reported Q4 loss of $12.4 billion weighed on the stock, which traded around the mid-$130s after a period of volatility. In the background, traders and analysts watched for how the company would navigate financing and liquidity needs amid broader mNAV dynamics—the premium to net asset value that defines access to capital for crypto treasuries. By September 2025, the standard-bearer peers in the sector had reported mNAV readings below 1 in several cases, signaling heightened scrutiny of balance-sheet backing for crypto holdings. Strategy’s own mNAV movements have mirrored those dynamics, with reported readings dipping toward parity or below, underscoring the financing challenges that accompany a large BTC reserve.

Against this backdrop, Strategy’s strategy of disciplined accumulation continues to attract attention from investors and market observers who view Bitcoin as a long-duration asset class within a corporate treasury context. The company’s public timeline—the ongoing chart that has become a de facto barometer for its buying pace—offers a rare window into how one of the sector’s largest holders approaches accumulation on a sustained basis. The narrative remains particularly compelling given the scale: with more than 700,000 BTC under management, Strategy sits at a level that few corporate treasuries have publicly matched. The company’s public disclosures and the accompanying market commentary from Saylor and his supporters contribute to a broader debate about whether large, disciplined buyers can alter price dynamics or shape sentiment in a fragmented market.

Why it matters

The persistence of Strategy’s BTC purchases matters for multiple reasons. First, it demonstrates a long-term, conviction-driven approach to reserve management that diverges from the more reactive trading styles seen in other crypto market participants. By maintaining weekly or near-weekly additions, the firm effectively reduces the impact of short-term volatility on its decision-making, signaling a belief that Bitcoin can serve as a store of value and a growth driver for its balance sheet over time.

Second, the scale of Strategy’s holdings—together with the accompanying price signals from public buys—has implications for market structure and liquidity. While a single treasury buyer cannot dictate macro prices, a reserve of this magnitude contributes to market depth and acts as a counterbalance to episodes of panic selling. The ongoing accumulation thus interacts with investor sentiment, potentially supporting a slower, steadier price path rather than abrupt, large swings driven by speculative flows alone. This dynamic matters to traders, funds, and other corporations weighing their own treasury strategies in a sector characterized by volatility and evolving regulatory scrutiny.

Third, the broader mNAV narrative—highlighting how the market values crypto treasuries relative to their holdings—frames a conversation about access to financing and growth potential within the space. When mNAV readings stay under 1, financing becomes more expensive and equity issuance can become constrained, which in turn can influence future purchasing capacity. The sector’s health—reflected in earnings, balance-sheet metrics, and regulatory signals—must be weighed alongside performance and market cycles. Strategy’s experience, including its latest quarterly loss and the subsequent price movement, underscores that even a high-conviction accumulator is not immune to macro-driven stress or uneven investor appetite for risk assets.

What to watch next

Strategy’s next BTC purchase and whether the company will confirm a new tranche on its public chart.

Updates on the 99th BTC transaction and any changes to the accumulation cadence communicated by Saylor or Strategy executives.

Monitoring mNAV movements across Strategy and peer treasuries to gauge financing conditions and potential impacts on future purchases.

Reactions to Strategy’s Q4 results, including any strategic pivots, cost-management steps, or capital deployment plans disclosed in forthcoming statements.

Regulatory developments and macro factors that could influence corporate treasury activity in crypto markets.

Sources & verification

Strategy’s February 9 BTC acquisition: 1,142 BTC for more than $90 million, bringing total holdings to 714,644 BTC.

Saylor’s accumulation chart posted on X, signaling ongoing purchases and the plan for the 99th BTC transaction.

SaylorTracker chart history documenting Strategy’s Bitcoin purchases.

Strategy’s Q4 reported loss of $12.4 billion and related market reaction, including the stock price movement.

mNAV discussions and Standard Chartered Bank references to mNAV dynamics within the crypto-treasury sector.

Market reaction and key details

This article was originally published as Michael Saylor Signals Another Bitcoin Buy Amid Market Rout on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is approaching what on-chain researchers describe as an undervalued zone for the first time in more than three years, according to CryptoQuant’s latest data. The market-value-to-realized-value (MVRV) ratio, a classic gauge of whether Bitcoin is fairly valued relative to the price at which the supply last moved, has moved toward a breakeven point after a months-long downtrend that followed an October 2025 all-time high. Last week’s price action saw BTC dip below $60,000, a level that has framed the market’s sentiment and testing of support in recent cycles. With the MVRV metric hovering near 1.1, analysts say the asset is edging into territory that historically accompanies accumulation and potential reversal, though they caution that no single indicator guarantees a bottom.

Key takeaways

The MVRV ratio is approaching its key breakeven threshold for the first time in more than three years, signaling a potential move toward undervaluation.

CryptoQuant data show the MVRV reading around 1.1, the lowest since March 2023 when Bitcoin was trading near $20,000.

Analysts emphasize that when MVRV dips below 1, Bitcoin tends to be undervalued; the current reading sits above that level but within a range historically tied to bottoms or near-bottom conditions.

The two-year rolling Z-score of the MVRV ratio has recently reached historic lows, a pattern some traders compare to prior bear-market bottoms, suggesting accumulation dynamics may be forming.

Past commentary notes that the Downdraft since the October 2025 peak has not featured a rapid ascent into an overvalued zone, a nuance that could differentiate this cycle’s bottom formation from earlier ones.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Market context: On-chain signals come as Bitcoin experiences a multi-quarter consolidation after a new all-time high, with traders watching MVRV and Z-score metrics alongside price levels around $60,000. The combination of shifting on-chain signals and macro risk sentiment will likely influence whether the current downtrend resumes or a broader accumulation phase takes hold.

Why it matters

On-chain metrics like MVRV provide a lens into the psychological and behavioral underpinnings of Bitcoin’s price action. When the market value to realized value ratio approaches breakeven, commentators interpret it as a potential signal that the supply-weighted cost basis is, on average, becoming cheaper relative to current market prices. CryptoQuant contributors have highlighted that Bitcoin’s MVRV ratio hovered around 1.13 after Bitcoin’s dip below the $60,000 level last week—the lowest print since March 2023, when BTC traded near $20,000. That backdrop matters because it frames a broader narrative: the asset may be transitioning from a drawdown phase into a period where long-term holders could be stepping in at historically favorable levels.

“Generally, when the MVRV ratio falls below 1, Bitcoin is regarded as undervalued. At present, the indicator stands at around 1.1, suggesting that price levels are nearing the undervaluation range.”

CryptoQuant’s analysis emphasizes that the current reading should be interpreted in the context of a four-month downtrend that followed Bitcoin’s October 2025 peak. The team notes that the market did not experience a sharp move into an obviously overvalued zone during the most recent bull cycle, a nuance that could influence how traders interpret the “bottom formation” narrative this time around. The research argues that such a structural difference could mean the eventual bottom may form gradually rather than through a sudden capitulation event—a scenario that has implications for long-term investors and risk teams evaluating exposure.

“The current Z-Score of $BTC is lower than during the bear market bottom in 2015, 2018, COVID crash 2020 and 2022,”

commented Michaël van de Poppe, a well-known trader and analyst, underscoring how the present configuration differs from prior cycles. In another update, CryptoQuant contributor GugaOnChain used a separate Z-score iteration to characterize BTC/USD as being in a “capitulation zone,” a reading that some interpret as an early stage of accumulation pressure forming behind the scenes. The analyst framed the takeaway as an invitation to consider the bottom could be forged in the current environment rather than simply waiting for a textbook capitulation event to materialize.

“The indicator suggests that we are approaching the historical accumulation phase,”

GugaOnChain wrote, adding that the statistical deviation captured by the Z-score points to opportunity rather than imminent disaster. While the language is nuanced, the consensus in these on-chain circles is that Bitcoin’s downside risk may be increasingly limited as long-term holders show willingness to accumulate near these levels.

What to watch next

Track the MVRV ratio for a breakeven shift toward or below 1.0, which historically signals stronger undervaluation periods or a local bottom formation.

Monitor the two-year rolling Z-score trajectory for a sustained move away from capitulation readings toward accumulation-style behavior.

Observe Bitcoin price action around key support zones, particularly a continued hold above $60,000 and any subsequent retests that could validate the on-chain narrative.

Look for corroborating on-chain signals, such as realized-cap data and transaction-flow metrics, that would reinforce a shift from distribution to accumulation.

Sources & verification

CryptoQuant analysis on Bitcoin’s MVRV ratio and the “undervalued” zone hypothesis.

CryptoQuant commentary on Z-score readings and capitulation-zone signals for BTC/USD.

Cointelegraph coverage of Bitcoin’s price action, including the recent dip below $60,000 and prior bear-market analyses referenced in related on-chain pieces.

Historical context from on-chain reporting on prior cycle bottoms (2015, 2018, 2020, 2022) and the 2023 regime when MVRV prints below 1.

Bitcoin’s on-chain signals point toward undervaluation and potential bottom formation

Bitcoin’s current on-chain narrative centers on a delicate balance between valuation signals and price action. The MVRV ratio, long used to gauge whether market prices are aligned with realized on-chain cost bases, has begun to test a breakeven threshold after a prolonged downtrend. The latest reads show MVRV around 1.1, a level that CryptoQuant contributors describe as edging into an undervaluation zone. This is especially notable given that the most recent weekly close saw BTC slip under the $60,000 mark, a psychological line that has acted as both a magnet and a ceiling in various market regimes. The juxtaposition of a price discipline around key levels with an MVRV metric that says, metaphorically, “value is being accumulated near the current prices,” fuels a nuanced debate on whether a lasting bottom is imminent or whether further consolidation is necessary before a durable uptrend can resume. (CRYPTO: BTC)

CryptoQuant researchers emphasize that when MVRV falls below 1, the signal is a cleaner undervaluation flag. While the current approximation sits around 1.1 rather than 1.0, the interpretation remains constructive: price levels could reflect a rising probability of longer-term value attraction. The last time MVRV explicitly dipped below 1 was at the start of 2023, when BTC traded around $20,000. The comparison underscores that the present cycle has delivered a different flavor of bottoming dynamics, one that may unfold more gradually than in prior cycles. The source notes that the peak-to-trough structure of the current drawdown did not send the market into a textbook overvalued regime, which broadens the set of possible scenarios around the eventual bottom and subsequent recovery.

“Generally, when the MVRV ratio falls below 1, Bitcoin is regarded as undervalued. At present, the indicator stands at around 1.1, suggesting that price levels are nearing the undervaluation range.”

Beyond the MVRV signal, the market is attuned to the behavior of another metric set—the Z-scores that measure how far current values diverge from historical patterns. In two-year windows, the MVRV Z-score has dipped to an all-time low in several instances, a pattern analysts say mirrors the kinds of bottoming behavior seen in previous cycles. Michaël van de Poppe has highlighted that the current Z-score is lower than what was observed at major bear-market bottoms in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022, though no single metric guarantees an outcome. A different analyst, GugaOnChain, has used an alternate Z-score variant to characterize BTC/USD as being in a capitulation zone—an environment that often precedes accumulation-driven rebounds. The underlying message is that the bottom formation, if it is underway, could be a more drawn-out process than in some historical episodes, with on-chain dynamics providing nuance that price charts alone might miss.

These signals come at a time when the broader market is listening closely to on-chain data instead of relying solely on momentum-driven narratives. The combination of a price dip to sub-60k levels and a valuation framework that points toward undervaluation is generating renewed interest among long-term holders who recall similar cycles in which the real value of Bitcoin begins to assert itself well before a definitive price breakout appears on traditional charts. In this light, the discussion shifts from whether a bottom exists to how convincingly the current readings could translate into a sustainable reversal once the cycle completes its consolidation phase. The narrative remains contingent on a confluence of factors, including future price action, on-chain flows, and macro risks that continue to shape risk appetite across the crypto ecosystem.

The analysis, while nuanced, reinforces a cautious yet curious stance among observers: the market may be near a critical juncture where valuation signals begin to align with price stability and eventual demand. As ever, the caution remains that on-chain indicators offer probabilities, not certainties, and that a range of outcomes remains plausible depending on how external forces evolve in the weeks ahead.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin: Most Undervalued Since March 2023 at $20K, BTC Price Metric on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Passing the CLARITY crypto market structure bill could lift sentiment amid a broad downturn, according to United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In a CNBC interview, he described the bill’s stall as a drag on industry morale, noting that clarity on the framework would provide a much-needed anchor for investors and incumbents alike. He emphasized that moving the legislation forward quickly—ideally by spring, in the window between late March and late June—could set the tone for a more predictable regulatory environment as the political landscape shifts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Bessent warned that congressional dynamics, particularly the potential rebalancing of control in the House, will influence the odds of a deal becoming law.

“In a time when we are having one of these historically volatile sell-offs, I think some clarity on the CLARITY bill would give great comfort to the market, and we could move forward from there.”

In a time when we are having one of these historically volatile sell-offs, I think some clarity on the CLARITY bill would give great comfort to the market, and we could move forward from there.

I think if the Democrats were to take the House, which is far from my best case, then the prospects of getting a deal done will just fall apart,” Bessent continued. The Treasury secretary stressed that legislative motion on the bill should come “as soon as possible” and be sent to President Trump for signature within the spring window—an interval spanning roughly late March to late June—given the potential shift in political power during the 2026 midterms.

The broader discourse around the CLARITY Act has intersected with a series of policy conversations and industry concerns. White House officials had previously met with crypto and banking representatives to discuss stablecoins and market structure, signaling continued interest at the intersection of finance and regulation. The ongoing dialogue underscores the sensitivity of policy timing to electoral dynamics and the need for a credible legislative path to reduce uncertainty for participants across the ecosystem.

The 2026 midterm elections could throw a wrench in Trump’s crypto agenda

The balance of power in Washington often shifts during midterm years, a dynamic that former Magic Eden general counsel Joe Doll highlighted to Cointelegraph. The possibility that the House could tilt away from the current alignment injects additional risk into the policy calculus surrounding crypto-friendly reforms. Economic thinker Ray Dalio noted in January that a two-year window of political mandate could be undermined by a midterm verdict and the ensuing renegotiation of policy directions. If crypto-friendly principles are not codified into law, such political shifts could reverse the policy trajectories pursued during the administration. In the current landscape, the Republican Party holds a slim four-seat majority in the House (218-214), a distribution that means even narrow election outcomes could alter the calculus for reform.

Market watchers have also looked to prediction markets for a sense of how the midterms might unfold. Polymarket’s odds for the balance of power in 2026 project a split Congress as a plausible outcome (about 47%), with a Democratic sweep ranking at roughly 37% at the time of analysis. Those probabilities reflect the high degree of uncertainty that markets assign to policy continuity in crypto regulations, particularly if control of Congress remains contested. The numbers serve as a reminder that political risk remains a material variable for investors and firms navigating the regulatory landscape.

Sources and official references linked in coverage show that the policy conversation around the CLARITY Act is not happening in a vacuum. Reporting on the legislative posture, and the broader market implications, has drawn on remarks and analyses across major outlets and industry analyses, including coverage of the CLARITY Act’s political and market ramifications. The conversation also touches on the regulatory reception to stablecoins and market structure reforms, as seen in related reporting on White House discussions between regulators and industry participants.

As the discourse evolves, the question for market participants is how swiftly a clarified framework could be translated into enforceable rules and practical risk-management practices—without stifling innovation. A sooner movement toward clarity could reduce the anxiety that accompanies regulatory ambiguity, potentially supporting liquidity and risk appetite in a sector that has faced repeated bouts of volatility. But even with a clearer path to law, the degree to which the legislation aligns with the broader political project, and whether it endures through midterm shifts, will influence its effectiveness as a stabilizing force.

In this environment, the CLARITY bill stands out as a focal point where regulatory ambition meets political reality. The coming weeks and months will reveal whether the administration and lawmakers can reach a compromise that satisfies both investor protections and innovation-friendly constraints. The timing is tight: spring is traditionally the window for signature opportunities ahead of the new political cycle, and any delay could heighten the uncertainty that currently weighs on market sentiment.

The broader takeaway is that policy clarity matters more than ever when markets confront major volatility, and the next steps on the CLARITY Act could influence how the crypto sector allocates capital, builds infrastructure, and negotiates with traditional financial regulators. As the discussion continues, observers will be watching whether the administration can translate political will into a durable framework that supports both consumer protection and industry growth, while also accommodating the diverse interests that shape crypto policy in the United States.

What to watch next

Progress of the CLARITY Act through congressional committees, with a focus on timing for floor action in the 2026 session.

Any new White House statements or regulatory signals related to stablecoins and market structure reforms.

Updates from key political actors as the 2026 midterms approach, including potential shifts in House control.

Public commentary from major industry leaders and economists on the bill’s potential impact on liquidity and investor confidence.

New polling or market-implied probabilities from prediction markets reflecting policy trajectory and election outcomes.

Sources & verification

CNBC interview with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent discussing the CLARITY bill and its potential impact (video, February 13, 2026).

Crypto industry policy discussions and market structure debates referenced in Cointelegraph coverage on the CLARITY Act (Crypto industry split over clarity act).

Cointelegraph reporting on White House discussions with crypto and banking reps about stablecoins and market structure (White House officials meeting market structure bill).

Discussion of the 2026 US midterm balance of power and its implications for crypto policy (The balance of power typically shifts).

Polymarket odds for the 2026 midterms and the likelihood of a split government (Polymarket: Balance of power 2026 midterms).

US House data detailing party breakdown in the 118th Congress (data: pressgallery.house.gov).

Policy clarity could steer crypto markets through volatility ahead of 2026 midterms

The latest commentary from Treasury leadership underscores how regulatory clarity on the CLARITY Act is seen as a potential antidote to a period of heightened volatility in crypto markets. By framing a clear regulatory path, advocates argue it could ease caution among traders, reduce some of the overhang created by policy ambiguity, and possibly encourage more risk-taking in regulated venues. The argument is not merely about speed; it is about providing a stable, predictable framework that can accompany innovation rather than constrain it.

From a market dynamics standpoint, the timing is delicate. If the bill is advanced and signed into law ahead of the 2026 elections, industry participants hope for a period of relative policy continuity that could support capital formation and advanced product development. Conversely, a drawn-out process or a policy reversal in the wake of a midterm shift could reintroduce uncertainty, complicating executives’ investment theses and potentially altering capital flows across crypto markets and related financial instruments.

Ultimately, the CLARITY Act sits at the intersection of market structure discussions, consumer protection considerations, and the political calendar. The next steps will be telling: will policymakers align on a pragmatic framework that reduces risk without stifling innovation, or will partisan dynamics push reform onto a longer timeline? As observers weigh the odds of a spring signature, the industry remains focused on the broader trajectory of regulation, and on how that trajectory could influence liquidity, product development, and the appetite for regulated crypto ventures in a market that continues to grapple with volatility and regulatory ambiguity.

This article was originally published as Says Bessent: Crypto Sentiment Set to Rise After CLARITY Act Passes on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A new Amberdata analysis suggests that a niche DeFi token linked to the Trump family may have warned markets of stress well ahead of a broader crypto downturn. The study examines activity around World Liberty Financial Token (WLFI) on Oct. 10, 2025, a day when roughly $6.93 billion in leveraged crypto positions were liquidated within an hour. On the same day, Bitcoin and Ether moved decisively lower, with smaller altcoins bearing heavier losses. At the time, Bitcoin was hovering near $121,000, showing limited immediate stress, while WLFI exhibited a pronounced decline hours before the wider market sell-off began to unfold.

The Amberdata report, available here, investigates how WLFI’s unusual price and liquidity dynamics interacted with the rest of the market as tariff news circulates in the political arena. The exploration follows a market episode in which macro headlines translated into rapid, asset-specific reactions, highlighting how a single instrument can behave as a bellwether in a highly leveraged crypto ecosystem.

“A five-hour lead time is hard to dismiss as coincidence,” said Mike Marshall, the analyst who authored the work. “That duration is what separates a genuinely actionable warning from a statistical artefact.” The study emphasizes that this signal is not a claim of insider trading but an observation about how the architecture of crypto markets can amplify the relevance of smaller, highly leveraged tokens when headline-driven stress hits liquidity chains.

WLFI anomalies before the selloff

Researchers focused on three telltale patterns that contrasted WLFI with the broader market: a surge in trading activity, a divergence from Bitcoin, and extreme leverage. WLFI’s hourly volume spiked to roughly $474 million, about 21.7 times its normal level, within minutes of tariff-related political news. At the same time, funding rates on WLFI perpetual futures climbed to about 2.87% every eight hours, translating to an annualized borrowing cost near 131%. These indicators fed into a narrative that the token was disproportionately sensitive to stress, even as the rest of the market looked comparatively placid shortly before the wave of liquidations hit.

The study does not assert insider knowledge or illicit trading; rather, it argues that the market structure can magnify the impact of asset-specific signals. One striking observation was WLFI’s holder base, which appears concentrated among politically connected participants, unlike the widely distributed ownership seen in Bitcoin. Marshall described the pattern as “instrument-specific,” with activity concentrated primarily in WLFI rather than across the crypto complex.

Timing mattered. The data show volume acceleration occurring roughly three minutes after public tariff headlines spilled into the market. Marshall notes that such rapid movement points to prepared execution rather than a collective, retail interpretation of headlines in real time. The implication, for researchers and market participants, is that under particular regulatory or geopolitical moments, an asset with high leverage and a tight, politically connected user base can become a pressure point in a broader liquidation cascade.

Another facet of the analysis ties WLFI’s stress to the mechanics of crypto collateral. In many trading venues, traders pledge a range of assets as collateral for borrowed positions. When WLFI’s price declined sharply, the value of those collateral pools fell, prompting forced liquidations of holdings like Bitcoin and Ether (CRYPTO: BTC, CRYPTO: ETH) to meet margin calls. In a market already under strain, those liquidations can amplify selling pressure across the broader ecosystem, pushing prices lower and triggering a wider selloff in a short span of time.

While WLFI’s decline appeared to precede the broader market’s weakness, Amberdata’s analysis stresses that the link is not deterministic. The report cautions against overinterpreting a single event as a predictive blueprint. Still, the authors argue that the episode offers a compelling glimpse into how leverage, asset-specific dynamics, and headline-driven liquidity shocks can interact in ways that amplify risk for other assets.

“If this were superior analysis (sophisticated participants reading the tariff headlines faster and drawing better conclusions) you’d expect to see that reflected more broadly,” Marshall said. “What we actually saw was concentrated activity in WLFI first.” The timing underscores a broader theme in crypto markets: signal concentration can precede systemic moves, at least in certain stress scenarios.

WLFI’s role in a market-wide cascade

Amberdata’s contemporaneous measurements indicate that WLFI’s realized volatility surged to levels nearly eight times those of Bitcoin during the stressed period, underscoring how sensitive highly leveraged assets can become when macro news hits. The researchers emphasize that such patterns do not necessarily predict downturns in a universal sense; instead, they can reveal how micro-architecture—structure of leverage, liquidity distribution, and collateralization—can produce early stress signals within a single instrument that eventually feeds into broader market dynamics.

From the perspective of risk managers and traders, the WLFI episode offers a cautionary note about risk concentration and cross-asset contagion. The fact that perimeter assets with concentrated ownership and high leverage can falter first means that monitoring instrument-specific signals may help identify pockets of fragility before they cascade. It also highlights the importance of robust margin and collateral frameworks that can absorb sudden shifts without triggering a rapid domino effect across correlated assets such as BTC and ETH.

Beyond the immediate market mechanics, the report sits at the intersection of policy headlines and digital asset pricing. The per-minute reaction time to tariff news illustrated how quickly information can translate into liquidity discipline—especially for assets that exist in a tight governance loop and are used as collateral in high-leverage positions. In a space where liquidity conditions can change in minutes, observers say the WLFI episode demonstrates why market participants must consider asset-level dynamics as a potential early warning tool, even if it does not guarantee predictive accuracy in every case.

Researchers acknowledge that WLFI’s linkage to the broader market depends on a confluence of factors—headline risk, macro policy signals, and the health of the DeFi ecosystem. The study’s broader implication is not that WLFI alone can forecast downturns; rather, it highlights how ecosystem fragility—driven by leverage, concentrated ownership, and instrument-specific behavior—can materialize in ways that precede shared downturns. As the crypto market continues to evolve, such signals may become an integral part of risk dashboards for sophisticated traders and institutions alike.

In a landscape where large-cap assets often dominate liquidity analyses, this episode serves as a reminder that smaller tokens with outsized leverage and targeted holder bases can temporarily steer attention toward systemic risk factors that would otherwise remain hidden. The question for market participants is whether these signals can be corroborated through additional data sets and repeated across multiple events, a task that will require more observations and longer time horizons to confirm transferability.

For now, Amberdata’s report remains a compelling case study in market microstructure: a single instrument with a distinctive balance of leverage and concentration can illuminate how stress travels through a network of collateralized positions, triggering liquidations that ripple through the broader market. As regulators and participants weigh the implications, the WLFI episode underscores the ongoing need for transparent data and robust risk controls in a crypto ecosystem that remains vulnerable to headline-driven shocks.

What to watch next

Whether the WLFI signal can be replicated across other event windows or markets, and how often such lead times occur in future stress scenarios.

Any regulatory or investigative developments related to WLFI, including disclosures about its holdings and governance structure.

Shifts in liquidity provision and margin requirements on major derivative platforms amid geopolitical headlines.

Further research from data providers validating instrument-specific stress signals and their predictive value for market-wide liquidations.

Sources & verification

Amberdata, “coincidence or signal: did WLFI telegraph cryptos’ $6.93B meltdown?” (Oct. 2025) and related data on WLFI activity around Oct. 10, 2025.

Cointelegraph, coverage of the Oct. 10, 2025 market crash and leveraged liquidations linked to tariff headlines.

Senators request probe into WLFI stake and related governance questions (UAE-linked stake in WLFI).

Reports on WLFI plans for foreign exchange and remittance platforms, highlighting the token’s evolving governance footprint.

Market signal and the WLFI episode: what it means for investors and the ecosystem

This article was originally published as Study Suggests WLFI Could Act as an Early Warning Signal for Crypto on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin traders welcomed a softer-than-expected US CPI print as inflation cooled, helping the cryptocurrency nudge above the $69,000 level on Friday. The move rekindled hopes for a short-term recovery after a period of consolidation near key technical zones. Market participants are watching whether bulls can clear a stubborn resistance band around $68,000 to $70,000, with several analysts outlining a potential path to higher targets if the price can establish a base above critical support near $65,000. The latest price action comes amid a broader market backdrop characterized by fluctuating risk appetite, liquidity dynamics, and ongoing discussion about the role of exchange-traded products in crypto exposure.

Key takeaways

Traders anticipate a relief rally for BTC in the near term, contingent on clearing the $68,000–$70,000 resistance zone.

A confirmed hold of $65,000–$66,000 could pave the way for a squeeze toward higher levels, with some strategists pointing to a potential move toward $72,000 if momentum sustains.

Analysts describe a pattern suggesting the possibility of a short-term bounce, followed by attention to liquidity clusters that could amplify moves near major price walls around $75,000–$80,000.

Key moving averages around the current price action—specifically the 20-period EMA near $67,500 and the long-established 200-week EMA near $68,000—feature prominently in discussions of potential breakout setups.

Market breadth remains sensitive to macro data, ETF flows, and liquidity shifts, which could influence how BTC navigates the next price ceilings and support floors.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold. Near-term momentum hinges on reclaiming the $68,000 level and sustaining a push above resistance to re-energize a broader upside thesis.

Market context: The price action sits at the intersection of macro cooling inflation, ongoing liquidity considerations, and crypto-specific ETF discourse. As traders parse fresh CPI data, attention remains on how institutional flows and retail positioning will influence BTC’s short-term trajectory within the context of evolving risk sentiment and regulatory discussions.

Why it matters

Bitcoin’s recent move above the $69,000 mark underscores the market’s sensitivity to macro signals and its willingness to test established technical levels. A successful breakout beyond the $68,000–$70,000 band would be interpreted by many observers as an incremental sign of renewed buying pressure, potentially signaling the start of a broader recovery phase from the backdrop of recent volatility. The interplay between upward price action and liquidity conditions is central to whether the move can be sustained or is likely to stall at the next liquidity cluster.

Analysts have highlighted a confluence of technical indicators that could shape the near-term path. A rising potential is suggested by patterns observed on shorter timeframes, including the notion that a break above resistance could reawaken the momentum needed to test higher targets. Yet the narrative is balanced by warnings about the risks of a deeper correction if key supports fail to hold. The 20-period EMA and the 200-week EMA are cited as important reference points that could influence the speed and magnitude of any rebound, particularly if price re-tests test the lower bands near $65,000–$66,000.

From a broader market perspective, liquidity dynamics and the prospect of ETF-related flows continue to weigh on Bitcoin’s short-term direction. Traders monitor order-book depth and liquidation risk around critical price thresholds, as activity around $75,000–$80,000 has historically formed meaningful liquidity walls. In this environment, even a modest shift in risk appetite or a fresh catalyst could trigger rapid moves as participants adjust positions in anticipation of the next major swing.

What to watch next

Watch for a decisive daily close above $68,000 to confirm a bullish breakout trajectory toward the $72,000 neckline level.

Should BTC reclaim the $70,000 mark, monitor price action for signs of acceleration toward the $72,000–$76,000 zone and beyond to the 50-day SMA near $85,000.

Keep an eye on liquidity clusters around $75,000–$80,000, where a crowding of bids and asks could trigger a squeeze if breached.

Observe bids near $65,000 and the corresponding asks around $68,000; revisiting these levels could be a prerequisite for renewed upside momentum or a testing ground for stronger support.

Follow macro and ETF-flow developments, as shifts in risk sentiment driven by regulatory developments or institutional demand can influence the pace of BTC’s advance.

Sources & verification

BTC price action around $69,000 on the backdrop of cooler US CPI data and the referenced resistance zone near $68,000–$70,000.

Public posts from market observers on X (formerly Twitter) noting resistance levels and potential continuation patterns.

CoinGlass liquidity heatmap indicating walls near $75,000 and $80,000 and liquidation risk around key price zones.

Analyses citing the significance of the 20-period EMA near $67,500 and the 200-week EMA near $68,000 in guiding near-term moves.

Chart references from TradingView illustrating the one-hour and two-day perspectives on BTC price structure.

Market reaction and near-term setup

Bitcoin is approaching a pivotal juncture as traders weigh the impact of softer inflation prints against the persistence of macro headwinds. In the near term, a break above the $68,000 resistance line would be interpreted as a signal that bulls are regaining control after a period of consolidation. If that breakout strengthens, the narrative leans toward a move toward $72,000, a level that previous analyses have associated with a potential shift in momentum. The idea of a short squeeze—where short positions are forced to cover as prices rise—gains plausibility if the price can push beyond the immediate hurdle and clear liquidity walls just above $75,000 to $80,000. The risk remains that if the market fails to sustain above $68,000, or slips back toward $65,000–$66,000, the scenario could transition into a more pronounced corrective phase.

From a technical vantage point, BTC’s price action has been described as exhibiting a V-shaped recovery on certain four-hour timeframes, suggesting that the move could be swift if momentum holds. Traders are closely watching the interaction with the 20-period EMA and the 200-week EMA, two benchmarks that often correlate with transition points between ranges and breakouts. A sustained hold above these benchmarks would reinforce a more constructive outlook, while failure to do so could invite renewed selling pressure in the short run. The narrative remains data-driven, with macro signals continuing to shape expectations for how the market will respond to incoming data and policy cues.

In addition to price dynamics, liquidity considerations are relevant for auditing risk and potential volatility. The presence of concentrated bid and ask clusters around specific levels—such as near $65,000 and $68,000—suggests that order-flow dynamics could play a central role in determining whether BTC can press higher or retreat. If the market revisits the $65,000 area and buyers re-emerge, there is a plausible path for a return to the higher side of the spectrum; conversely, if bids fail to hold, the resulting liquidity gaps could accelerate a correction. Traders and researchers will likely focus on how real-time liquidity conditions align with price action to gauge the durability of any rallies.

What happened previously and what to monitor next

Historical context from recent weeks shows that BTC has repeatedly attempted to mount a sustained breakout, only to encounter resistance near meaningful price levels. The pattern analysis suggests that if the price can cement a foothold above the $68,000 zone, there is room for a move toward the $72,000 neckline and potentially higher toward the $76,000–$85,000 range, where the dynamic of moving averages could come into play. Market participants should remain vigilant for shifts in ETF activity and macro data, which historically have driven outsized moves relative to intra-day volatility. The crypto market continues to navigate a complex web of technical levels, liquidity constraints, and evolving regulatory considerations, all of which shape the probability of a sustained rally or a renewed pullback in the weeks ahead.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Could Reach $72K If V-Shaped Recovery Pattern Completes on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Mirae Asset Consulting, an affiliate of South Korea’s Mirae Asset Group, is moving to take control of local crypto exchange Korbit. In a regulatory filing, the company agreed to acquire 26.9 million Korbit shares for 133.48 billion won, roughly $93 million, securing a 92.06% ownership stake in the exchange. The purchase will be paid entirely in cash, and the deal has the board’s approval as of February 5. Completion is expected within seven business days after all contractual closing conditions are satisfied, underscoring a rapid move to consolidate a regulated digital-asset business within Korea’s evolving crypto infrastructure. The filing notes Mirae Asset intends to secure future growth drivers through digital-asset (virtual-asset) businesses.

Key takeaways

Mirae Asset Consulting agrees to buy 26.9 million Korbit shares for 133.48 billion won, gaining about 92.06% ownership in the exchange, with cash as the payment method.

The acquisition received board approval on February 5, and is slated to close within seven business days after contractual closing conditions are satisfied.

Korbit’s current ownership structure includes about 60.5% held by NXC and Simple Capital Futures, with SK Square owning roughly 31.5%.

Korbit reported 8.7 billion won in revenue and 9.8 billion won in net profit in its latest fiscal year, reversing prior losses.

The exchange operates with a full license and established compliance infrastructure, potentially making it an attractive vehicle for a financial group seeking regulated exposure to digital assets.

Tickers mentioned:

Market context: The deal unfolds within Korea’s tightly regulated crypto landscape, where Upbit and Bithumb dominate daily trading volumes, and Korbit remains a smaller player by comparison. Data cited by CoinGecko shows Korbit’s roughly $59.9 million in 24-hour trading activity versus Upbit’s about $2.16 billion and Bithumb’s around $1.36 billion. The transaction signals ongoing consolidation among domestic exchanges as traditional financial groups pursue regulated access to digital-asset markets.

Market context: The broader environment in Korea has long featured a push toward licensed operations and stronger compliance frameworks, with regulators scrutinizing promotions and business practices in the sector. The move by a major asset manager to take control of a licensed exchange aligns with a broader trend of institutional players seeking regulated exposure to crypto markets rather than unregistered platforms.

Why it matters

The planned acquisition marks a notable shift in Korea’s crypto ecosystem, illustrating how conventional financial groups are intensifying their strategic bets on digital-asset infrastructure. Mirae Asset’s intention to leverage Korbit’s established license and compliance capabilities could accelerate the exchange’s product, risk controls, and customer onboarding processes, potentially translating into stronger operating leverage for the platform as part of a larger asset-management and fintech ecosystem.

For Korbit, the deal provides a clear path to liquidity and alignment with a major financial conglomerate, potentially enabling enhanced interoperability with traditional banking channels and institutional-grade custody solutions. The company’s reported 8.7 billion won in revenue and 9.8 billion won in net profit in its most recent fiscal year reflect a profitability trajectory that may have attracted Mirae Asset’s interest in expanding regulated, scalable digital-asset services. Korbit’s ownership structure—where NXC and Simple Capital Futures hold a majority stake alongside SK Square—suggests a transition moment that could reshape the exchange’s governance and strategic direction under new majority ownership.

From a market perspective, the deal emphasizes the continuing maturation of Korea’s crypto market, where licensed venues like Korbit coexist with larger platforms and regulatory scrutiny. The emphasis on a cash deal and rapid closing also signals a preference for definitive, trustee-like control structures to manage risk and ensure a swift integration path for regulatory-compliant digital-asset activities. As regulatory expectations evolve, the success of Mirae Asset’s investment could hinge on how smoothly Korbit can integrate into a broader digital-asset strategy and how it adapts to evolving compliance standards and product requirements.

What to watch next

The contractual closing conditions must be satisfied, with settlement anticipated within seven business days after those requirements are met.

The integration of Korbit into Mirae Asset’s digital-asset framework and any organizational changes at the exchange.

Regulatory confirmations or conditions that may accompany the closing process and any post-merger compliance reviews.

Sources & verification

DART filing: rcpNo=20260213002679, detailing the cash acquisition and ownership thesis.

Korbit’s financials: revenue of 8.7 billion won and net profit of 9.8 billion won in the latest fiscal year.

Korbit ownership: NXC and Simple Capital Futures ~60.5%, SK Square ~31.5%.

Trading volume context: Upbit (~$2.16 billion) and Bithumb (~$1.36 billion) in 24-hour activity; Korbit ~ $59.9 million, per CoinGecko data.

What the move means for Korea’s crypto landscape

Mirae Asset’s Korbit bet signals a broader push into regulated crypto markets

The transaction represents a decisive step in the ongoing consolidation of Korea’s digital-asset infrastructure, where license and compliance play a critical role in determining strategic value. Mirae Asset’s cash offer and rapid cadence may set a precedent for other traditional financial groups evaluating similar moves, especially those seeking to bolster exposure to regulated crypto ecosystems without bearing the full operational burden of building a compliant platform from scratch. As the ecosystem evolves, Korbit’s improved access to Mirae Asset’s capital and infrastructure could translate into more robust risk controls, enhanced product offerings, and greater interoperability with mainstream financial services.

In the near term, stakeholders will be watching how Korbit navigates post-acquisition governance, how the integration aligns with Mirae Asset’s broader digital-asset strategy, and whether the deal serves as a catalyst for other exchanges to pursue strategic partnerships or consolidations. For investors and users, the development underscores the ongoing transition of crypto services from scrappy startups to regulated, institution-friendly platforms—an arc that could influence liquidity, product quality, and regulatory clarity across Korea’s crypto market.

This article was originally published as Mirae Asset to Buy 92% Stake in Korbit for $93M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Two US senators pressed the Treasury Department to examine a UAE-backed investment into World Liberty Financial (WLFI), citing potential national security and data privacy concerns. In a Friday letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Elizabeth Warren and Andy Kim urged the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to determine whether a formal review is warranted into a deal in which a UAE-backed investment vehicle would acquire about 49% of WLFI for roughly $500 million. The arrangement, disclosed days before Donald Trump’s inauguration, would make the foreign investor WLFI’s largest shareholder and its lone publicly known outside investor. The disclosures tie the funding to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan and include governance seats for executives linked to the technology firm G42, which has previously drawn scrutiny from U.S. intelligence agencies over potential ties to China.

Key takeaways

The senators have asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who chairs CFIUS, to assess whether the foreign stake should trigger a formal CFIUS investigation, with a response deadline tied to March 5.

The deal would grant a UAE-backed fund a 49% stake in WLFI for about $500 million, positioning the investor as WLFI’s largest shareholder and its only publicly disclosed non-U.S. investor, and it would involve two WLFI board seats held by executives connected to G42.

Officials tied the investment to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser, raising concerns about foreign influence over a U.S. company handling financial and personal data.

WLFI’s disclosed data practices include wallet addresses, IP addresses, device identifiers, approximate location data, and certain identity records through service providers—factors that intensify national-security considerations if a foreign government gains access or influence.

Previous inquiries linked WLFI’s token sales to sanctioned or otherwise problematic actors, underscoring ongoing scrutiny of the firm’s governance and funding channels.

Tickers mentioned: $WLFI

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The episode sits within a broader regulatory backdrop in which U.S. authorities are closely examining foreign involvement in fintech, crypto, and data-centric companies, with CFIUS and other agencies increasingly scrutinizing deals that could expose Americans’ sensitive information to non-U.S. entities.

Why it matters

The inquiry highlights a growing tension between ambitious cross-border fintech investments and national-security safeguards. WLFI’s stake sale to a foreign investor—reportedly tied to a figure who serves as the UAE’s national security adviser—touches on questions about how foreign influence could translate into practical control over a U.S. company handling financial data and personal identifiers. The senators’ letter emphasizes that WLFI’s privacy disclosures include data types that could be valuable for both commercial and security purposes, including wallet addresses, IP addresses, device identifiers and location signals collected via service providers. If CFIUS were to determine that foreign access to this information poses a risk, it could lead to remedies ranging from structural changes to divestment or blocking the transaction.

The timing is notable. The deal’s trajectory reportedly unfolded in the period surrounding the transition into the early days of the Trump administration, a moment that further complicates oversight of foreign involvement in U.S. tech and financial platforms. The letter asks for a comprehensive, unbiased assessment, signaling that the matter could become a touchpoint in ongoing debates about foreign capital, data sovereignty, and the boundaries of U.S. national-security review in the digital era.

Meanwhile, WLFI’s governance and fundraising activity have drawn attention from lawmakers who previously raised concerns about the company’s token sales. In a separate thread, senators highlighted alleged connections between WLFI token economics and actors under sanctions or other sensitive watchlists, underscoring the potential for governance risks in a project that straddles traditional finance and blockchain-enabled remittance or exchange services. The convergence of crypto-oriented fundraising with established corporate governance raises practical questions about how future regulatory reviews will treat blended business models and cross-border capital flows.

What to watch next

CFIUS response: Look for a formal reply from Bessent by the March 5 deadline and any indication of whether a full or targeted review will be initiated.

Notifications and disclosures: Monitor whether WLFI or the UAE investor issues additional disclosures or amendments related to the stake, governance seats, or data handling practices.

Governance dynamics: Track updates on WLFI’s board composition and whether the involvement of G42-linked executives persists or evolves in response to regulatory scrutiny.

Regulatory actions: Observe any further actions from U.S. authorities regarding WLFI’s token sales or related governance tokens, and any comparable reviews of foreign investments in fintech platforms.

Sources & verification

Letter to Bessent requesting CFIUS review (PDF): https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_bessent_re_cfius_wlf.pdf

Report on UAE-backed investment in WLFI and Trump-linked connections: https://cointelegraph.com/news/uae-backed-firm-buys-49-percent-trump-linked-world-liberty-wsj

November 2023 inquiry into WLFI token sales and potential sanctions connections: https://cointelegraph.com/news/senators-trump-linked-wlfi-national-security-threat

Trump denial of involvement in WLFI stake: https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-denies-involvement-500m-uae-wlfi-stake

UAE-backed WLFI stake triggers CFIUS review over data access and security

A federal inquiry into a United Arab Emirates–backed investment in World Liberty Financial (WLFI) has surged into focus for U.S. national-security authorities. In a Friday letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Andy Kim request a formal assessment by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to determine whether the arrangement warrants a comprehensive review. The deal contemplates a UAE-backed investment vehicle acquiring roughly 49% of WLFI for about $500 million, a stake that would position the foreign fund as WLFI’s largest shareholder and sole outside investor currently disclosed. The outside investor’s ties to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser, and the allocation of two WLFI board seats to executives linked to the tech company G42, have attracted scrutiny from lawmakers who emphasize potential foreign influence over sensitive data streams and corporate governance.

The core concern centers on data control and access. WLFI’s disclosed privacy practices indicate that the company collects a spectrum of user data, including wallet addresses, IP addresses, device identifiers and approximate location data, as well as certain identity records obtained through service providers. Warren and Kim argue that such data, if controlled by a foreign government, could be leveraged to influence business decisions or gain strategic insight into American consumers’ financial behaviors. For CFIUS, this represents a classic national-security calculus: do the benefits of foreign investment outweigh the risk of sensitive information flowing beyond U.S. borders or under foreign influence?

The lawmakers’ letter notes that CFIUS’s remit includes evaluating foreign investments that could provide access to sensitive technologies or personal data belonging to U.S. citizens. They request a response by March 5 and advocate for a “comprehensive, thorough, and unbiased” review if warranted. The request follows a pattern of heightened scrutiny of foreign involvement in crypto and fintech ventures—a trend that has intensified as policymakers balance economic openness with the imperative to protect personal data and national security. The situation intertwines elements of geopolitical risk, data privacy, and the evolving regulatory framework governing digital assets and fintech platforms.

Earlier in the year, Warren and Reed also pressed authorities to investigate WLFI’s token sales amid allegations of connections to sanctioned actors, including claims that governance tokens were acquired by addresses associated with the Lazarus Group and other entities linked to Russia and Iran. While those claims remain contested and subject to ongoing debate, they underscore the broader context in which WLFI operates—where tokenization, remittance services, and crypto governance intersect with complex international exposure.

As WLFI and its backers navigate this regulatory landscape, the public record continues to evolve. President Trump, in separate remarks, has indicated that his family is handling the matter and that he does not have direct involvement in the investment. “My sons are handling that — my family is handling it,” he stated, adding that investments come from various individuals. The evolving narrative highlights how political dynamics can intersect with fintech ventures that straddle traditional financial services and blockchain-based offerings, raising questions about transparency, governance, and the safeguards that shield U.S. data from foreign influence.

This article was originally published as Senators urge Bessent to probe $500M UAE stake in Trump-linked WLFI on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Rising concerns about quantum threats to Bitcoin have captured the attention of institutions and veteran investors. In a recent appearance on the Bits and Bips podcast, venture capitalist Nic Carter warned that large holders might grow impatient with developers if action on quantum-resistant cryptography stalls, potentially triggering governance shifts. He argued that a slow pace could prompt major players to replace core contributors with new teams more willing to push forward a solution. The debate centers on risk management, control, and the pace of change at a time when the network remains one of the largest, publicly verifiable assets in the world.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is reported to hold around 761,801 BTC, valued at roughly $50.15 billion at publication, accounting for about 3.62% of the circulating supply. The sheer scale of institutional exposure highlights why the question of security upgrades and governance is no longer purely academic. Carter’s provocative framing asks what happens if a consent-based, volunteer-driven development model cannot keep up with the demands of major participants. “If you’re BlackRock and you have billions of dollars of client assets in this thing and its problems aren’t being addressed, what choice do you have?” he asked during the discussion.

That framing has sparked a broader debate within the industry about whether Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is approaching a tipping point where governance dynamics could shift under institutional pressure. The discussion comes amid a wider conversation about the timing and feasibility of upgrading the network’s cryptographic foundations to resist quantum attacks, a threat some researchers say could become material within the next decade, while others contend the risk is overstated or manageable with incremental steps.

Key takeaways

Institutional stakeholders are explicitly weighing governance and development tempo in response to potential quantum threats to Bitcoin’s security model.

A number of prominent investors and commentators see the risk as real enough to spur calls for faster action or even new development leadership if progress stalls.

One of the largest holders, BlackRock, adds a practical layer of pressure, given the scale of capital that could influence upgrade decisions and strategy for the Bitcoin network.

The industry remains divided: some argue the threat is existential and immediate, while others say the concern is theoretical and can be mitigated through measured research and gradual hardening.

Proposals and discussions around quantum-resistant cryptography are entering mainstream crypto discourse, with researchers pointing to tangible, albeit gradual, paths forward.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Market context: The conversation around quantum risk sits alongside ongoing debates about protocol upgrades, risk management by institutional holders, and the role of governance in a decentralized-but-institutionally-influenced ecosystem. As markets monitor liquidity, macro cues, and regulatory signals, the quantum-resilience question adds a new layer to how investors assess Bitcoin’s security posture and future upgrade trajectories.

Why it matters

The potential for quantum computing to undermine current cryptographic protections touches every layer of Bitcoin—from wallets and transaction verification to the very assumptions underpinning its security model. If the network’s cryptography were shown to be vulnerable, large institutions with significant BTC exposure could demand faster progress toward quantum-resistant schemes, or even push for changes in who controls core development. That possibility — sometimes described as a “corporate takeover” of the upgrade process — would represent a shift in how decentralized networks interact with centralized capital markets and risk managers. Proponents of swifter action argue that delaying a secure upgrade could amplify systemic risk, while skeptics caution against hasty changes that might fracture consensus or introduce new vulnerabilities.

A number of voices in the industry have weighed in on the urgency and feasibility of addressing quantum threats. Austin Campbell, founder of Zero Knowledge Consulting, echoed concerns that if a structural problem exists and large players maintain a long view, they will eventually demand reform or louder participation from the governance and development community. In parallel, other industry figures emphasize a more measured approach, warning against overreaction and highlighting the resilience of Bitcoin’s current security margin. Carter’s assertions that a rapid, market-driven shift could occur if developers don’t move quickly enough contrast with more conservative analyses that quantify the actual exposure and the practical timelines for cryptanalytic breakthroughs.

On the other side of the debate, proponents of the status quo point to long-term research cycles, the complexity of hard-fork upgrades, and the importance of broad consensus across a decentralized ecosystem. They note that a handful of publicized vulnerabilities do not automatically translate into imminent risk and that the path to quantum resilience will likely involve multiple layers of defense, from protocol changes to key management practices and architectural diversification. Notably, researchers at CoinShares and others have sought to quantify risk by examining the number of BTC addresses with vulnerable keys and the distribution of assets among holders, offering a more nuanced picture than headlines alone. This spectrum of views helps explain why the conversation remains contentious rather than resolved.

The market backdrop adds further texture to the debate. Bitcoin’s price action has been volatile in recent weeks, trading near the $70,000 mark at the time of reporting after a period of drawdown. This macro context — combined with an evolving risk appetite among institutional buyers — can influence how quickly stakeholders push for any technical changes. If the quantum risk becomes perceived as a credible, near-term threat, capital flows could shift toward safer hedges or more robust security architectures, potentially affecting liquidity, volatility, and the calculus around new product structures that rely on Bitcoin’s security model.

The tension between urgency and caution also reflects the broader governance challenge that applies to many decentralized networks: when and how to upgrade cryptography in a way that preserves security while maintaining broad participation and network integrity. The debate is not purely academic; it implicates who steers development, how funding is allocated, and what kinds of governance tests are acceptable for a system that prizes decentralization as a foundational principle. As institutions increasingly intersect with Bitcoin’s technical frontier, the next steps—whether they involve formal proposals, research milestones, or new collaboration mechanisms—will be watched closely by miners, custodians, and everyday holders alike.

What to watch next

Progress updates on quantum-resistant cryptography proposals within Bitcoin development discussions and any related roadmap milestones.

Public statements or filings from major institutions referenced in discussions, including BlackRock’s involvement or commentary on Bitcoin governance and security upgrades.

Any new research quantifying quantum risk, particularly metrics around vulnerable keys and potential attack surfaces in exposed wallets.

Emerging viewpoints from prominent figures in the space who advocate for faster or slower adoption of quantum-resilience measures and their rationale.

Sources & verification

BlackRock’s BTC holdings and value reference on iShares Bitcoin Trust page.

CoinShares research outlining the quantum vulnerability landscape for Bitcoin and the count of vulnerable addresses.

Bitcoin price data and 30-day performance cited by CoinMarketCap.

Remarks from Nic Carter on the Bits and Bips podcast and related discussion threads on X (Twitter).

Quantum risk, governance and the future of Bitcoin

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) sits at the center of a fraught debate about how quickly the network should respond to the looming threat of quantum computing. In the Bits and Bips discussion, Nic Carter framed a scenario where institutions with billions of dollars at stake could lose patience with a dev community perceived as dragging its feet on a critical upgrade. He warned that the gatekeepers of capital might push for a reconfiguration of development leadership, arguing that “the corporate takeover” could become a practical reality if cryptographic progress remains slow. The assertion is provocative, but it highlights a real tension: the need to balance rapid risk mitigation with the safeguards that come from broad, consensus-driven protocol evolution.

BlackRock’s reported stake in BTC amplifies the significance of this tension. With around 761,801 BTC behind a $50.15 billion position, the firm’s exposure underscores why governance and upgrade decisions in Bitcoin become questions with market-wide consequences. The argument that institutions might actively influence the upgrade path rests not on ideological appeal but on the leverage that comes from asset ownership and the perceived security of client funds. Carter’s question—what choice do institutions have when problems aren’t being addressed—frames this as a practical policy question as much as a technological one.

Yet the Bitcoin ecosystem remains far from a monolithic front. Other voices argue that large holders are primarily passive investors rather than active governance agents, suggesting that the path of protocol evolution will continue to hinge on a combination of developer consensus, open research, and gradual, tested improvements. Austin Campbell and other observers point to a need for vocal stakeholders to participate in technical discussions, ensuring that any shift toward quantum resilience reflects a broad spectrum of interests rather than a single corporate logic. On the other hand, researchers and market observers have presented data suggesting that the immediate threat may be more manageable than headline risk implies, reinforcing the idea that any upgrade will be incremental and guarded by multiple layers of security review.

As the market digests these perspectives, the next few quarters are likely to feature intensified dialogue around cryptographic resilience, governance mechanisms, and the practicalities of deploying quantum-resistant technologies without destabilizing the network. The discussion also reflects a broader trend: institutions increasingly seeking a measurable, verifiable security posture when engaging with crypto assets, and developers striving to preserve decentralization while addressing evolving risk models. The interplay between capital influence and technical progress will continue to shape how Bitcoin navigates this complex risk landscape—an evolution that could redefine how the network balances security, governance, and growth in a dynamic market environment.

This article was originally published as VC: Institutions Could Fire Bitcoin Devs Over Quantum Fears on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Roundhill Investments, a US-based ETF issuer, has moved to bring six exchange-traded funds tied to event contracts that bet on the outcome of the 2028 US presidential election. The filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission describes ETFs that would use a specialized derivative known as event contracts to speculate on political results. If approved, the products could broaden access to prediction-market-style exposure within a traditional exchange-traded wrapper, a development that ETF observers characterized as potentially groundbreaking. The six funds cover presidential, Senate, and House outcomes across both major parties: Roundhill Democratic President ETF, Roundhill Republican President ETF, Roundhill Democratic Senate ETF, Roundhill Republican Senate ETF, Roundhill Democratic House ETF, and Roundhill Republican House ETF. The filing also flags that regulators continue to weigh how such instruments should be classified and regulated.

The prospect of an ETF-based route into event contracts has drawn commentary from industry observers. ETF analyst Eric Balchunas noted in a post that, if the SEC were to approve the lineup, the impact could be “potentially groundbreaking.” He argued that the ETF structure could unlock a broader set of prediction-market applications that are more accessible to a wide range of investors than raw prediction markets on bespoke platforms. The filing itself describes the objective of the fund tied to the winning election outcome as capital-focused, while cautioning that the other five funds face materially higher risk where investors could see substantial losses.

The Roundhill filing explicitly describes the structure as investing in, or gaining exposure to, a class of instruments known as event contracts. The approach would apply to the presidential outcomes as well as to control of the Senate and the House, spanning both major parties. In the filing, Roundhill underscores that while the fund aiming to capture the ultimate election result seeks capital appreciation, the remaining five ETFs could lose “almost all” of their value, depending on how market events unfold and how the contracts converge on settlement. The document warns that a rapid convergence between opposing event outcomes could trigger sharp NAV movements, a phenomenon described as highly atypical for conventional ETFs.

The regulatory dimension is front and center. The filing notes that US rules governing event contracts are evolving, and any future classification changes or “restrictions” could affect the funds. The document also flags the possibility that policymakers may limit, suspend, modify, or even prohibit certain political outcome contracts, should concerns around investor protection or market integrity intensify. Investors who are uncomfortable with regulatory uncertainty are urged to avoid purchasing shares. The discussion highlights the broader tension between liquidity, innovation, and consumer safeguards in the growing ecosystem of prediction-market-style financial products.

The debate around prediction markets has gained momentum alongside regulatory signals from US authorities. In early February, reports indicated the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) had moved to withdraw a Biden-administration proposal seeking to ban sports and political prediction markets, a sign that a more permissive stance could be emerging for certain forms of event-driven contracts. The regulatory arc remains a key variable shaping how Roundhill’s six ETFs would perform in practice, particularly if classification or restriction decisions shift in coming months. The evolving framework raises questions about how these funds would be priced, settled, and taxed, and whether they would attract meaningful liquidity given the novel nature of the underlying contracts.

Industry observers note that the intersection of traditional equity markets and prediction markets could mark a broader shift in how investors access political risk and price uncertainty. The Roundhill filing arrives as the so-called prediction-market conversation grows more nuanced, with debates about whether such markets should focus on hedging price-exposure risk or remain oriented toward speculative bets on short-term political outcomes. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has weighed in on the topic, arguing that prediction markets, if left to their current trajectory, risk over-convergence on short-horizon bets and price swings that are detached from longer-term value creation. In a widely cited post, he called for shifting toward marketplaces that hedge price exposure for consumers, a stance that aligns with ongoing discussions about consumer protection in digital markets. Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) has become a focal point in these debates as developers and investors consider how to align incentives with real-world utility. For context, Buterin’s remarks have been echoed in discussions around hedging mechanisms and risk controls in prediction-market ecosystems.

The broader conversation around event contracts and their perceived suitability for mainstream investors continues to evolve. The Roundhill proposal sits at a moment when traditional asset managers are experimenting with derivative-like structures to capture political risk, while regulators voice caution about liquidity, reliability, and the integrity of price discovery. The SEC’s review process for these six ETFs will hinge on whether event contracts can offer transparent settlement, robust risk disclosures, and a structure that can scale liquidity to support a diversified investor base. The filing’s emphasis on the potential for significant NAV volatility in the five riskier funds underscores the need for clear risk management frameworks and investor education as these products progress through the regulatory pipeline. For readers, the main takeaway is that the integration of event contracts into an ETF wrapper could represent a notable pivot in how political risk is monetized, even as the regulatory environment remains a decisive constraint on immediate execution.

As the market watches for ongoing developments, the Roundhill filing serves as a litmus test for whether prediction-market-style derivatives can be reconciled with the governance and investor protections that underpin traditional ETFs. While the six-fund lineup targets different political outcomes, the core insight for investors is the relative risk asymmetry: one fund may pursue capital appreciation from the ultimate election result, while the other five grapple with convergence events that can push net asset value sharply in either direction. The path to approval remains uncharted, and the regulatory equation—balancing innovation with safeguards—will likely dictate the pace and shape of any eventual launch. In the meantime, the discourse surrounding prediction markets enters a more formal, regulated phase, with the potential to broaden access to politically linked derivatives for a broader cohort of investors while inviting heightened scrutiny from policymakers and market participants alike.

Why it matters

The Roundhill filing matters because it tests whether prediction-market concepts can be packaged into the familiar ETF format. If approved, it could provide a regulated, transparent avenue for investors to engage with political risk using a market-based mechanism that has historically lived outside mainstream asset management. By packaging six distinct event contracts into a single lineup, the fund family aims to offer diversified exposure to different branches of government, potentially enabling portfolios to hedge or express views on the political calendar without stepping outside established exchange-traded infrastructure.

For the broader crypto and digital-asset discourse, the development signals a continuing convergence between traditional finance instruments and more experimental market ideas. The emergence of ETF-based event contracts could feed into ongoing debates about how to design markets that are resilient, accessible, and protective of ordinary investors while still enabling innovative risk transfer. The attention from figures like Balchunas and the ongoing commentary from prominent crypto thinkers, including Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin, underscores the cross-pollination between traditional ETFs and decentralized finance conversations about hedging, price discovery, and consumer protection. As policymakers refine regulatory guidance, proponents argue that a regulated ETF wrapper could deliver improved transparency, settlement mechanics, and liquidity compared with niche, permissioned prediction platforms.

For participants in the prediction-market space, Roundhill’s approach may set a precedent for how event-driven instruments could be evaluated by mainstream markets. Stakeholders will be watching whether the funds can attract sufficient liquidity, how settlement will be determined, and how sensitive the NAV will be to shifting political narratives and polling trajectories. The tension between potential liquidity gains and risk of rapid NAV swings will be central to any future discussions about the viability of these vehicles in a volatile political landscape.

What to watch next

SEC decisions on the Roundhill ETF filings and the final product terms, including eligibility criteria and settlement procedures.

Any regulatory updates or guidance on event contracts, including potential reclassifications or restrictions that could affect the funds.

Regulatory commentary from the CFTC or other bodies regarding prediction markets and related derivatives.

Market liquidity and investor demand for election-related ETFs as the 2028 cycle progresses.

Sources & verification

Roundhill’s filing with the SEC detailing six election-event ETFs, including the six fund names and their objectives: SEC filing.

Eric Balchunas’s remarks about potential impact if approved: X post.

Regulatory discussions around prediction markets and CFTC coverage, including referenced coverage on the Biden-era proposal status: CFTC stance.

Vitalik Buterin’s comments on prediction markets and hedging, including his X post: X post, and a related piece on hedging: Buterin hedging discussion.

This article was originally published as Roundhill’s Election-Event Contract ETFs Could Be Groundbreaking on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BlackRock has taken a formal step into decentralized finance by listing its tokenized U.S. Treasury fund on Uniswap, signaling a measured pivot toward on-chain trading of real-world assets. The USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund (BUIDL) is being tokenized with the help of Securitize and will be tradable on a public decentralized exchange, a first for the asset manager in DeFi. This collaboration sits within a broader backdrop of continued institutional exploration of crypto rails even as traditional markets wrestle with ETF flows and shifting sentiment. In parallel, Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) posted modest weekly gains of about 2.5% but failed to clear key psychological levels, pressured by a pattern of ETF inflows and subsequent outflows that underscored the fragility of near-term upside in a risk-off environment.

Bitcoin ETFs started the week with some inflows but quickly surrendered ground, registering net outflows of $276 million on Wednesday and $410 million on Thursday, according to data from market trackers. Ether ETFs displayed a similar pattern, with two light days of inflows followed by $129 million and $113 million of outflows on the same two days. The net effect was a market that, while buoyed by a perceived liquidity boost from tokenized assets, remained sensitive to shifting flows and investor appetite for risk-sensitive exposure. The weekly price action did not decisively break above crucial levels, leaving traders weighing the significance of macro liquidity versus on-chain adoption momentum.

Against this backdrop, BlackRock’s move into DeFi stands out as a milestone for institutional participation. The BUIDL fund is described as a tokenized version of a money-market approach to Treasuries, issued across multiple blockchains, including Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, Aptos and Avalanche. The asset manager’s public-facing rationale centers on providing transparent, on-chain access to highly liquid, U.S. Treasury–backed instruments for institutions that favor self-custody and programmable settlement. The collaboration is being driven by Securitize, a tokenization platform that previously partnered with BlackRock on the BUIDL launch, and the Uniswap deployment aligns with the exchange’s mission to expand institutional liquidity into DeFi.

Initial trading is described as selective, with eligibility limited to certain institutional investors and market makers before broader access is opened. The official rollout underscores a broader trend: institutions are increasingly testing the on-chain infrastructure that underpins tokenized real-world assets as counterparties seek improved settlement speed, on-chain custody options, and transparent governance. In the wake of this development, industry observers noted that BlackRock’s involvement could set a precedent for other asset managers exploring tokenized securities and on-chain liquidity solutions.

The BUIDL fund is reported to hold more than $2.18 billion in total assets, according to RWA.xyz, and its cross-chain issuance has brought it to multiple networks, including Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, Aptos and Avalanche. That breadth matters because it signals an on-ramp for real-world assets to traverse different ecosystems—potentially expanding liquidity across layers and enabling more nuanced risk and yield profiles for institutional participants. In December, BUIDL reached a milestone of surpassing $100 million in cumulative distributions from its Treasury holdings, reflecting the ongoing interest in tokenized treasury income streams and the potential for on-chain yield to complement traditional fixed-income exposure.

Beyond the specific instrument, the broader DeFi landscape remains mired in a tension between innovation and regulatory scrutiny. In a separate development this week, a New York federal court dismissed a Bancor-affiliated patent suit against Uniswap, ruling that the asserted patents described abstract ideas related to calculating on-chain exchange rates and did not meet the standards for patent eligibility. While the dismissal was without prejudice, the ruling represented a procedural win for Uniswap and illustrated the ongoing IP and legal risk environment that surrounds major DeFi protocols. The court’s decision does not end the dispute, but it does provide a window for Uniswap to continue operating while the case can be refined in future filings.

On the crypto market’s more tactical front, Binance completed the conversion of $1 billion in Bitcoin into its SAFU emergency fund, adding another tranche of BTC to its reserve. The exchange disclosed that the SAFU wallet now holds 15,000 Bitcoin, valued at just over $1 billion, acquired at an average cost basis of about $67,000 per coin. Binance had announced the move earlier in the month, stating it would rebalance the fund if volatility pushed its value below a defined threshold. The decision to anchor the SAFU reserve in Bitcoin reinforces the ongoing narrative of BTC as a long-term store of value within the ecosystem’s risk-management framework.

Meanwhile, voices within the blockchain community continued to draw lines around what constitutes “real” DeFi. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin argued that DeFi’s true value lies in rethinking risk allocation and governance, rather than chasing yield on centralized assets. He cautioned that yield-centric strategies tied to fiat-backed stablecoins can obscure issuer risk and counterparty exposure, a reminder that the sector’s risk dynamics remain a central theme as institutions seek scalable, on-chain alternatives to traditional finance.

The broader DeFi market activity remained resilient in its own right, with data from Cointelegraph Markets Pro and TradingView showing a majority of the top 100 cryptocurrencies finishing the week in the green. Among standout performers, the Pippin (CRYPTO: PIPPIN) token surged as the week’s top gainer in the broader ranks, followed by the Humanity Protocol (CRYPTO: H), which posted notable gains. The week’s digest also highlighted continuing interest around tokenized assets and on-chain credit vehicles, even as volatility persisted and risk sentiment remained tepid.

In short, a week marked by a landmark institutional move into DeFi coexisted with ongoing market frictions—ETF outflows, macro caution and a series of regulatory and IP questions that continue to shape the pace and scope of blockchain-enabled finance. The juxtaposition underscores a sector attempting to bridge the gap between traditional liquidity channels and the new, programmable infrastructure driving tokenized real-world assets across multiple chains.

Hayden Adams

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

Why it matters

The listing of BlackRock’s BUIDL on Uniswap marks a watershed for institutional access to tokenized real-world assets. It demonstrates a willingness among large asset managers to experiment with DeFi infrastructure not merely as a speculative overlay but as a potential avenue for compliant, on-chain trading of regulated securities. If the model proves scalable and cost-efficient, more traditional asset managers could follow, accelerating the normalization of tokenized fixed income within institutional portfolios and potentially expanding liquidity pools for tokenized securities on public exchanges.

From a market dynamics perspective, the week’s ETF flow patterns reaffirm that short-term price action remains highly sensitive to inflows and outflows. While BTC and ETH posted modest gains, the absence of a sustained breakout suggests that the macro backdrop—comprising liquidity conditions, risk appetite, and regulatory signals—continues to constrain upside despite positive structural developments in DeFi adoption. The Bancor-Uniswap ruling also underscores that the legal framework governing DeFi protocols remains unsettled, with patent arguments still in flux and ongoing debates about what constitutes innovation versus abstract idea protection.

For on-chain participants and developers, the Binances SAFU move reinforces the idea that reserve designs are evolving under pressure to balance security, liquidity, and risk management. The repeated emphasis on Bitcoin as a reserve asset signals confidence in BTC as a durable anchor for risk-averse users and institutions seeking transparent, auditable reserves in a rapidly changing landscape. In parallel, Vitalik Buterin’s call for a clearer definition of DeFi’s core value proposition keeps attention on risk-sharing mechanisms and the governance of on-chain ecosystems, moving the debate beyond yield optimization toward sustainable, systemic risk management.

What to watch next

Broader rollout of BUIDL to additional institutional clients and potential cross-chain expansions in the coming weeks.

Further tokenization of real-world assets and the adoption trajectory of Securitize’s platform across more issuers.

Resolution or further filings in remaining IP and patent matters related to DeFi protocols, shaping protocol-level risk profiles.

Continued monitoring of ETF and on-chain liquidity flows to gauge whether institutional demand for tokenized assets translates into sustained price action.

Regulatory signals and macro liquidity shifts that could either reinforce or dampen the case for tokenized fixed income and DeFi-enabled settlement rails.

Sources & verification

Uniswap-Labs and Securitize collaboration to unlock liquidity options for BlackRock’s BUIDL — Business Wire

BlackRock’s BUIDL tokenization milestone and Uniswap collaboration — Fortune

Bitcoin ETF and Ether ETF flow data — Farside Investors

BUIDL asset data and cross-chain issuance — RWA.xyz

Bear-market inflection point discussion and Kaiko Research notes

This article was originally published as BlackRock Joins DeFi as Institutional Crypto Push Accelerates on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

X is moving toward integrating financial services more deeply into its social platform with a feature known as Smart Cashtags. Nikita Bier, the platform’s head of product, signaled in a weekend post that users will soon be able to trade stocks and crypto directly from their timeline, marking a significant step in bringing traditional markets and digital assets closer to social interaction. The timeline for rollout, Bier indicated, includes a sequence of features launching in the next few weeks, suggesting a staged approach rather than a single, sweeping update. The idea builds on X’s previous experiments with Cashtags and reflects broader ambitions to weave commerce and finance into everyday activity on the app, potentially altering how millions interact with markets while they scroll.

The concept isn’t entirely new for X. In 2022 the platform introduced a basic Cashtag system designed to track the prices of major stocks and cryptocurrencies and to present visual financial data for assets such as Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and Ether (CRYPTO: ETH). That pilot was later discontinued, but the renewed emphasis on in-app trading signals a more ambitious plan to keep price data, discussion, and execution under one roof. The current push appears to be part of a broader strategy to reclaim a central role for financial functionality within the app, rather than relegating it to standalone apps or separate tabs. The public focus on Smart Cashtags and in-timeline trading follows a January teaser that hinted at in-app trading, though the company did not formally confirm the rollout at that time.

Cointelegraph reached out to X for comment about the Smart Cashtags feature and the timing of its launch, but the company did not respond by publication. The moves come as X, under the leadership of Elon Musk, has repeatedly emphasized a vision of the platform evolving into an “everything app”—a space where social interaction, payments, and transactions are seamlessly integrated. Musk has framed this ambition in terms of replacing multiple standalone apps with a single, feature-rich experience, drawing comparisons to WeChat, the Chinese messaging and payments ecosystem that blends social, financial, and commerce functions in one place.

While attention centers on Smart Cashtags, X is advancing another major line of development: X Money. Musk touched on the payments initiative during a recent All Hands presentation hosted by his AI venture, xAI. He outlined that X Money is still in a limited beta phase for roughly two months before any worldwide rollout. The aim, he said, is for X Money to become “the place where all money is” and a primary hub for monetary transactions on the platform. Musk’s comments underscore a strategic push to embed payments so deeply into daily use that the app becomes a de facto financial operating system for its hundreds of millions of users. In his remarks, Musk also emphasized the platform’s substantial reach, noting that X serves roughly 600 million average monthly users and articulating a vision in which a user could conceivably conduct most, if not all, daily digital activities within the app.

The broader context for these developments is the evolving landscape of social platforms that fuse content with financial services. If successful, Smart Cashtags could provide a frictionless entry point for casual users to engage with markets, while more seasoned traders may appreciate the convenience of real-time price feeds, charts, and trading execution within a single interface. The rollout also signals X’s continued experimentation with monetizable features that extend beyond advertising or content curation, shifting the platform toward a more transactional, payments-enabled model. The integration of trading and payments may also influence how brands, creators, and communities monetize engagement as users gain easier access to financial tooling alongside social interaction.

X inches into payments as it attempts to become an “everything app”

Elon Musk provided an update on the launch timeline for X Money, the platform’s payments feature that would enable users to send money to one another, in another high-profile public forum. Speaking at a recent All Hands event run by xAI, Musk indicated that X Money remains in limited beta testing for the next two months, after which a global rollout would follow. The goal is not merely to add another payments tool; it is to establish X Money as the central backbone for all monetary activity on the platform, a foundational capability that could influence how users view and rely on the app for everyday financial tasks. Musk’s framing of X Money as a unifying payment layer reinforces the broader strategy to turn X into an integrated ecosystem where social activity and financial transactions coexist seamlessly.

With roughly 600 million average monthly users, Musk suggested that the potential for such an integration is vast. The assertion underscores the strategic importance of any feature that can convert passive engagement into routine financial interactions. The concept of “everything in one place” has long animated the ambitions of tech leaders who seek to reduce the friction between social media and commerce. If the beta phase demonstrates reliability and security at scale, a worldwide rollout could significantly accelerate how users conduct payments and financial exchanges within the app, potentially affecting user behavior, merchant adoption, and the overall demand for linked financial services on social platforms.

Why it matters

The Smart Cashtags initiative, if realized, could redefine the user journey from curiosity to action on social media. Rather than leaving the app to check prices, follow tickers, or execute trades on separate platforms, users might access real-time information and make transactions in a single, familiar environment. This could lower the perceived barriers to entry for crypto investors and stock traders who are comfortable with the social context, potentially boosting liquidity and engagement around a wider range of assets. The integration would also place pressure on competing social networks and fintechs to offer similar in-app capabilities, raising the bar for how social apps monetize and retain users through integrated financial services.

From a regulatory and risk-management standpoint, the move to in-app trading and payments raises important considerations. In-app trading raises questions about suitability, know-your-customer (KYC) standards, and consumer protection within social platforms. The beta and phased rollout approach may help X observe user behavior, test security controls, and refine compliance workflows before reaching a broad audience. While the exact list of supported assets remains to be clarified, the emphasis on Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and Ether (CRYPTO: ETH)—the two largest crypto assets by market capitalization—signals that the feature aims to cover both traditional and digital assets in parallel.

What to watch next

Official confirmation and timing for the Smart Cashtags rollout, including which assets will be tradable at launch.

Details on the X Money beta scope, duration, and security enhancements prior to a global rollout.

Regulatory updates or disclosures from X regarding compliance, user protections, and suitability testing for in-app trading.

Any public statements from X or xAI about partnerships, supported brokers or custody arrangements, and asset coverage beyond BTC and ETH.

Sources & verification

Nikita Bier’s public post on X regarding Smart Cashtags and a timeline for the rollout.

The January teaser image signaling a potential in-app trading rollout for Smart Cashtags.

Cointelegraph reporting on X’s Smart Cashtags development and the 2022 Cashtag system, including reference to BTC and ETH data.

Elon Musk’s All Hands presentation at xAI discussing X Money and its beta status and rollout plans.

Official statements and posts from X and xAI related to payments and financial features in development.

Smart Cashtags and in-app trading: what the plan could change for X users

X’s renewed focus on in-app trading via Smart Cashtags represents a meaningful pivot from a primarily social platform to a hybrid financial product. The first wave of changes centers on enabling trades directly from the timeline, a move designed to reduce friction for users who want to act on information they encounter in their feed. The initiative aligns with a broader push to consolidate services within a single app, an approach Musk has long described as a path toward creating an “everything app.” The potential impact on user habits could be substantial: a user who previously opened a separate brokerage or crypto exchange app might instead transition to executing trades while scrolling through posts, creating new kinds of engagement loops and monetizable moments for the platform.

From a user experience perspective, Smart Cashtags would need to balance speed with security and clarity. Real-time price data, simple execution flows, reliable order types, and clear disclosures about risk are essential for adoption. The 2022 Cashtag experiment established a framework for asset price visualization but did not culminate in a full trading experience. The new approach would require robust risk controls, transparent fee structures (if any), and intuitive interfaces that resonate with both casual observers and more active traders. The public discourse around in-app trading on social platforms has grown louder in recent years, and X’s iteration could influence how other apps approach embedding financial functionalities in social feeds.

The broader context also includes X Money, a payments feature Musk described as aiming to centralize monetary transactions within the app. The beta approach—limited for two months before a worldwide rollout—suggests a cautious, iterative path toward the final product. If successful, X Money could reduce the need for switching between apps when sending money, splitting bills, or conducting peer-to-peer transfers. This seamless integration of payments and trading could change demand patterns for both fiat-based and crypto-based transactions, potentially increasing on-platform liquidity and widening the audience for financial services embedded in social experiences. The lines between social engagement, information gathering, and financial activity could blur further as features like Smart Cashtags and X Money mature.

In the longer run, the vision of an “everything app” rests on user trust, reliability, and a coherent experience. The path will likely involve ongoing refinement of the user interface, more granular control over asset types, and stronger safeguards to protect users from mispricing, scams, or missteps in fast-moving markets. As X navigates these challenges, observers will be watching closely for how the platform handles compliance, data privacy, and cross-border considerations—issues that have become central to the broader dialogue around fintech on social platforms. Whether the Smart Cashtags initiative becomes a core daily utility or remains a niche feature will depend on how convincingly the platform demonstrates value, safety, and ease of use to a global audience.

This article was originally published as X Exec Nikita Bier: In-App Trading Coming in a Couple of Weeks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has grown wary of how prediction markets are evolving, warning they risk becoming short-term price betting engines rather than tools that support long-term infrastructure. In a post on X, he argued that the current trajectory shows “over-converging” focus on immediate price moves and speculative behavior. He called for a shift toward onchain prediction markets that serve as hedges against price exposure for consumers, rather than betting mechanisms that amplify fiat-driven volatility. The thrust of his critique centers on moving from pure price bets to broader markets that can stabilize expenditures over time. He suggested a framework that blends prediction markets with AI-driven tools to counter inflationary pressures faced by households and businesses alike. In essence, his stance positions prediction markets as potential risk-management primitives if redesigned with real-world spending in mind.

Key takeaways

Buterin argues prediction markets are tilting toward short-horizon price betting, which he views as unhealthy for long-term building in crypto and beyond.

He envisions a model where onchain prediction markets are paired with AI large-language models to hedge consumer price exposure across goods and services.

The proposed system would create price indices by major spending categories and regional differences, with prediction markets for each category.

Each user could have a local LLM that maps their expenses and generates a personalized basket of prediction-market shares representing several days of future outlays.

Supporters say such markets can offer valuable market intelligence and hedging capabilities, potentially improving price stability in a fiat-dominated environment.

Existing prediction-market platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi are cited as part of the broader ecosystem that could be reoriented toward hedging and risk management rather than speculative bets.

Tickers mentioned: $ETH

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The discussion sits at the intersection of onchain finance, risk management, and regulatory scrutiny, as investors and developers weigh how to apply AI tools to price hedging while navigating evolving policy debates around prediction markets.

Why it matters

The idea of coupling onchain prediction markets with AI-assisted personal finance tools signals a broader attempt to retrofit crypto-native mechanisms for real-world stability. If successful, the approach could reframe how individuals and businesses manage price risk—shifting from a speculative posture to a practical hedging framework that protects purchasing power in an inflationary fiat environment. Buterin’s proposal emphasizes a user-centric model in which private data about expenses informs a custom set of market instruments. That alignment between individual spending patterns and market-based hedges could, in theory, yield more predictable budgeting for everyday goods and services.

Critics of prediction markets often point to concerns about manipulation, liquidity distribution, and regulatory risk. But proponents argue that when linked to digital, onchain ledgers and AI-driven personalization, these markets can deliver more resilient price signals and a public-good function by aggregating diverse information. The debate touches broader questions about how decentralized finance should interact with traditional market dynamics and consumer protection standards. In this framing, the role of prediction markets extends beyond forecasting political events or commodity prices to becoming a probabilistic toolkit for household and business planning.

As the ecosystem evolves, the boundary between information services and financial instruments remains a focal point for policymakers and practitioners alike. The discussion around onchain prediction markets is part of a wider push to explore how AI can augment human decision-making in finance, risk assessment, and purchasing power. The outcome will hinge on how convincingly the model demonstrates real-world utility, addresses liquidity and governance challenges, and remains compliant with applicable rules in various jurisdictions.

What to watch next

The publication of any whitepapers or technical notes detailing the proposed onchain prediction-market architecture and the role of local LLMs in personal expense modeling.

Emerging experiments or pilot programs that test category-based price indices and category-specific prediction markets in real-world settings.

Regulatory responses or clarifications around prediction markets and onchain hedging tools, particularly in jurisdictions weighing consumer protection and market integrity.

Public discussions and research from academics and practitioners about the feasibility and governance of personalized prediction-market portfolios.

Follow-up statements or interviews from Vitalik Buterin or affiliated teams that expand or refine the proposed framework.

Sources & verification

Vitalik Buterin’s X post outlining concerns about prediction markets and the proposed shift to hedging mechanisms. Link: https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/2022669570788487542

Cointelegraph op-ed discussing onchain prediction markets and the integration of AI LLMs. Link: https://cointelegraph.com/opinion/blockchain-prediction-markets

Cointelegraph coverage on prediction markets and information markets, including perspectives on market intelligence. Link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/prediction-markets-information-finance

Cointelegraph coverage of academic perspectives on prediction markets, including comments from Harry Crane of Rutgers University. Link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/prediction-markets-polymarket-polls

CFTC-related developments regarding proposals on prediction markets, cited in Cointelegraph coverage. Link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-withdraws-proposal-ban-sports-political-prediction-markets

Rethinking prediction markets as hedging tools with AI

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has grown wary of how prediction markets are developing, warning they risk becoming short-term price betting engines rather than tools that support long-term infrastructure. In a post on X, he argued that the current trajectory shows “over-converging” focus on immediate price moves and speculative behavior. He called for a shift toward onchain prediction markets that serve as hedges against price exposure for consumers, rather than betting mechanisms that amplify fiat-driven volatility. The thrust of his critique centers on moving from pure price bets to broader markets that can stabilize expenditures over time. He suggested a framework that blends prediction markets with AI-driven tools to counter inflationary pressures faced by households and businesses alike. In essence, his stance positions prediction markets as potential risk-management primitives if redesigned with real-world spending in mind. He proposed a system in which price indices are constructed across major spending categories, with regional variations treated as distinct categories, and a dedicated prediction market for each.

Buterin elaborates a mechanism where each user—whether an individual or a business—operates a local AI model that understands that user’s expenses. This AI would curate a personalized basket of market shares, effectively representing “N” days of predicted future outlays. The intent is to offer a dynamic hedge against rising costs, allowing participants to hold a mix of assets to grow wealth while maintaining a safety net against inflation via tailored prediction-market positions.

Supporters of prediction markets argue they provide valuable information about global events and financial trajectories, potentially serving as a hedge against a variety of risks. They point to platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi as examples of how publicly sourced probabilities can supplement traditional data sources. Academic voices, including Rutgers professor Harry Crane, contend that well-structured prediction markets can outpace conventional polls in forecasting accuracy and should be treated as a public good in principle, assuming robust governance and safeguards. Critics, however, worry about misuse, regulatory constraints, and the potential for manipulation if markets are driven by centralized or biased actors. The debate straddles both the philosophy of information markets and the practical design challenges of turning them into reliable hedges for everyday life.

Ultimately, the question is whether a hybrid system—combining onchain markets with AI personalization—can deliver tangible price stability without sacrificing liquidity or inviting abuse. If such a model proves viable, it could redefine how crypto-native financial instruments interact with the real economy, offering tools that help households and firms weather price fluctuations while contributing to a broader ecosystem that values data-driven risk management.

This article was originally published as Buterin: Prediction Markets Must Evolve Into Hedging Platforms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin rose to around $69,482 on Friday as fresh on-chain data showed continued accumulation from smaller holders in February. Analysts say the breakout could evolve into a broader bullish phase, though other signals point to a period of consolidation underlying any uptrend.

Key takeaways

BTC breached the $69,000 resistance and broke out of its descending channel, triggering roughly $92 million in short liquidations within four hours.

Small wallets ($0–$10,000) added about $613 million in cumulative volume delta (CVD) in February, while the whale cohort pulled back with outflows totaling around $4.5 billion for the month.

The short-term holder SOPR (spent output profit ratio) hit its lowest level since November 2022, signaling near-term selling pressure among new buyers.

Futures activity surged, with about $96 million in liquidations over the last four hours and $92 million coming from short positions, indicating a pronounced short squeeze dynamic.

Platform concentration of liquidations pointed to Bybit (22.5%), Hyperliquid (22%), and Gate (15%), suggesting a notable share of leveraged exposure remains focused on a few venues.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Bullish

Price impact: Positive. The breakout above key resistance and a short-squeeze setup imply potential momentum amplification in the near term.

Market context: The move occurs amid fluctuating liquidity and cautious risk sentiment, with February data showing persistent retail demand alongside mixed behavior from larger holders. The broader market is navigating competing signals—on-chain accumulation in small wallets versus continued distribution among whales—suggesting a nuanced backdrop for the next leg higher.

Why it matters

From a macro perspective, the latest price action underscores the ongoing tension between continuation bias and consolidation risk in Bitcoin’s cycle. An upward break above the immediate price zone around $69,000 can be interpreted as the market testing a new structural floor after several weeks of choppy trading. If the price sustains above the $68,000 level, traders will watch for sustained momentum that could push BTC toward higher liquidity pockets near $71,500 and potentially $74,000. The compressed 50- and 100-period exponential moving averages on shorter timeframes lend credence to a temporary acceleration, as price and trend indicators converge and traders reevaluate risk premia as they observe market microstructure shifts in real time. The immediate turnover in the market—brief futures liquidations and a short squeeze—also hints at sentiment that remains fragile among freshly minted entrants, even as the price action signals renewed demand from smaller holders. The net effect is a market that is briefly more constructive than it was in the immediate prior weeks, but with a cadence of caution that could persist as observers parse macro signals and evolving liquidity conditions.

On-chain activity provides a nuanced lens on who is driving the move. February’s data shows a clear split in behavior between retail and institutional-like holders. Small wallets accumulating $613 million in CVD indicates that ordinary buyers were active and willing to step in during price dips, potentially underpinning a floor under the current rally. In contrast, larger holders have not yet shown a decisive pivot; whale wallets remained net negative earlier in February and have since paused in a clear accumulation pattern, but without a definitive breakout. That divergence is a reminder that the next phase of the rally could hinge on whether large holders re-embrace accumulation or liquidity remains anchored by retail demand alone. The dynamic raises the possibility that the market could consolidate or retest prior highs before a broader, sustained ascent takes hold.

The data on liquidations helps explain the near-term price behavior. A near-term surge in futures liquidations, concentrated among a handful of platforms, points to a short-squeeze dynamic that can propel prices beyond technical resistances when hedged bets unwind in tandem. Bybit, Hyperliquid, and Gate accounted for a substantial share of these liquidations, implying that the most active leveraged positions were concentrated on a few venues. This pattern, paired with the evolving SOPR trajectory, suggests that profit-taking among the most recent entrants could re-emerge if the price fails to sustain higher levels or if macro catalysts reassert caution. Yet, the same microstructure signals a broader appetite for risk among retail participants who were able to bid in February and now appear poised to participate again as price action builds confidence in new higher ranges.

For market observers, the question is whether the relief rally can evolve into a durable advance or if February’s accumulation remains a testing ground before a more persistent trend establishes itself. The short-term indicators—targets near $71,500 and then $74,000, along with ongoing EMA compression—favor a continuation scenario, provided the price can hold above critical zones and avoid a reversion into broad choppiness. If new data show sustained SOPR above 1 or a clear uptick in whale accumulation, the bullish narrative strengthens. Conversely, a failure to hold supports, or a renewed wave of selling pressure from larger holders, could trigger a deeper correction and a renewed phase of consolidation. The market’s path remains contingent on a blend of price action, on-chain signals, and liquidity dynamics that define Bitcoin’s near-term trajectory.

For observers who track the price action closely, the key is to balance the optimism of retail-driven demand with the caution demanded by the absence of a decisive, broad-based accumulation signal from the largest holders. The coming sessions will be telling as traders weigh the momentum indicators against macro signals and the shifting risk appetite that continues to shape liquidity in the crypto markets. The current setup is a reminder that while a breakout can ignite a new leg higher, the exact path is inherently data-driven, and the next move will depend on whether the market can convert short-term momentum into a more durable trend.

All told, Bitcoin’s latest move shows a market that is ready to test higher levels but remains susceptible to pullbacks if macro cues deteriorate or if the on-chain narrative shifts away from retail-led demand. The coming days will be pivotal for traders seeking clarity on whether this rally represents a sustainable breakout or a transient relief rally within a broader consolidation phase.

For further context on price action and on-chain indicators used in this assessment, see the ongoing chart surveillance available via the BTCUSDT data feed on TradingView.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Bulls Surge to $69K as Retail Traders Push Short Positions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockchain technology is increasingly being viewed as a practical backbone for distributing social benefits, though regulatory guardrails remain a central challenge for governments testing on-chain tools. In the Marshall Islands, guidance from Guidepost Solutions on regulatory compliance and sanctions framework accompanies the rollout of a tokenized debt instrument known as USDM1, issued by the state and backed 1:1 by short-term U.S. Treasuries. Separately, the country launched a Universal Basic Income (UBI) program in November 2025, delivering quarterly payments directly to citizens via a mobile wallet. As proponents point out, digital delivery can accelerate provisioning and provide auditable trails for expenditures, but the path to widescale adoption is entangled with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements that regulators say are non-negotiable.

Key takeaways

Tokenized government debt is expanding, with asset-backed bonds that settle rapidly and offer fractional ownership gaining traction in pilots and policy discussions.

The Marshall Islands’ UBI program, distributed through a digital wallet since November 2025, exemplifies how on-chain tools can reach citizens directly, pending robust AML/KYC controls.

Regulators view AML and sanctions compliance as the largest risk in issuing on-chain bonds to the public, underscoring the need for rigorous oversight in tokenized finance.

Data show a sharp rise in tokenized U.S. Treasuries, illustrating growing demand for programmable settlement and auditable fund flows in public debt markets.

Analysts forecast meaningful growth for the tokenized bond market, with projections pointing to hundreds of billions of dollars by decade’s end, contingent on regulatory clarity.

Market context: The push toward tokenized government debt and on-chain social benefits sits amid a broader push to modernize public finance and expand financial inclusion. Jurisdictions are piloting tokenized instruments to cut settlement times and reduce transaction costs, while also grappling with the necessary compliance architecture. The United Kingdom has taken a parallel step, with HSBC appointed for a tokenized gilt pilot, signaling cross-border interest in the model. Data from Token Terminal indicate the tokenized U.S. Treasury market has grown more than 50-fold since 2024, highlighting the rapid shift toward on-chain finance in a $X trillion debt ecosystem. Analysts, including Lamine Brahimi, co-founder of Taurus SA, project the tokenized bond market could surge to around $300 billion by 2030, a forecast that reflects both demand for digital liquidity tools and the continuing need for robust governance.

Why it matters

The Marshall Islands’ approach illustrates how tokenization can reshape public finance and social programs alike. By backing a debt instrument 1:1 with short-term U.S. Treasuries and tying it to a regulatory framework shaped by a risk-focused compliance firm, the government aims to attract legitimate investment while maintaining guardrails against misuse. The on-chain UBI experiment is a practical testbed for direct-to-citizen distributions, where quarterly payments flow through a digital wallet rather than traditional channels. The potential benefits—faster disbursement, traceable expenditure lines, and a more inclusive financial system—could extend beyond the Marshall Islands, offering a blueprint for other nations seeking to streamline welfare programs and debt issuance through programmable money.

However, the regulatory reality remains central. AML requirements and sanctions screening are highlighted by experts as the most significant obstacles to broad adoption. Governments issuing tokenized bonds must collect know-your-customer information to ensure funds reach the intended beneficiaries, while also ensuring that sanctions regimes are not breached through on-chain channels. The tension between innovation and compliance is not unique to the Marshall Islands; it is echoed in wider discussions about tokenization of public assets and the need for robust, interoperable standards that can scale across borders without compromising security or oversight.

From an investor and builder perspective, the narrative is equally nuanced. Tokenization promises near-instant settlement and fractional ownership, expanding access to assets that were previously illiquid or inaccessible to ordinary individuals. The growth in the tokenized debt market, as tracked by data platforms like Token Terminal, is often cited as evidence that digital-native debt instruments can coexist with traditional markets while offering new forms of liquidity and programmability. Yet the same data underline that progress hinges on a stable policy environment—one that defines privacy, censorship-resistance, anti-fraud controls, and cross-border enforcement mechanisms. The broader ecosystem’s trajectory will be shaped by how quickly regulators can translate principles into scalable, enforceable rules without stifling innovation.

In parallel, pilots such as the UK gilt initiative and other tokenization efforts illustrate that government-sponsored projects are moving from theory toward real-world applications. The combination of digital governance with financial instrumentation could unlock new funding channels and enable more responsive social programs, provided that the operational and legal frameworks keep pace with technological capability. This synthesis—technological potential matched with disciplined compliance—will determine whether tokenized debt and on-chain welfare tools become enduring components of public finance or remain transient experiments.

What to watch next

Progress and results from the Marshall Islands’ UBI wallet rollout and any regulatory updates on AML/KYC standards for on-chain benefits.

Monitoring the UK’s tokenized gilt pilot and any published findings on feasibility, costs, and investor interest.

Updates to tokenized debt instrument frameworks and sanctions regimes as more governments explore issuance and distribution through blockchain rails.

New data releases from Token Terminal and other analytics firms tracking growth in tokenized government debt and on-chain settlements.

Prominent forecasts, such as Taurus SA’s projection of a $300 billion tokenized bond market by 2030, and any revisions based on policy or market developments.

Sources & verification

Guidance from Guidepost Solutions to the Marshall Islands government on regulatory compliance and sanctions for USDM1 tokenized debt instruments (tokenized debt instrument reference).

Marshall Islands’ Universal Basic Income program launch in November 2025 via a digital wallet (UBI program reference).

Analysis and data on the tokenized U.S. Treasuries market growth since 2024 from Token Terminal (growth reference).

Forecast by Lamine Brahimi, co-founder of Taurus SA, that tokenized bonds could reach $300 billion by 2030 (market forecast reference).

On-chain debt instrument and tokenized government debt discussions and related policy pilots, including RWA.XYZ and UK gilt pilot context (verification references).

Tokenized debt, digital governance, and the path to inclusive finance

The effort to tokenize government debt and deliver social benefits on-chain sits at the intersection of efficiency, transparency, and risk management. The Marshall Islands’ USDM1 project showcases how a regulatory framework can be crafted to support tokenized debt while maintaining strong sanctions and AML controls. The accompanying UBI initiative demonstrates a pragmatic use case for digital wallets as a means of distributing welfare benefits with auditable spending trails, potentially reducing delays and leakage that can accompany traditional channels. In parallel, the broader market signals—rapid growth in tokenized U.S. Treasuries, governance pilots in the UK, and ambitious market projections—underscore growing institutional and public interest in tokenization as a means to reimagine public finance and social programs. Yet the narrative remains contingent on a reliable compliance scaffold: one that balances innovation with rigorous risk management to safeguard funds and protect citizens. As policymakers, technologists, and financial actors navigate this evolving terrain, the defining question will be whether these on-chain instruments can deliver measurable benefits at scale without compromising the integrity of the financial system.

This article was originally published as All Social Benefits Can Be Distributed Onchain, Says Compliance Exec on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (BTC) has long been pitched as digital gold—a hedge against monetary instability and market turmoil. Yet recent price action complicates that narrative. As institutions have increasingly adopted traditional vehicles like exchange-traded products, BTC’s trading patterns have begun to align more closely with risk assets. A renewed sell-off in software equities, spurred by questions about AI’s impact on the sector, has rekindled concerns about Bitcoin’s resilience and its evolving role in diversified portfolios. This week’s Crypto Biz surveys growing correlations between Bitcoin and growth equities, a significant Ether (ETH) treasury move, and the broader push by traditional finance giants into tokenization.

New evidence from Grayscale indicates that Bitcoin’s short- to mid-term behavior mirrors growth stocks more than a static store of value. While Grayscale maintains a long-term view of Bitcoin as a fixed-supply, central-bank-independent asset, the near-term price action has tracked the trajectory of software equities. The report, authored by Zach Pandl, notes that the asset’s時 price action has grown more synchronized with high-growth equities in recent years, a trend that has intensified as AI-related sector expectations shift investors’ risk appetites. For readers seeking the underlying data, Grayscale’s market commentary highlights Bitcoin’s correlation to growth stocks over the past two years, a period during which tech-driven selloffs have weighed on broader crypto markets. The juxtaposition underscores a nuanced shift: Bitcoin remains a potential long-term hedge, even as day-to-day moves increasingly ride the waves of tech-sector sentiment.

In parallel, a notable Ether treasury play expanded amid the market weakness. BitMine Immersion Technologies disclosed the addition of 40,613 ETH to its treasury during the latest sell-off, reinforcing its commitment to Ether even as prices declined and on-paper losses rose to multibillion-dollar levels. With the new purchase, BitMine’s holdings exceed 4.326 million ETH, a stake valued at roughly $8.8 billion at current prices. The firm’s unrealized losses, tracked by market data sources, sit at around $8.1 billion, illustrating a sharp gap between its cost basis and current valuations. Despite investor pressure and a sagging stock price, BitMine’s chairman Tom Lee defended the strategy as one aimed at capturing Ether’s long-run upside, rather than chasing short-term price swings. The broader crypto and cash portfolio for the company is reported near $10 billion.

On the institutional side of the crypto market, BlackRock has accelerated its tokenization strategy by bringing a tokenized money market fund to Uniswap. The USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund, known as BUIDL, is now accessible to whitelist-approved institutional traders on the decentralized exchange. In tandem with the on-chain listing, BlackRock purchased Uniswap’s governance token, UNI, signaling a hands-on approach to decentralized finance (DeFi) infrastructure. BUIDL is the largest tokenized money market fund, with more than $2.1 billion in assets, issued across multiple blockchains including Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche. In a notable December milestone, the fund surpassed $100 million in cumulative distributions from its US Treasury holdings. This move by BlackRock dovetails with a broader push to bring traditional financial products onto on-chain rails, potentially expanding liquidity and access for institutional participants.

Meanwhile, Polymarket—the decentralized prediction market—took its regulatory fight to federal court, challenging Massachusetts’ attempts to restrict or disable its event-based trading products. Polymarket’s leadership argues that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) possesses exclusive authority over event contracts, and that state-level actions could fragment a legally regulated national market. The case highlights ongoing debates about the role of state regulation in a space that operates at the intersection of finance, gaming, and information markets.

Key takeaways

Bitcoin’s short-term dynamics are increasingly linked with growth equities, challenging the notion of BTC as a pure digital hedge.

An Ether treasury holder expanded its stockpile by 40,613 ETH amid a broad market sell-off, pushing total Ether holdings beyond 4.3 million ETH.

BitMine’s on-paper losses exceed $8.1 billion, reflecting a large gap between cost basis and current ETH prices, even as the firm emphasizes long-term Ether exposure.

BlackRock’s BUIDL tokenized money market fund is expanding on Uniswap, and the firm is buying UNI to participate in governance and DeFi ecosystems.

Polymarket has filed a federal lawsuit against Massachusetts to challenge state-level restrictions on prediction-market products, arguing federal supremacy over event contracts.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $ETH, $UNI

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Negative. The broader market softness and the matching sell-offs in software equities have coincided with a decline in crypto prices, tempering near-term upside expectations.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold. The current backdrop blends macro-driven risk-off sentiment with structural shifts in institutional crypto access, suggesting a wait-and-see stance until clearer catalysts emerge.

Market context: The period’s liquidity and risk-on/risk-off cycles are shaping crypto flows, with institutions testing on-chain access to traditional assets and examining how tokenized products mesh with existing portfolios.

Why it matters

The evolving relationship between Bitcoin and growth equities matters because it reframes how institutional investors may approach crypto exposure. If BTC increasingly behaves like a growth asset, its diversification benefits could hinge more on macroeconomic cycles and tech-sector sentiment than on the microstructure of monetary policy alone. For traders, this correlation implies that shifts in software and AI expectations can ripple into crypto prices more quickly, potentially amplifying volatility during sector rotations.

BitMine’s aggressive Ether accumulation amid a slide in prices highlights a continued belief among some crypto native players that Ether remains a foundational bet for the longer term. The scale of BitMine’s holdings—together with reported losses—illustrates the tension between long-horizon conviction and the realities of mark-to-market risk. As funds and family offices balance risk and reward, Ether’s role as a potential digital settlement layer continues to attract institutional interest, even as prices remain subdued in the near term.

BlackRock’s foray into tokenized treasuries via BUIDL on Uniswap marks a significant inflection point for DeFi adoption by traditional asset managers. The move not only validates on-chain liquidity for tokenized money market funds but also pushes governance into the hands of institutions that historically steered traditional markets. The accompanying purchase of UNI signals an appetite to participate in on-chain governance and protocol-level incentives, potentially shaping the trajectory of DeFi governance and liquidity provisioning. In parallel, Polymarket’s federal suit underscores the unsettled regulatory environment in the prediction-market space, where federal authority may supersede state actions amid rapid innovation. The outcome could set important precedents for how on-chain markets interact with established regulatory frameworks.

What to watch next

Monitor Grayscale’s forthcoming market commentary for updated correlations between Bitcoin and growth-oriented equities.

Track BitMine’s ETH treasury activity and any new disclosures about unrealized losses and cost basis management.

Follow BlackRock’s Uniswap deployments and UNI governance activity to gauge institutional comfort with DeFi on-ramp products.

Watch updates on the Polymarket Massachusetts case and any federal rulings that clarify jurisdiction over prediction markets.

Sources & verification

Grayscale: Bitcoin trading more like growth than gold — https://research.grayscale.com/market-commentary/market-byte-bitcoin-trading-more-like-growth-than-gold

BitMine Immersion Technologies buys 40,613 ETH during sell-off — https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitmine-buys-40-613-eth-during-sell-off-as-ether-strategy-faces-deep-drawdown

DropStab portfolio note on BitMine losses — https://dropstab.com/p/bitmine-eth-strategy-portfolio-lipdgyz9ho

BlackRock BUIDL on Uniswap institutional DeFi adoption — https://cointelegraph.com/news/blackrock-buidl-uniswap-institutional-defi-adoption

Polymarket sues Massachusetts over regulation of prediction markets — https://cointelegraph.com/news/polymarket-sues-massachusetts-claims-states-can-t-regulate-prediction-markets

This article was originally published as Bitcoin: Digital Gold or Tech Stock? Identity Crisis Deepens on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.