BeInCrypto Global

Poiché la volatilità del mercato persiste, alcuni altcoin mostrano segni di potenziali massimi storici nonostante l'incertezza più ampia. Alcuni rimangono vicini ai massimi record, mentre altri attirano l'attenzione attraverso segnali on-chain di supporto.

BeInCrypto ha analizzato tre di questi altcoin che hanno il potenziale per formare nuovi massimi storici.

Canton (CC)

CC sta negoziando vicino a $0.165 al momento della scrittura, rimanendo appena il 18.25% al di sotto del suo massimo storico di $0.195. Nonostante il ribasso del mercato più ampio, l'altcoin ha mostrato una relativa resilienza. Mantenersi vicino ai recenti massimi mantiene CC posizionato per una potenziale continuazione se le condizioni si stabilizzano.

Benvenuto al Morning Briefing delle Notizie Crypto degli Stati Uniti—la tua sintesi essenziale degli sviluppi più importanti nel crypto per la giornata a venire.

Prendi un caffè e fai un passo indietro dai grafici dei prezzi quotidiani. Sotto il rumore, alcuni analisti credono che l'ultima flessione di Bitcoin possa raccontare una storia molto diversa—una meno riguardante il crollo e più su come il mercato stesso sta cambiando.

Notizie Crypto del Giorno: Bernstein Mantiene la Predizione di $150,000 BTC

L'ultima correzione di Bitcoin potrebbe sembrare familiare agli analisti crypto, ma gli esperti della società di ricerca e intermediazione Bernstein sostengono che questo ciclo è fondamentalmente diverso dalle flessioni passate.

Il prezzo di Ethereum ha raggiunto il suo obiettivo di rottura previsto vicino a $1.800 all'inizio di febbraio. È persino scivolato a $1.740 prima di rimbalzare. Da allora, ETH è rimbalzato di quasi il 23%, dando ai trader speranza che il peggio possa essere passato.

Ma i rimbalzi di prezzo all'interno dei trend in calo spesso sembrano forti all'inizio. La vera domanda è se questo rimbalzo è sostenuto da acquirenti forti. In questo momento, grafici, dati on-chain e metriche tecniche suggeriscono che il supporto rimane debole. Diversi segnali di avvertimento indicano ancora un rischio di ribasso.

La rottura del prezzo di ETH ha funzionato, ma il rimbalzo manca di reale forza

Le meme coin stanno di nuovo attirando l'attenzione dei trader mentre il capitale speculativo ruota nuovamente verso configurazioni ad alta volatilità. Dopo settimane di condizioni altalenanti, diversi asset guidati da meme stanno iniziando a mostrare segni tecnici di stabilizzazione e inversioni precoci.

BeInCrypto ha analizzato tre di queste meme coin che gli investitori dovrebbero tenere d'occhio nella seconda settimana di febbraio.

Pippin (PIPPIN)

PIPPIN sta tentando una inversione di tendenza dopo un forte movimento correttivo, con il prezzo che rimbalza chiaramente dalla zona di domanda di $0.1565 e formando minimi più alti a breve termine. Il momentum sta migliorando poiché l'istogramma MACD sta formando un incrocio rialzista, suggerendo che la pressione di vendita sta svanendo e gli acquirenti stanno tornando.

Recentemente, XRP ha subito una forte vendita che ha trascinato il prezzo vicino al livello di $1,00, segnando il suo punto più basso in quasi 15 mesi. Il calo ha scosso la fiducia del mercato e ha innescato una paura diffusa tra i possessori a breve termine.

Tuttavia, XRP ha evitato un crollo più profondo all'ultimo momento. La domanda chiave ora è se la pressione al ribasso riprenderà o si stabilizzerà.

I possessori di XRP mostrano segnali misti

I grandi possessori di XRP sono tornati in modalità accumulo durante il calo. I portafogli che detengono tra 100 milioni e 1 miliardo di XRP hanno acquisito più di 1,6 miliardi di token nell'ultima settimana. Ai prezzi attuali, questo acquisto supera i 2,24 miliardi di dollari, segnalando un rinnovato interesse da parte di partecipanti influenti del mercato.

Over the past two years, the landscape for crypto derivatives has shifted dramatically. A significant contraction in the supply of ETF leveraged tokens has occurred across top-tier exchanges. Platforms that previously championed these products have initiated phased suspensions, halted subscriptions, or delisted leveraged pairs entirely throughout 2024 and 2025. However, the demand for leverage among traders has not vanished. It has simply been displaced.

In this environment of market retrenchment, Gate has taken a contrarian approach. Rather than withdrawing, Gate has doubled down, treating ETF leveraged tokens not as a niche add-on, but as a core product line. By prioritizing transparent mechanisms and a unified low-fee framework, Gate has transformed what was once a complex instrument into a scalable, user-friendly tactical tool.

Why Exchanges Are Leaving

In the context of crypto, ETFs generally refer to ETF Leveraged Tokens. These are tokenized instruments traded on the spot market that track perpetual futures positions, allowing users to gain leveraged exposure (e.g., 3x Long BTC) without managing margin or liquidation prices.

Despite their utility, these products are highly structured. Without robust risk controls and clear user education, they are susceptible to volatility decay in ranging markets. Consequently, major platforms have exited the space to minimize compliance risks and user disputes. For example, exchange no. 1. phased out leveraged token services in early 2024, eventually discontinuing support, and exchange no. 2. followed suit in late 2025, issuing batch delisting announcements for BTC and other major assets.

This industry wide reduction has created a vacuum. As comparable platforms shrink, product availability itself has become a scarce competitive advantage. Gate has stepped in to absorb this liquidity, offering a stable home for short-term leveraged trading demand.

Simplifying Leverage With Unified Fees

Gate’s ETF architecture is designed to map professional derivatives positions into a simple tokenized format. For the user, the experience mirrors spot trading, there is no need to monitor margin maintenance or fear sudden liquidation events.

A key differentiator is Gate’s approach to cost transparency. In derivatives trading, costs are often fragmented across funding rates, trading fees, and slippage. Gate consolidates these fragmented costs into a single, understandable metric known as the unified management fee. This flat 0.1% daily fee is entirely all-inclusive, covering everything from hedging costs and funding rates to potential trading friction.

By packaging costs at the product level, Gate shifts the complexity from the user to the platform. The user gets a predictable cost structure, while the platform leverages professional expertise to manage execution and hedging.

Transparency in Mechanics

The sustainability of leveraged tokens relies on explainability. Two critical variables define these products: the Net Asset Value (NAV) and Rebalancing Rules.

The sustainability of leveraged tokens relies on explainability. Unlike competitors that often operated these mechanisms as “black boxes,” Gate provides explicit parameter disclosures. This includes specific leverage fluctuation ranges where rebalancing is not triggered, which significantly reduces frictional costs in choppy markets.

For instance, Gate ensures position stability by avoiding rebalancing for 3x Long tokens as long as leverage stays between 2.25x and 4.125x, while the 3x Short variant maintains a range of 1.5x to 5.25x. Similarly, for 5x tokens, no adjustments are triggered unless the leverage moves outside the 3.5x to 7x boundary. These technical parameters are vital for professional traders as they minimize the “decay” often associated with these products during range-bound price action.

Scale by the Numbers

Gate’s ecosystem is expanding. According to Gate’s 2025 annual report, the “Scale Effect” of their ETF product line is evident in the platform’s ability to support 244 different ETF leveraged tokens throughout the year. This robust supply served a cumulative user base of over 200,000 traders, driving average daily trading volumes into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This growth is supported by continuous technical iterations, including the launch of multidimensional data dashboards, rebalancing history displays, and specialized educational modules designed to reduce the learning curve for new participants.

The platform’s success is not merely a result of being one of the last providers standing, but rather a reflection of its commitment to product depth. Gate continues to broaden its asset coverage, ensuring that users can access leveraged exposure across a diverse range of emerging and established tokens. Looking ahead, Gate plans to build on this momentum by introducing sophisticated new formats, such as portfolio ETFs and low-leverage inverse ETFs. By retaining technical complexity at the platform level while delivering operational certainty to the user, Gate is positioning itself to capture an even larger share of the short-term leveraged trading market.

Conclusion

The industry wide contraction of leveraged tokens was not a failure of the concept, but a failure of execution regarding transparency and education. Gate has succeeded where others retreated by systematizing the product.

By offering clear disclosures, a unified 0.1% daily fee, and a spot-like user experience, Gate has built a sustainable ecosystem that preserves the utility of leverage while mitigating its complexity. As the market matures, Gate’s ETF offering stands as a testament to the value of explainable, transparent financial engineering.

Disclaimer: Investing in the cryptocurrency market involves high risk. Users are advised to conduct independent research and fully understand the nature of the assets and products before making any investment decisions. Gate is not liable for any losses or damages resulting from such investment activities.

Executives from Bitpanda, Dune, and Libertex identify AI agents and demographic shifts as defining forces for 2026

More than fifteen years after the Bitcoin white paper sparked a revolution in how we think about money, the cryptocurrency industry is entering a period of rapid transformation. It now sits at the intersection of three powerful forces: co-option by incumbent financial institutions, the rise of AI agents, and the shifting demographics that come with mainstream adoption.

What started as a fringe, ideologically pure attempt to escape centralised financial control is now being embraced by the very institutions it was designed to disrupt. The idealistic manifesto published by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, and the blockchain innovations that followed, is no longer confined to the margins. Crypto is quietly sliding into the plumbing of global finance. Crypto’s real-world use cases are no longer playing out in headlines, they’re being embedded quietly into the backend of global financial infrastructure.

Many would argue this is a sign of maturity, and perhaps inevitable. But this transition brings with it a new set of challenges alongside the opportunities.

That shift is forcing a rethink across the industry. The next phase of growth will not be driven by hype cycles, but by companies that understand how information is consumed and produced by both humans and AI systems, particularly autonomous agents whose transaction volumes may soon eclipse those of people. At the same time, crypto’s audience is expanding well beyond its early adopters, reshaping how distribution works. Take this as a case in point. What was once mocked by the Davos elite now dominates centre stage, generating daily headlines in once hostile TradFi broadsheets like the Financial Times.

This new paradigm was clearly articulated at BeInCrypto’s inaugural Executive Council, where senior leaders from Bitpanda, Dune, and Libertex came together for an extended discussion on the industry’s most urgent strategic challenges, and the opportunities emerging from the convergence of AI, blockchain infrastructure, and mainstream financial adoption.

The roundtable surfaced one finding that surprised even the participants: traditional performance marketing is becoming obsolete. Traffic to top websites has declined more than 11% over five years, according to SimilarWeb data, and AI agents are increasingly bypassing subscription models entirely — consuming content without paying for it.

Figure 1: Average monthly web traffic to the top 1,000 sites (Source: Similarweb via Axios) Key Takeaways

Crypto moves to the backend. The industry is shifting from hype-driven growth to infrastructure mode. “We don’t need to explain the concept anymore — it’s becoming invisible,” one participant noted.

AI agents are economic actors, not tools. Autonomous systems now consume, summarize, and act on content. Traditional monetization models — subscriptions, traffic-based advertising — face structural disruption.

Demographics are diversifying. Banks and traditional financial institutions are mediating crypto adoption, bringing older audiences who consume news through legacy media rather than crypto-native channels.

Volatility remains unsolved. While traditional markets have mature volatility management tools, crypto still lacks equivalent infrastructure at scale.

Trust still requires humans. Despite rapid AI adoption, authority, expertise, and social proof — not algorithms — remain the primary trust signals for users.

Detailed Findings

From Headlines to Backend Infrastructure

Crypto’s maturation is accelerating. TradFi, fintech, and crypto now operate on similar rails, competing for the same users with similar tools. The competitive boundaries that once separated these sectors have largely dissolved.

User acquisition has fragmented across referrals, partnerships, and LLM-powered search — a shift that renders traditional performance marketing increasingly ineffective. At the same time, token price appreciation is no longer a reliable revenue driver, forcing projects to reassess opaque or outdated business models.

“We’re entering a new era where success isn’t measured by token prices alone. Dune, as the leading onchain data platform, is seeing that shift firsthand. Blockchain teams are increasingly focusing on data points that directly reflect their utility and real-world impact.”— Alsie Liu, Full-stack Web3 Marketing Manager, Dune

The Social Era: Signals Over Opinions

Social platforms have become primary news sources, particularly among younger audiences. In the US, 54% of people now access news via social media, with over half of under-35s relying on these platforms as their main source — surpassing TV and traditional news websites for the first time.

Figure 2: Proportion using each as source of news in the US, 2013-2025 (Source: Reuters Institute)

The shift is not merely about platform preference — it reflects deeper changes in content expectations. Audiences increasingly demand signals and verifiable facts over opinion-heavy analysis. Personalization is now baseline, not premium.

The rise of social media-based news is not unique to the United States, but changes are happening faster there. The US is joining a “social-first club” that includes Brazil, many African countries, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Meanwhile, European countries and Japan show more resilience toward traditional news brands.

Figure 3: Proportion saying social media is their main source of news (Source: Reuters Institute)

“Boomers are coming to the game. They consume news the old-fashioned way… Boomers will go to the banks.”

— Vishal Sacheendran, VP Global Markets Strategy & Operations, Bitpanda

AI as Economic Actor

AI is no longer just a productivity tool. According to McKinsey’s 2025 survey, 88% of companies now use AI in at least one business function — but only 7% have deployed it enterprise-wide. This gap creates a significant first-mover advantage for organizations that scale quickly.

Figure 4: AI adoption and deployment phases, 2017-2025 (Source: McKinsey Global Survey)

At leading AI-native organizations, 60% of daily work is AI-assisted, delivering a 50% productivity boost. The structural challenge: AI agents can consume, summarize, and publish content autonomously, bypassing traditional monetization entirely. Platforms lose subscriptions and traffic-based ad revenue. No one has yet solved how to monetize agent-driven behavior.

“Success in the next era means creating content that serves both humans and AI agents. Companies that design for machine-readability alongside human engagement will be positioned at the forefront of how information flows.”— Alsie Liu, Full-stack Web3 Marketing Manager, Dune

Regulatory gray zones compound the challenge. Data center location, jurisdiction, and compliance accountability are now strategic considerations.

“There is hype coming from managers that we need to add AI everywhere. But we need governance while doing it.”— Dennis Alexander, CTO, Libertex

Trust in the AI Age

Despite rapid automation, trust formation remains distinctly human. The attention crisis is real:

In this attention-scarce environment, authority and social proof outperform algorithmic recommendations. Younger users follow community signals; older audiences rely on familiar platforms and brands.

“No evidence in their A/B tests that clients use AI for analysis; they use it for shortcuts.”

— Dennis Alexander, CTO, Libertex

Strategic Implications

The Executive Council findings point to three strategic imperatives for crypto media:

Optimize for AI consumption. Content strategies must account for non-human readers that summarize and redistribute information without traditional engagement metrics. Publishers who build AI-friendly infrastructure first will capture the distribution advantage.

Diversify audience channels. As banks and traditional institutions mediate crypto adoption, media platforms must meet users where they are — including legacy and local news channels. The audience is fragmenting; reach requires multichannel presence.

Prioritize trust signals. In a world of AI-generated content, editorial authority, expertise, and social proof become competitive differentiators. Human voices — with real accountability — will command premium attention.

The Bottom Line for Media Strategy

The era of performance marketing and platform dependence is ending. The future belongs to organizations that can:

Build direct audience relationships

Create AI-consumable content infrastructure

Establish human trust signals that algorithms can’t replicate

About the Executive Council

BeInCrypto’s Executive Council brings together internal leadership and external executives to identify blind spots, debate solutions, and challenge strategic assumptions. The January 2026 session included:

Vishal Sacheendran, VP Global Markets Strategy & Operations, Bitpanda

Alsie Liu, Full-stack Web3 Marketing Manager, Dune

Dennis Alexander, CTO, Libertex

Discussion was held under Chatham House-style principles. Insights are synthesized to reflect collective perspectives unless individually attributed with speaker approval.

L'analista cripto Alex Krüger afferma che la maggior parte dei token è fallita per design, sostenendo che la regolamentazione obsoleta spinge i progetti a lanciare asset privi di diritti applicabili.

I suoi commenti coincidono con un periodo di fallimenti elevati di token nel mercato cripto. Dal 2021, oltre 13,4 milioni di token sono 'morti'.

Perché così tanti altcoin falliscono nel mercato di oggi

Secondo la ricerca di CoinGecko, il 53,2% di tutte le criptovalute elencate su GeckoTerminal era fallito alla fine del 2025. 11.6 milioni di token sono collassati nel 2025, rappresentando l'86,3% di tutti i fallimenti registrati dal 2021, segnalando un'accelerazione senza precedenti.

Il mercato delle criptovalute accoglierà token del valore di oltre $278 milioni nella seconda settimana di febbraio 2025. Progetti principali, tra cui Connex (CONX), Avalanche (AVAX) e Aptos (APT), rilasceranno significative nuove forniture di token.

Questi sblocchi potrebbero introdurre volatilità nel mercato e influenzare i movimenti dei prezzi a breve termine. Quindi, ecco un riepilogo di cosa tenere d'occhio.

1. Connex (CONX)

Data di sblocco: 15 febbraio

Numero di token da sbloccare: 1,32 milioni di CONX

Offerta rilasciata: 84,63 milioni di CONX

Offerta totale: 100 milioni di CONX

Il SAFU di Binance (Secure Asset Fund for Users) continua a suscitare attenzione dopo che l'exchange ha confermato un nuovo acquisto di Bitcoin.

L'ultima conversione porta le partecipazioni totali del fondo a 10.455 BTC, valutati a circa $734 milioni.

Come il fondo SAFU di Binance agisce come indicatore del mercato delle criptovalute

L'ultima accumulazione fa parte di un piano più ampio per convertire l'intero riserva di $1 miliardo in Bitcoin nel corso di un periodo di 30 giorni. Potrebbe questo offrire indizi sui cicli più ampi del mercato delle criptovalute?

“Il fondo SAFU di Binance ha appena acquistato altri 4.225 $BTC ($299,6 milioni), portando il suo totale acquisto a 10.455 $BTC ($734 milioni),” ha riportato Lookonchain.

Bitcoin (BTC) è diminuito del 22,5% nell'ultimo mese. La moneta è brevemente scesa al suo livello più basso in oltre un anno la scorsa settimana prima di rimbalzare.

Il ritracciamento ha intensificato il dibattito sui cicli storici, sugli indicatori tecnici e sui dati on-chain che potrebbero segnalare dove il mercato ribassista attuale di Bitcoin raggiungerà finalmente il fondo. Con l'aumento dell'incertezza, diversi analisti si stanno ora concentrando su zone di prezzo chiave sotto i $40,000.

Previsione del Fondo di Bitcoin: Gli Analisti Indicano Livelli Chiave

I dati di BeInCrypto Markets hanno mostrato che la più grande criptovaluta è scesa a $60,000 il 6 febbraio. I prezzi si sono successivamente ripresi, con Bitcoin che scambiava a $70,354 al momento della stampa, in aumento dell'1,20% nel giorno.

I mercati delle criptovalute possono mostrare segni precoci di stabilizzazione dopo settimane di vendite intense, secondo l'ultimo rapporto di CoinShares sugli asset digitali.

I prodotti di investimento hanno visto il collasso delle uscite da oltre 1,7 miliardi di dollari registrati per due settimane consecutive a soli 187 milioni di dollari la scorsa settimana.

Le uscite di criptovalute si riducono a 187 milioni di dollari, mostra il rapporto di CoinShares

Le ultime cifre di CoinShares mostrano che il totale degli asset in gestione è sceso a 129,8 miliardi di dollari, il livello più basso da marzo 2025. Ciò riflette l'impatto continuo dell'ultima caduta dei prezzi.

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.

Le preoccupazioni che il calcolo quantistico possa un giorno rompere la crittografia del Bitcoin sono riemerse. Tuttavia, un nuovo rapporto di CoinShares sostiene che i rischi quantistici rimangono distanti, con solo una frazione dell'offerta di Bitcoin potenzialmente vulnerabile.

Il rapporto inquadra il calcolo quantistico come una sfida ingegneristica a lungo termine. Sostiene che il Bitcoin ha ampio tempo per adattarsi bene prima che le macchine quantistiche raggiungano una scala crittograficamente rilevante.

La Valutazione della Minaccia Quantistica per il Bitcoin

Nel rapporto intitolato “Vulnerabilità Quantistica nel Bitcoin: Un Rischio Gestibile,” il Responsabile della Ricerca sul Bitcoin di CoinShares, Christopher Bendiksen, ha spiegato che il Bitcoin si basa sulla crittografia a curva ellittica per garantire le transazioni.

I trader di Bitcoin si stanno avvicinando a una settimana macro pesante, con quattro eventi economici statunitensi previsti per plasmare il sentimento nei mercati delle criptovalute.

Con Bitcoin che scambia in un intervallo volatile e le narrazioni macro che dominano la psicologia del mercato, i trader stanno sempre più trattando i rilasci economici come catalizzatori a breve termine che possono innescare movimenti bruschi in entrambe le direzioni.

Quali segnali economici statunitensi dovrebbero osservare gli investitori di Bitcoin e criptovalute questa settimana?

Un'apparizione mediatica del governatore della Federal Reserve (Fed), dati chiave sul mercato del lavoro, richieste settimanali di disoccupazione e le cifre dell'inflazione di gennaio potrebbero influenzare le aspettative sui tassi di interesse e sulla liquidità—due dei più forti driver dei cicli di prezzo di Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin price has rebounded nearly 20% after slipping close to $60,000 on February 6. The move has revived “buy-the-dip” hopes and fueled talk of a local bottom. At the same time, US demand indicators have started to recover from recent lows.

But beneath the surface, volume signals, on-chain data, and price structure suggest the rally may be fragile. Several warning patterns now resemble setups that preceded major declines in this cycle.

Bear Flag Shows Big Money Is Not Fully Committed

One of the clearest warning signals comes from the Klinger Oscillator, a volume-based indicator that tracks big money flow.

Unlike indicators such as the CMF, which focus mainly on short-term big-money pressure, the Klinger Oscillator measures large-wallet volume intensity across trends. It is designed to highlight how large players position themselves over time, not just day-to-day activity.

In simple terms, it shows whether big money is quietly accumulating or preparing to sell into rallies.

Between October 6 and January 14, Bitcoin fell from around $126,000 to $97,800, a decline of roughly 22%. During that period, the Klinger Oscillator moved higher while the price weakened. This created a bearish divergence.

Weakening Institutional Flows: TradingView

That divergence warned that volume strength by large wallets (possibly whales and institutions) was not supporting price recovery. Within weeks, Bitcoin extended its decline toward $60,000 as the Klinger reading dropped sharply (possible big money outflows).

A similar pattern is forming again.

Between February 2 and February 9, the price drifted lower while the Klinger Oscillator trended upward. This suggests large players may be positioning (recent buys) to sell into rebounds rather than build long-term exposure.

At the same time, Bitcoin’s drop from mid-January to early February formed a sharp downside “pole.” The current price bounce movement resembles a bear flag, a pattern that often signals a continuation of the lower trend, with a near 40% crash possibility if the lower trendline support gives way. That could trap the bulls buying into the bounce.

BTC Forms A Bull Trap: TradingView

When rising Klinger readings align with a bear flag, it usually means rallies lack deep institutional support. Big players are active, but not in accumulation mode, and might distribute at any given chance. Days of BTC ETF outflows in the near term would validate the Klinger-led hypothesis.

Improving US Demand Has Failed to Mark Bottoms Before

This technical weakness does not exist in isolation. It comes even as US demand has started to improve.

The Coinbase Premium Index tracks whether Bitcoin trades at a premium or discount on US-based Coinbase compared with global exchanges. It primarily reflects American institutional demand.

On February 4, the index fell to around -0.22, showing weak US participation. This level closely matched December 31, 2024, when the index dropped to -0.23. At that time, Bitcoin traded near $93,300.

Coinbase Premium Index: CryptoQuant

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

Many traders believed a bottom had formed. Instead, the price later fell to about $76,200, a decline of nearly 18%.

Since early February, the index has recovered to near -0.07, signaling improving US interest and aligning with the Klinger oscillator’s rising reading. However, history shows that demand recovery often comes before price bottoms, not after. In 2024, US demand improved first. The deeper correction came later.

On-chain data adds another layer of risk.

The 1-day to 1-week holder group, made up of short-term traders, increased its share of supply from about 2.05% to over 3.3% since February 5 (during the 20% rebound). That is a rise of more than 60% in just days, as highlighted by HODL Waves, a metric segregating wallets by time.

Short-Term BTC Cohort Buying The Dip: Glassnode

This cohort tends to sell quickly when prices weaken. Their growing presence makes the market more unstable. A similar surge in short-term holders in late January was followed by a rapid 3% pullback. So far, improving US demand is being matched by rising speculation, not strong conviction.

Key Bitcoin Price Levels Show Where the Bounce Could Fail

All signals now converge around a few critical Bitcoin price zones.

The first major support sits near $67,350. A daily close below this level could restart selling pressure.

If that breaks, the next downside targets are:

$60,130, the recent low

$57,900 (a key Fibonacci support and a mear 18% correction zone from the current levels)

$53,450 a major retracement zone

$43,470, the bear flag projection

A move from current levels to $43,400 would represent a further decline of roughly 35%. On the upside, Bitcoin must reclaim $72,330 to stabilize and get out of the possible bull trap. This level capped recent rallies.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: TradingView

Above that, $79,240 remains decisive. Recovering this zone would retrace about half of the prior fall and likely invalidate the bearish structure. Only then would the path toward $97,870 reopen. Until that happens, all Bitcoin price rallies remain vulnerable.

Dopo essere sceso a quasi $2,0 trilioni venerdì scorso, la capitalizzazione totale del mercato delle criptovalute è rimbalzata sopra i $2,3 trilioni. Gli investitori sembrano individuare opportunità e il sentimento di comprare durante il ribasso sta riemergendo.

La domanda chiave è se questo rimbalzo sia sufficientemente forte da formare un classico recupero a V. Diversi segnali di mercato offrono spunti.

Segnali di Comportamento di Compra Durante il Ribasso Dopo la Vendita Panic

Uno dei segnali più precoci e notevoli è il rinnovato afflusso di stablecoin negli exchange centralizzati. Questa tendenza si è invertita dopo mesi di declino, anche se la pressione di vendita rimane elevata.

Trend Research, an investment firm led by Jack Yi, founder of Liquid Capital, has sold its entire Ethereum (ETH) position, reportedly locking in losses of nearly $750 million.

The large-scale sell-off comes as Ethereum continues its broader downturn, with the altcoin down more than 30% in the past month. The price performance has reignited debate over whether ETH is approaching a market bottom.

Trend Research Sells Ethereum Amid Market Volatility

BeInCrypto recently reported that Trend Research began transferring Ethereum to Binance at the beginning of the month. On-chain analytics platform Lookonchain confirmed that the firm completed the sell-off yesterday.

In total, Trend Research moved 651,757 ETH, worth approximately $1.34 billion, to Binance at an average price of $2,055. The transactions reduced the firm’s ETH holdings to just 0.0344 ETH, valued at around $72.

Data from Arkham Intelligence corroborates the near-complete exit, showing residual balances of roughly $10,000 in USDC and minor amounts of other tokens.

“The total loss is ~$747 million,” Lookonchain wrote.

Trend Research’s Portfolio After ETH Sell-Off. Source: Arkham

The exit followed a leveraged strategy built on the decentralized finance (DeFi) lending protocol Aave. An analyst explained that Trend Research initially purchased ETH on centralized exchanges and deposited it as collateral on Aave.

The firm then borrowed stablecoins against the collateral and repeatedly reinvested the borrowed funds into additional ETH purchases, creating a recursive leveraged position that significantly increased both exposure and liquidation risk.

As ETH’s price continued to decline, the position moved closer to the liquidation threshold. Rather than risk forced liquidation, Trend Research chose to unwind the entire position voluntarily.

While Trend Research pivoted to selling, BitMine has taken the opposite approach. Despite mounting unrealized losses, the firm has continued to increase its exposure, recently purchasing $42 million worth of Ethereum.

What an Ethereum Market Bottom Could Mean for Bitmine and Trend Research

The opposing strategies come amid a period of heightened market volatility for Ethereum. BeInCrypto Markets data shows that the second-largest cryptocurrency has declined 32.4% over the past month.

On February 5, ETH also slipped below $2,000 before recovering. At press time, Ethereum was trading at $ 2,094.16, up around 0.98% over the past 24 hours.

Ethereum (ETH) Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto Markets

Amid the downturn, some analysts have suggested that Ethereum may be approaching a market bottom. One analyst described Trend Research’s exit as the “largest capitulation signal.”

“Such forced exits often happen near major lows,” Axel stated.

Joao Wedson, founder of Alphactal, also noted that Ethereum’s price bottom is likely to occur months before Bitcoin’s, citing the faster liquidity cycle typically observed in altcoins.

According to Wedson, some chart indicators suggest that Q2 2026 could mark a potential price bottom for ETH.

“Some charts already indicate that Q2 2026 could mark a potential price bottom for ETH. Capitulation has arrived, and realized losses are set to increase sharply,” Wedson added.

While no bottom has been confirmed yet, the possibility could carry broader implications for institutional sentiment, particularly as some firms choose to de-risk while others continue to accumulate amid ongoing market weakness.

If Ethereum is indeed approaching a market bottom, BitMine’s continued accumulation could prove well-timed, positioning the firm to benefit from a future recovery.

However, if downside pressure persists, Trend Research’s decision to fully unwind its position may ultimately be viewed as a prudent move to limit the risks associated with leveraged strategies.

Il cofondatore di Ethereum Vitalik Buterin e l'analista crypto c-node hanno riacceso il dibattito sul vero scopo della Finanza Decentralizzata (DeFi).

Insieme, i due esperti del settore sfidano l'industria in forte espansione a ripensare le proprie priorità.

Gli esperti si scontrano su cosa conti come “Reale” DeFi

La questione di fondo, secondo gli esperti, è che gran parte dell'hype attuale sul DeFi è superficiale, servendo interessi speculativi piuttosto che promuovere un'infrastruttura DeFi genuina.

“Non c'è motivo di usare DeFi a meno che tu non abbia posizioni lunghe su criptovalute e voglia accedere a servizi finanziari preservando l'autocustodia,” ha scritto c-node.