BeInCrypto Global

Bitcoin (BTC) has declined 22.5% over the past month. The coin briefly dipped to its lowest level in over a year last week before rebounding.

The pullback has intensified debate around historical cycles, technical indicators, and on-chain data that could signal where Bitcoin’s current bear market will finally bottom. As uncertainty rises, several analysts are now focusing on key price zones below $40,000.

Bitcoin Bottom Prediction: Analysts Point to Key Levels

BeInCrypto Markets data showed that the largest cryptocurrency fell to $60,000 on February 6. Prices later recovered, with Bitcoin trading at $70,354 at press time, up 1.20% on the day.

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto Markets

A recent report from 10x Research suggested that the broader downtrend remains intact despite sentiment and technical indicators nearing extreme levels.

At the same time, flow data suggests investors remain cautious. Continued ETF withdrawals and rising stablecoin conversions point to limited appetite for aggressive dip-buying.

“Positioning dynamics suggest traders remain focused on deleveraging and position unwinds rather than on preparing for a typical snapback rally,” 10x Research wrote.

With uncertainty still dominating, the focus has shifted to identifying Bitcoin’s potential bottom. Many analysts believe more declines cannot be ruled out, with attention increasingly centered on price zones below $40,000.

Analyst Ardi examined Fibonacci retracement levels linked to past cycle bottoms. He noted that Bitcoin bottomed at the 78.6% Fibonacci mark during 2022’s bear market. This level currently sits near $39,176, hinting at further downside.

Bitcoin Bottom Prediction. Source: X/Ardi

Historical trends offer another clue. Analyst Nehal highlighted historical drawdown data showing that Bitcoin’s bear markets have become progressively less severe over time.

According to the analysis, Bitcoin declined by 93% in 2011, 86% in 2015, 84% in 2018, and 77% during the 2022 downturn. Based on this pattern, Nehal argued that each cycle’s drawdown has been roughly 7% smaller than the previous one.

Applying this framework to the current cycle, the analyst suggested that if Bitcoin peaked near $126,000, a drawdown of around 70% would imply a potential bottom near $38,000.

On-chain data also matters. Analyst Ted Pillows stated that the long-term holder realized price, which tracks the average cost for long-term investors, shows that cycle bottoms typically occur when prices drop 15% below this figure. 

With the current realized price at about $40,300, the model aims for a potential bottom near $34,500.

“I don’t personally think we could go this low,” he added.

Moreover, another analyst sees Bitcoin fully bottoming at $30,000 by the end of 2026 before kicking off another aggressive multi-year rally.

Why Some Analysts Say Bitcoin May Not Drop Below $50,000 Again 

Meanwhile, some market commentators argue that Bitcoin’s market bottom may already be in, challenging the widespread expectation that another deep bear market leg is still ahead.

A pseudonymous analyst stated that Bitcoin often bottoms near levels most investors least expect, pointing to previous cycles where bear market lows formed just below prior all-time highs. 

“Most people think Bitcoin still has ‘one more big crash’ left and that the ‘bear market’ is just getting started.  $40K. $35K. Some are even waiting for $20K again. And that belief alone is exactly why it probably won’t happen,” the post read.

According to the analyst, the market structure has changed due to factors such as spot Bitcoin ETFs and increased institutional participation, which may be influencing how Bitcoin behaves during market downturns, making a move below $50,000 less likely.

“Why Bitcoin below $50K doesn’t make sense anymore…Would institutions that just: launched ETFs, onboarded billions in capital, educated shareholders, built infrastructure…allow Bitcoin to revisit levels that invalidate their thesis? Unlikely. Could we get volatility? Absolutely. Could we get scary pullbacks? Of course. But structurally? Sub-$50K Bitcoin would require something breaking – not just sentiment shifting,” the analyst remarked.

Analyst Darkfost also revealed that Bitcoin’s Sharpe ratio has entered a zone historically associated with the later stages of bear markets. 

“This type of dynamic is precisely what tends to appear near market turning zones. We are gradually approaching an area where this trend has historically reversed,” the analyst claimed.

Nonetheless, he cautioned that this does not signal the end of the bear market. Instead, it suggests that Bitcoin is approaching a phase where the risk-to-reward profile becomes increasingly extreme. 

The analyst added that this phase could last for several more months and that further price declines remain possible before a meaningful reversal takes place.

Crypto markets may be showing early signs of stabilization after weeks of intense selling, according to the latest CoinShares report on digital assets.

Investment products saw outflows collapse from over $1.7 billion recorded for two successive weeks to just $187 million last week.

Crypto Outflows Shrink to $187 Million, CoinShares Report Shows

CoinShares’ latest figures show that total assets under management fell to $129.8 billion, the lowest level since March 2025. This reflects the ongoing impact of the recent price slide.

Based on the chart below, regional trends hint at selective confidence, with institutional and region-specific strategies diverging even as global sentiment remains cautious.

Crypto Flows AUM. Source: CoinShares Report

Yet while investors were cautious, trading activity remained strong. Crypto exchange-traded products (ETPs) recorded a record $63.1 billion in weekly volume. With this, they surpassed the previous high of $56.4 billion set in October 2025.

Notably, high volumes amid slowing outflows indicate that investors are repositioning rather than abandoning the market, a subtle but important distinction.

Bitcoin experienced $264 million in outflows, highlighting a rotation away from the pioneer crypto toward alternative digital assets.

Among altcoins, XRP, Solana, and Ethereum led inflows, receiving $63.1 million, $8.2 million, and $5.3 million, respectively. XRP, in particular, has emerged as a favorite, attracting $109 million year-to-date.

Crypto Outflows by Asset. Source: CoinShares Report Crypto Capitulation Shows Signs of Slowing, But Bottom Not Yet Confirmed

Despite continued price pressure, it is worth noting that the sharp drop in outflows is no mean feat, following $1.73 billion in negative flows and $1.7 billion the week before.  This sharp contraction in crypto fund flows across successive weeks is being interpreted as a potential inflection point.

According to analysts, such a deceleration often precedes changes in market momentum, suggesting the selling frenzy could be approaching its limit.

“The deceleration in outflows suggests selling pressure is easing, and capital flight may be reaching exhaustion. Historically, this shift often precedes a change in market momentum. Early signs of stabilization are starting to emerge,” stated Andre.

Historically, crypto cycles rarely reverse immediately following peak sell-offs. Instead, the market often experiences a gradual easing of outflows before inflows return, a pattern that seems to be emerging in the current correction.

Therefore, last week’s slowing outflows may be a leading indicator, but should not be misconstrued as a guarantee of recovery.

The broader implication is that the market may be transitioning from panic-driven capitulation to consolidation and selective accumulation.

While Bitcoin continues to see outflows, the inflows into altcoins and regional markets suggest that investors are rotating risk rather than exiting crypto entirely.

Still, caution remains warranted because one week of slower crypto outflows does not signal a confirmed bottom.

Crypto discussions often default to token price, market cap, and short-term performance. But if tokens are taken out of the equation entirely, what actually remains valuable?

In an interview with BeInCrypto, Ryan Chow, CEO and co-founder of Solv Protocol, said that if tokens stopped mattering tomorrow, priorities would snap back to fundamentals. He also shared 3 crypto protocols he believes would still clearly matter in 2026, even if tokens no longer existed.

Are Token Prices a Reliable Measure of Value in Crypto? 

Crypto is often defined by its tokens and volatile price swings. Much of the industry conversation revolves around price speculation. 

What top coins will do next, when altcoin season might begin, or which token could be the next 100x winner? These narratives dominate headlines, social media, and market sentiment.

While prices dominate mindshare, what do they actually say about whether a project is actually working, being used, or delivering real value? 

Chow mentioned that price can be informative when it’s backed by sustained usage and revenue. However, most of the time, he described it as a “lagging, noisy proxy.”

The real test, he said, is when it’s backed by sustained usage and revenue, and becomes infrastructure that people build on, and institutions can trust, regardless of market charts.

“Token price tells you what the market feels, not whether the system works,” he stated.

According to Chow, price movements often run ahead of fundamentals or diverge from them entirely. Tokens can rally on expectations alone, while protocols that are steadily gaining adoption may see little immediate price reaction. 

He added that a project’s real progress is better measured by the strength of its infrastructure, the security of its operations, and its ability to earn trust from institutional participants. Chow explained that if tokens are removed:

“Value then comes down to adoption, usability and security. Metrics like onchain adoption, integration with other protocols, compliance readiness and the ability to scale reliably for institutions are far stronger signals of impact than market cap alone.”

What User and Developer Behavior Looks Like Without Crypto Tokens

But if tokens, and with them trading, were to disappear, would users leave as well? Chow suggested that without the ability to profit from holding or trading tokens, most speculative activity would vanish almost immediately. 

This includes momentum trading, airdrop, points farming, mercenary liquidity, and governance.

“What would remain is purely instrumental use: stablecoins for payments and treasury, onchain credit for capital efficiency, and institutions using verifiable rails for issuance and collateral.  I am seeing genuine demand in crypto for capabilities, settlement, custody, verification, distribution, and risk-managed yield, not for tokens. This tells us that real utility is what sustains a project beyond price incentives,” he told BeInCrypto.

The executive also stressed that such a theoretical scenario would fundamentally shift developer priorities. According to Chow, token performance has pushed builders to focus on short-term gains rather than long-term infrastructure. 

The current structure rewards what is easiest to market, such as new narratives, incentives, points programs, and short-term total value locked (TVL), rather than what is hardest to build: security, risk controls, reliability, and clear unit economics.

“If tokens stopped mattering tomorrow, priorities would snap back to fundamentals. Builders would focus on systems that earn trust, such as verifiable reserves and accounting, execution and management, auditability, uptime, governance, and compliance-ready workflows. You’d see more work on distribution rails across wallets, exchange integrations, settlements, identity, and business models that work on fees,” he remarked.

Lending, Settlement, and Custody as Core Crypto Use Cases 

Chow also argued that crypto would continue to exist even in the absence of tokens.

“In a token-agnostic world, crypto survives as paid infrastructure, with revenue tied to measurable work,” he commented.

He pointed to several business models that are already operating sustainably. These include usage-based fees for settlement, execution, minting, and routing, as well as financial primitives such as lending protocols. According to him,

“One of the most proven sustainable revenue models in DeFi is lending protocols. Well-designed lending protocols generate revenue through interest rate spreads and borrower fees, with income scaling based on utilisation and risk management rather than token emissions.”

Chow noted that even during periods of market volatility, demand for leverage, hedging, and liquidity tends to persist, allowing these systems to continue generating revenue.

Chow also highlighted infrastructure designed for institutional use as among the most resilient segments of the industry. Services such as custody, compliance, reporting, and payments are typically paid for in fiat or stablecoins and are adopted to reduce operational and regulatory risk. In weaker market conditions, he said, these services often remain the primary bridge between traditional finance and crypto.

“Another sustainable revenue model is to incorporate transactional infrastructure fees. Blockchains and settlement layers that charge for real activity, such as processing transactions or facilitating cross-chain transfers, generate revenue regardless of the market sentiment, making it sustainable even in the face of speculation, hedging, or arbitrage,” he remarked.

Ultimately, Chow argued that any system capable of reliably solving real-world problems and integrating into enterprise workflows can sustain itself, regardless of token performance or market cycles.

Which Crypto Projects Would Still Matter in 2026 Without Tokens? 

The question now becomes which crypto protocols would still clearly matter in 2026 if tokens were removed entirely. Chow told BeInCrypto that the answer lies in identifying projects that have built real economic infrastructure that solves actual problems. He pointed to 3 protocols:

1. Chainlink

First, Chow pointed to Chainlink. He detailed that it would remain essential because it provides critical data infrastructure underpinning much of the crypto ecosystem. 

DeFi protocols rely on accurate and secure price feeds to function properly. Without reliable oracles, basic activities such as liquidations, derivatives settlement, and asset pricing become unsafe.

He claimed that Chainlink has emerged as the de facto standard for oracle services, processing billions of dollars in transaction value. Chow emphasized that even without the LINK token, protocols would continue paying for these services in stablecoins or Ethereum (ETH). 

“Because the alternative is building inferior oracle systems themselves or facing catastrophic failures from bad data. Institutions and protocols would continue paying for Chainlink’s verifiable, tamper-proof data feeds because the cost of not having them is existential.”

2. Canton Network

Second, Chow highlighted the Canton Network. He argued that its relevance is driven by institutional demand for privacy combined with regulatory compliance. 

According to Chow, Canton provides a regulated settlement layer where BTC-backed positions can move without exposing sensitive counterparties or proprietary strategies.  The executive revealed that its value is still clear, institutional coordination, and settlement funded by enterprise usage and validator/service fees. 

“It would survive because its demand is structural (regulated workflows don’t disappear in bear markets) and its economics are usage-funded (enterprise adoption and validator/service fees), not dependent on speculation,” he suggested.

3. Circle

Third, Chow said Circle would continue to matter in a tokenless crypto space. USDC, he noted, has become foundational infrastructure for crypto payments, treasury management, and cross-border settlement. 

For banks and enterprises seeking a reliable and regulated digital dollar, USDC has emerged as a trusted settlement option. Without a native token to manage or distribute, Chow described Circle as essentially a modern financial utility that earns spreads on deposits. 

As demand for instant, programmable dollars capable of moving globally around the clock continues to grow, he argued that Circle could potentially thrive in a token-agnostic world by continuing to solve real financial problems.

Overall, Chow’s comments present an alternative framework for assessing value in crypto that places less emphasis on token price and more on usage, infrastructure, and operational reliability. 

His views suggest that, in the absence of token-driven incentives, projects with sustained adoption, clear revenue models, and institutional relevance would be better positioned to remain relevant over time.

An analysis by Coinglass comparing perpetual decentralized exchange (perp DEX) data has sparked fierce debate and, in the process, highlighted rifts within the crypto derivatives sector.

The study exposed marked discrepancies in trading volumes, open interest, and liquidations across Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter. Users are left asking what qualifies as genuine trading activity on these platforms.

Coinglass Data Sparks Debate Over Authentic Trading on Perpetual DEXs

Coinglass is facing backlash after publishing a comparison of perp DEXs, questioning whether reported trading volumes across parts of the sector reflect genuine market activity.

A 24-hour snapshot comparing Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter shows that:

Hyperliquid recorded approximately $3.76 billion in trading volume, $4.05 billion in open interest, and $122.96 million in liquidations.

Aster posted $2.76 billion in volume, $927 million in open interest, and $7.2 million in liquidations

Lighter reported $1.81 billion in volume, $731 million in open interest, and $3.34 million in liquidations.

Top crypto decentralized derivatives exchanges ranked. Source: Coinglass on X

According to Coinglass, such discrepancies can matter. In perpetual futures markets, high trading volume driven by leveraged positions typically correlates with open-interest dynamics and liquidation activity during price moves.

Exchange Liquidations. Source: Coinglass on X

The firm suggested that, rather than organic hedging demand, the combination of high reported volume and relatively low liquidations may indicate:

Incentive-driven trading

Market-maker looping, or

Points farming.

Based on this, Coinglass concludes that Hyperliquid showed stronger internal consistency across key metrics.

Meanwhile, the volume quality of some competitors warrants further validation using indicators such as funding rates, fees, order-book depth, and active trader counts.

“Conclusion…Hyperliquid shows much stronger consistency between volume, OI, and liquidations — a better signal of real activity. Meanwhile, Aster/Lighter’s volume quality needs further validation (vs fees, funding, orderbook depth, and active traders),” the analytics platform indicated.

Critics Push Back, but Coinglass Defends Its Position

However, critics argue that conclusions drawn from a single-day snapshot could be misleading. Specifically, they suggest alternative explanations for the data, including whale positioning, algorithmic differences between platforms, and variations in market structure that could influence liquidation patterns without implying inflated volume.

Others questioned whether liquidation totals alone are a reliable indicator of market health, noting that higher liquidations can also reflect aggressive leverage or volatile trading conditions.

Meanwhile, Coinglass rejects accusations that its analysis amounted to speculation or fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), emphasizing that its conclusions were based on publicly available data.

“Coinglass simply highlighted a few discrepancies based on publicly available data. We didn’t expect that a neutral, data-driven observation would trigger such hostile reactions,” the firm wrote, adding that open discussion and tolerance for criticism are essential for the industry to improve.

In another response, Coinglass stressed that disagreements should be addressed with stronger evidence rather than accusations.

The firm also argued that higher leverage ceilings on some platforms could make them structurally more prone to forced liquidations. This outlook shifts the debate away from raw numbers toward exchange design and risk management.

A Pattern of Backlash in the Perp DEX Sector: What Counts as “Real” Activity?

The controversy comes amid a broader wave of disputes surrounding Hyperliquid and the perpetual DEX market.

Earlier, Kyle Samani, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, publicly criticized Hyperliquid, raising concerns about transparency, governance, and its closed-source elements.

His remarks triggered strong reactions from traders and supporters of the platform, many of whom dismissed the criticism and questioned his motives.

BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes further escalated the feud by proposing a $100,000 charity bet, challenging Samani to select any major altcoin with a market cap above $1 billion to compete against Hyperliquid’s HYPE token in performance over several months.

The dispute highlights a deeper issue facing crypto derivatives markets: the lack of standardized metrics for evaluating activity across DEXes.

Trading volume has long served as a headline indicator of success. However, the rise of incentive programs, airdrop campaigns, and liquidity-mining strategies has complicated the interpretation of those figures.

As new perp DEX platforms launch and competition intensifies, metrics such as open interest, liquidation patterns, leverage levels, and order-book depth are becoming central to assessing market integrity.

This Coinglass incident mirrors how data itself has become a battleground amid a sector driven by both numbers and narratives. Therefore, the debate over what those numbers truly mean is likely to intensify as the perpetual futures market continues to grow.

Concerns that quantum computing could one day break Bitcoin’s cryptography have resurfaced. Yet, a new report by CoinShares argues that the quantum risks remain distant, with only a fraction of Bitcoin’s supply potentially vulnerable.

The report frames quantum computing as a long-term engineering challenge. It argues that Bitcoin has ample time to adapt well before quantum machines reach a cryptographically relevant scale.

The Quantum Threat Assessment For Bitcoin

In the report titled “Quantum Vulnerability in Bitcoin: A Manageable Risk,” CoinShares’ Bitcoin Research Lead Christopher Bendiksen explained that Bitcoin relies on elliptic-curve cryptography to secure transactions. 

In theory, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could use Shor’s algorithm to derive private keys from public keys. This could enable unauthorized spending.

However, Bendiksen noted that such an attack would require quantum machines with millions of stable, error-corrected qubits. This is far beyond today’s capabilities.

“Breaking secp256k1 within a practical amount of time (<1 year) needs 10-100,000 times the current number of logical qubits; relevant quantum tech at least 10 years off. Long-term attacks can take place over years—could become feasible within a decade; short-term (mempool attacks) need <10-min computations—infeasible in anything but the very long term (decades),” the report read.

The report also examined the scope of Bitcoin’s real exposure. According to Bendiksen, only about 1.6 million BTC, roughly 8% of the total supply, resides in legacy Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) addresses where public keys are already exposed. However, the true practical risk is significantly smaller.

Of that amount, the report estimated that only around 10,200 BTC could plausibly be targeted in a way that would have an impact. This represents less than 0.1% of Bitcoin’s total supply.

“The remaining ~1.6 million all sit in 32,607 individual, ~50 btc UTXOs, that would take millennia to unlock even in the most outlandishly optimistic scenarios of technological progression in quantum computing,” Bendiksen stated.

The remaining vulnerable coins are dispersed across tens of thousands of addresses. This distribution would make large-scale exploitation slow and operationally impractical even for advanced quantum systems, according to the analysis.

This limited exposure exists because of modern address types. Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) and Pay-to-Script-Hash (P2SH) do not reveal public keys until coins are spent, sharply reducing the attack surface.

While post-quantum cryptographic proposals exist, Bendiksen cautioned against premature or forced changes. He warned they could introduce new risks, weaken decentralization, or rely on cryptographic schemes that have not yet been sufficiently tested in adversarial environments.

“For the perceivable future, market implications appear limited,” Bendiksen added. “The greater concern is preserving Bitcoin’s immutability and neutrality, which could be jeopardised by premature protocol changes.”

Meanwhile, this outlook aligns with views previously expressed by other industry figures, including Casa co-founder Jameson Lopp and Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson. Both of whom have argued that quantum computing poses no near-term threat to Bitcoin’s cryptography.

Quantum Risk No Longer Ignored as Investors and Developers Prepare

That said, not all market participants share this view. Some institutional investors are increasingly factoring quantum computing risk into their Bitcoin exposure rather than dismissing it as a distant concern. 

BeInCrypto reported that strategist Christopher Wood reduced a 10% Bitcoin allocation from Jefferies’ model portfolio, reallocating capital toward gold and mining equities. This move came amid concerns that future advances in quantum computing could threaten Bitcoin’s security.

At the same time, several blockchain projects are already taking proactive steps. Coinbase, Ethereum, and Optimism have publicly outlined efforts to prepare for a post-quantum future.

Charles Edwards of Capriole Investments has also suggested that Bitcoin’s price may need to decline further before the network attracts sufficient attention to the issue of quantum security. He framed market pressure as a potential catalyst for broader technical discussion.

“$50K not that far away now. I was serious when I said last year that price would need to go lower to incentivize proper attention to Bitcoin quantum security. This is the first promising progress we have seen to date,” he said.

Edwards added that substantial work still lies ahead, warning that Bitcoin’s quantum preparedness efforts would need to accelerate in 2026.

Obchodníci s Bitcoinem se připravují na makro těžký týden, kdy se očekávají čtyři americké ekonomické události, které formují sentiment na krypto trzích.

S Bitcoinem obchodovaným v volatilním rozmezí a makro narativy dominujícími psychologii trhu, obchodníci čím dál více považují ekonomické údaje za krátkodobé katalyzátory, které mohou spustit ostré pohyby v obou směrech.

Jaké americké ekonomické signály by měli sledovat investoři do Bitcoinu a kryptoměn tento týden?

Vystoupení guvernéra Federálního rezervního systému (Fed), klíčová data z trhu práce, týdenní žádosti o nezaměstnanost a lednové inflace by mohly ovlivnit očekávání kolem úrokových sazeb a likvidity – dvou nejvýznamnějších faktorů, které ovlivňují cenové cykly Bitcoinu.

Cena Bitcoinu se po poklesu blízko $60,000 6. února vzpamatovala téměř o 20 %. Tento pohyb oživil naděje na "nákup při poklesu" a podnítil diskusi o místním dnu. Zároveň ukazatele poptávky v USA začaly vykazovat známky oživení z nedávných minim.

Ale pod povrchem naznačují objemové signály, on-chain data a cenová struktura, že rally může být křehká. Několik varovných vzorců nyní připomíná nastavení, která předcházela velkým poklesům v tomto cyklu.

Medvědí vlajka ukazuje, že velké peníze nejsou plně angažovány.

Jedna z nejjasnějších varovných signálů pochází z Klingerova oscilátoru, indikátoru založeného na objemu, který sleduje velké peněžní toky.

Po pádu na téměř 2,0 bilionu dolarů minulý pátek se celková tržní kapitalizace kryptoměn zotavila na více než 2,3 bilionu dolarů. Investoři se zdají objevovat příležitosti a sentiment kupování na poklesu se znovu objevuje.

Klíčová otázka zní, zda je toto zotavení dostatečně silné na to, aby vytvořilo klasické V-tvarované oživení. Několik tržních signálů nabízí náhled.

Známky chování kupování na pokles po panickém výprodeji

Jedním z nejranějších a nejvýznamnějších signálů je obnovený příliv stablecoinů do centralizovaných burz. Tento trend se obrátil po měsících poklesu, i když prodejní tlak zůstává zvýšený.

Trend Research, investiční firma vedená Jackem Yi, zakladatelem Liquid Capital, prodala svou celou pozici v Ethereum (ETH) a údajně zamkla ztráty téměř 750 milionů dolarů.

Velký výprodej přichází, když Ethereum pokračuje v širším poklesu, přičemž altcoin klesl o více než 30 % za poslední měsíc. Výkon ceny znovu oživil debatu o tom, zda se ETH blíží tržnímu dnu.

Trend Research prodává Ethereum v době tržní volatility

BeInCrypto nedávno informovalo, že Trend Research začalo převádět Ethereum na Binance na začátku měsíce. On-chain analytická platforma Lookonchain potvrdila, že firma včera dokončila výprodej.

Spoluzakladatel Etherea Vitalik Buterin a analytik kryptoměn c-node znovu oživili debatu o skutečném účelu decentralizovaných financí (DeFi).

Společně dva odborníci z oboru vyzývají boomingový průmysl, aby přehodnotil své priority.

Odborníci se hádají o tom, co se počítá jako „skutečné“ DeFi

Základní problém, podle odborníků, je, že většina dnešního hype kolem DeFi je povrchní a slouží spekulativním zájmům spíše než aby posunula skutečnou DeFi infrastrukturu vpřed.

„Není důvod používat DeFi, pokud nemáte dlouhé pozice na kryptoměnách a chcete mít přístup k finančním službám při zachování vlastního úschovnictví,“ napsal c-node.

Globální trhy mohou vstoupit do nové fáze volatility poté, co Goldman Sachs varoval, že systémové fondy by mohly v nadcházejících týdnech prodat desítky miliard dolarů v akciích.

Tato vlna prodeje by mohla ovlivnit Bitcoin, zlato a stříbro, když se podmínky likvidity zhorší.

Goldman varuje, že prodeje CTA by se mohly zrychlit, jak se likvidita ztenčuje

Podle obchodní kanceláře Goldmana, fondy sledující trendy známé jako poradcové fondy pro obchodování s komoditami (CTA) již vyvolaly prodejní signály v S&P 500. Co víc, očekává se, že v blízké době zůstanou čistými prodejci, bez ohledu na to, zda se trhy stabilizují nebo nadále klesají.

Kyle Samani odstoupil z Multicoin Capital 5. února 2026, po téměř deseti letech jako spoluzakladatel. Dnes veřejně kritizuje Hyperliquid (HYPE), protože on-chain data ukazují, že Multicoin zakoupil více než 40 milionů dolarů v HYPE tokenech.

Blízké načasování podnítilo spekulace, že vnitřní konflikty ohledně investiční strategie vedly k odchodu jednoho z nejvýznamnějších obhájců Solany v kryptoprůmyslu.

Multicoin, Hyperliquid a Kyle Samani: Náhoda nebo střet?

Oznámení o odchodu Samaniho 5. února znamenalo významný posun pro Multicoin Capital, vedoucí sílu v institucionálních kryptoinvesticích.

Japonská premiérka Sanae Takaichi, často nazývána "Železnou dámou" země, dosáhla historického drtivého vítězství ve zrychlených parlamentních volbách 8. února 2026. Její Liberálně demokratická strana (LDP) by měla vyhrát mezi 274 a 326 z 465 křesel v dolní komoře, což představuje největší volební náskok po válce pro jakoukoli japonskou stranu.

Rozhodující výsledek upevňuje autoritu Takaichi a připravuje ji na ambiciózní ekonomické a regulační reformy.

Japonská Sanae Takaichi dosáhla drtivého vítězství, připravuje půdu pro reformu daní z kryptoměn

Krypto investoři čelili ostrému nárůstu sofistikovaných útoků "podpisového phishingu" v lednu, přičemž ztráty vzrostly o více než 200%.

Podle údajů od firmy na zabezpečení blockchainu Scam Sniffer, podpisové phishingové útoky odčerpaly přibližně 6,3 milionu dolarů z peněženek uživatelů v prvním měsíci roku. Zatímco surový počet obětí klesl o 11%, celková hodnota odcizená vzrostla o 207% oproti prosincovým úrovním.

Podpisový phishing a otravování adres způsobily chaos v lednu

Tato divergenční změna zdůrazňuje taktický posun mezi kybernetickými zločinci směrem k "lovu velryb." Strategie spočívá v cílení na menší počet jednotlivců s vysokým čistým jměním, spíše než na široké pokrytí menších maloobchodních účtů.

Arthur Hayes, spoluzakladatel BitMEX, naznačil, že zajištění institucionálních obchodníků zhoršuje nedávný tlak na pokles cen Bitcoinu.

V příspěvku z 7. února na X Hayes poukázal na strukturované finanční produkty spojené s Bitcoin Trustem (IBIT) společnosti BlackRock.

Hayes upozorňuje na skrytá rizika v poznámkách ETF Bitcoinu

Tvrdil, že klesající ceny Bitcoinu nutí finanční instituce, které tyto poznámky vydávají, prodávat podkladové aktivum, aby řídily svou expozici riziku. Finance profesionálové tento proces označují jako delta hedging.

Monero čelil intenzivnímu prodeji v uplynulém měsíci, kdy cena klesla téměř o 60 % během pouhých čtyř týdnů. Ostrý pokles smazal týdny zisků a posunul XMR do trvalého medvědího trendu.

Tento krok signalizuje rychle slábnoucí důvěru investorů, protože dlouhodobí držitelé i krátkodobí obchodníci snižují expozici uprostřed širšího tržního stresu.

Obchodníci s Monerem se stahují

Údaje o derivátech ukazují na jasný odchod obchodníků z Monera. Otevřený zájem prudce klesl, a to z přibližně 279 milionů dolarů v polovině ledna na asi 118 milionů dolarů. Tento pokles o 57 % odráží sníženou účast na futures trzích, což signalizuje klesající spekulativní zájem o XMR.

Hedera byla vystavena obnovenému tlaku po širším poklesu trhu, který stlačil HBAR níže. Nedávný pokles cen odráží medvědí signály způsobené makro nejistotou a slabostí Bitcoinu.

Zatímco dlouhodobý výhled pro Hedera zůstává konstruktivní, pokusy o zotavení v krátkodobém horizontu se mohou potýkat, protože tržní protivětry nadále ovlivňují sentiment.

HBAR má jiný cíl

Cenová akce zůstává makro býčí, přičemž HBAR obchoduje uvnitř dobře definovaného klesajícího kanálu. Odmítnutí z horní hranice kanálu blízko $0.1290 potvrdilo dominanci prodejců.

Těžební obtížnost Bitcoinu zaznamenala nejprudší pokles za téměř pět let.

Historický pokles signalizuje dvojí krizi extrémních klimatických omezení a prohlubujícího se ekonomického tlaku na provozovatele sítě.

Ekonomika těžby Bitcoinu se rozpadá uprostřed klesajících cen

Podle vývojáře Mempool Mononauta se obtížnost sítě tento týden snížila o 11,16 % na 125,86 trilionu (T).

Je pozoruhodné, že tato úprava představuje největší kapitulaci v těžební síle od července 2021. V té době donutila státem nařízená prohibice v Číně k masivnímu exodu těžební síly.

Bitcoin nedávno zažil ostrý výprodej, který téměř stáhl cenu na úroveň $60,000, než následovalo rychlé odražení. Nákupy při poklesu pomohly BTC stabilizovat se poblíž současných úrovní, ale tento odraz sám o sobě nepotvrzuje obrácení trendu.

Místo toho se pohyb jeví spíše jako dočasná pauza v rámci širší korektivní fáze, což vede investory k otázkám, zda další pokles leží před námi.

Tohle jsou signály, které naznačují Bitcoin

Jednou z určujících charakteristik medvědích trhů je zvýšená relativní nerealizovaná ztráta, která měří dolarovou hodnotu podvodních mincí vůči celkové tržní kapitalizaci. Během poklesu Bitcoinu k $60,000, tento poměr vzrostl na přibližně 24%.

Tether, vydavatel nejvíce obchodovaného stablecoinu na světě, zmrazil více než 500 milionů dolarů v digitálních aktivech.

Financování je spojeno s masivními nelegálními hazardními a praní peněz syndikátem v Turecku.

Tether označuje jedno z největších represí v kryptoměně

Zmrazení cílí na aktiva, která údajně vlastní Veysel Sahin, jednotlivce, kterého turečtí prokurátoři obviňují z organizování rozsáhlé nelegální sázkové sítě.

Je pozoruhodné, že tento krok představuje jedno z největších zabavení jednotlivého aktiva v sektoru kryptoměn dosud.