bitcoinist.com

Ripple CTO Emeritus David “JoelKatz” Schwartz pushed back against claims that the XRP Ledger (XRPL) is effectively centralized, after founder and CIO of Cyber Capital Justin Bons argued that XRPL’s Unique Node List (UNL) structure makes validators “permissioned” and gives Ripple-aligned entities “absolute power & control over the chain.”

The exchange, sparked by Bons’ broader thread calling for the industry to “reject all centralized ‘blockchains’,” quickly narrowed into a technical dispute over what XRPL validators can and cannot do in practice and what “control” means in a system that relies on curated validator lists rather than Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake.

The XRP Ledger Centralization Allegation

In his thread, Bons lumped Ripple alongside Canton, Stellar, Hedera, and Algorand as networks with permissioned or semi-permissioned elements. His XRPL-specific charge was straightforward: because XRPL nodes typically rely on a published UNL, “any divergence from this centrally published list would cause a fork,” which in his view concentrates power in the hands of whoever publishes that list.

Bons framed it as a binary question: “either fully permissionless or it is not” and argued that even partial permissioning is a deal breaker. He also extended the critique into a broader institutional-adoption thesis: banks and incumbents may prefer controlled environments, but “those institutions will be left behind,” while “crypto natives” win by building and using fully permissionless systems.

Schwartz’s opening rebuttal attacked the logic of Bons’ “absolute power” framing. “‘…effectively giving the Ripple Foundation & company absolute power & control over the chain…’” Schwartz wrote, calling it “as objectively nonsensical as claiming someone with a majority of mining power can create a billion bitcoins.”

Bons responded that he wasn’t alleging supply manipulation or fund theft, but insisted majority influence can still matter. “They can not steal funds, either, but they could potentially double-spend & censor,” Bons said. “Which, again, is exactly the same if someone controlled the majority of mining power in BTC.” He then suggested they debate live on a podcast.

Schwartz rejected the equivalence on mechanics, emphasizing that XRPL nodes do not accept censorship or double-spend behavior simply because a validator says so. “That’s not true. XRPL and BTC don’t work the same,” Schwartz wrote. “You count the number of validators that agree with your node and your node will not agree to double spend or censor unless you, for some reason, want it to.”

He continued the point across multiple posts, leaning on a simple intuition: a dishonest validator is not an oracle; it’s just one vote. “If a validator tried to double spend or censor, an honest node would just count it as one validator that it did not agree with.”

What Schwartz Says The Real Attack Looks Like

Schwartz acknowledged there is still a failure mode, but described it as a liveness problem rather than a theft or double-spend scenario. “Validators could conspire to halt the chain from the point of view of honest nodes,” he said. “But that’s the XRPL equivalent of a dishonest majority attack except they never get to double spend. The cure is to pick a new UNL just as with BTC you’d need to pick a new mining algorithm.”

He also argued the empirical record matters, contrasting XRPL with other major networks. “The practical evidence tells this story,” Schwartz wrote. “Transactions are discriminated against all the time in BTC. Transactions are maliciously re-ordered or censored all the time on ETH. Nothing like this has ever happened to an XRPL transaction and it’s hard to imagine how it could.”

Schwartz later laid out a more detailed explanation of XRPL’s consensus model, emphasizing fast “live consensus” rounds—“every five seconds”—where validators vote on whether a transaction is included now or deferred to the next round. In that framing, the system’s key requirement is not blind trust in validators, but agreement on whether a transaction was seen before a cutoff.

He argued XRPL needs a UNL for two reasons: to prevent an attacker from spawning unlimited validators that force excessive work, and to prevent validators from simply not participating in a way that makes consensus impossible to measure. “That’s it. There’s no control or governance here other than coordinating activation of new features,” Schwartz wrote, adding that validators cannot force a node to enforce rules it does not have code for.

Schwartz closed with a longer, unusually candid rationale: that XRPL’s architecture was intentionally built to reduce Ripple’s ability to comply with demands to censor, even if Ripple itself wanted to be trusted.

“We carefully and intentionally designed XRPL so that we could not control it,” he wrote. “Ripple, for example, has to honor US court orders. It cannot say no… We absolutely and clearly decided that we DID NOT WANT control and that it would be to our own benefit to not have that control.”

He added a blunt incentive argument: even if Ripple could censor or double-spend, using that power would destroy trust in XRPL and therefore destroy the network’s utility. “And the best way to be able to say ‘no’ is to have to say ‘no’ because you cannot do the thing asked,” Schwartz wrote.

At press time, XRP traded at $1.3766.

Ripple, a crypto payments company and the largest XRP holder, has been aggressively expanding and developing its infrastructure for the past three years. Within this short timeframe, the crypto firm has acquired six different companies, spending more than $2.7 billion. While these acquisitions have significantly expanded Ripple’s use cases and demand, many in the crypto community are concerned about how these ecosystem developments could impact XRP’s price. 

Why Ripple Spent $2.7 Billion On Acquisitions

On Monday, February 23, an XRP commentator identified as ‘Ledger Man’ on X outlined several key reasons behind Ripple’s aggressive buying spree over the past three years. Ledger Man noted that the crypto company, led by CEO Brad Garlinghouse, has been incredibly busy since 2023, buying six different companies and expanding into new markets. 

He noted that during this short period, Ripple has spent a total of $2.7 billion on company acquisitions. Among the crypto firm’s largest purchases are:

• Hidden Road, a London-based prime brokerage and credit network, was acquired for $1.25 billion.
• GTreasury, a cloud-based SaaS treasury and risk management platform, was acquired for $1 billion.  
• Metaco, a Swiss-based technology company, was acquired for $250 million. 

Notably, after Ripple completed its acquisition in October 2025, Hidden Road was officially rebranded as ‘Ripple Prime’ and now operates as an institutional prime brokerage for the crypto payments firm. GTreasury has also been repositioned under the name ‘Ripple Treasury’ while Metaco has continued operating under its original brand name as a subsidiary digital asset custody unit. 

Beyond these companies, Ripple has also bought Rail, Standard Custody, and Dom Kwok. Ledger Man noted that the primary reason for these acquisitions stems from Garlinghouse’s long-term vision to bridge the gap between Traditional Finance (TradFi) and Decentralized Finance (DeFi). 

In addition, the XRP commentator highlighted that Garlinghouse previously shared an intriguing fact about Ripple Treasury, revealing that the company had processed $13 trillion in payments last year, yet not a single transaction involved cryptocurrencies or stablecoins. The Ripple CEO also mentioned that over 1,000 big companies use Ripple Treasury’s technology, and many of their leaders are now showing interest in using crypto-based tools. 

For now, Ledgerman has stated that Ripple plans to slow its aggressive buying spree. Moving forward, the company will focus on combining all of its acquired companies and integrating them into a unified system during the first half of 2026. Ledger Man also noted that the crypto payments company is particularly enthusiastic about two major deals that are already exceeding expectations.  

What This Has To Do With XRP

Many in the crypto community have expressed concerns that Ripple’s acquisitions have not been a major driver for the XRP price. As the largest holder of the token, Ripple’s initiatives typically act as a catalyst for XRP. However, recent price action and market activity offer little evidence of a significant change following the company’s latest acquisitions.

One crypto member laments that Ripple’s buying spree has done “nothing” for the XRP price, while others argue that, although the crypto company thrives, token holders are getting left behind.

After several attempts, the Bitcoin price finally reclaimed the $65,000 mark, but ongoing volatility and uncertainty across the cryptocurrency market still linger. With BTC falling below this support level, pressure on investors appears to have increased significantly, as evidenced by the number of BTC supply now in loss.

Record Levels of Bitcoin Now Sitting At A Loss

The pressure on the market and investors has increased following the recent pullback in Bitcoin’s price. Given the price pullback, the BTC supply that is positioned at a loss has spiked sharply, indicating a bearish outlook for the market and the flagship asset.

A recent data reading is showing that Bitcoin is coming into a critical stress point, with the percentage of supply held at a loss rising to one of the highest levels ever seen. This dramatic increase, which reflects the severity of the recent price downturn, indicates that an increasing proportion of owners are now underwater.

As seen in the chart shared by James Van Straten, an advisor and senior analyst at the popular CoinDesk news outlet, the number of BTC supply now caught in the loss side just rose to 10 million BTC. It is worth noting that this figure marks the fourth-highest reading ever since its existence.

According to the reading, an additional 70,000 BTC from those purchased between February 6 and 24 are in loss. As a result of this, the circulating supply is believed to hit 20 million BTC next week, which represents a 50% in loss. Given the massive supply loss, the potential of a market bottom already taking place is high. This is because history suggests that it would be sufficient capital destruction for a bear market bottom.

BTC’s Investors’ Action In The Current Market State

Darkfost highlighted that it is crucial to continue examining the actions of the various investor cohorts in the market as long as the BTC situation does not improve. BTC Long-Term Holders are the primary investors in the framework, known to be less sensitive to short-term price fluctuations.

The average profit of the long-term holders is currently positioned at 74%, but this is steadily dropping as prices move closer to the LTH cost basis estimated at around $38,900. However, this cost base is static and continues to increase over time as STHs that purchased Bitcoin at higher prices move into the LTH category. 

Historic data reveal that a final capitulation phase defined by realized losses of about 20% has been triggered by price breaching below this cost basis in every bear market. Meanwhile, the market tends to rebuild the necessary foundations for a trend reversal after this phase has concluded.

Darfost noted that this should be viewed as an observation based on a small number of instances rather than a rule. However, it remains a scenario worth considering and preparing for. Given how this cycle has evolved, with the arrival of institutions, corporate entities, and even sovereign actors, the possibility of these structural changes being sufficient to shift the outcome becomes high. 

Darkfost has warned against following those claiming uncertainty on this matter. “Nothing is predictable, and the market ultimately dictates the outcome,” the expert added.

Ripple’s aggressive expansion strategy is once again under scrutiny from disgruntled XRP investors. What was presented as a milestone moment for the company has instead reignited debate over whether Ripple’s ecosystem growth is translating into measurable value for XRP holders.

XRP Price Slumps Despite Ripple’s Hidden Road Deal

In late 2025, Brad Garlinghouse announced the completion of Hidden Road’s acquisition, now rebranded as Ripple Prime. For many XRP investors, such announcements carry expectations. If XRP is foundational to Ripple’s ecosystem, then major corporate wins should, in theory, reflect in the token’s market performance. Instead, the price action has told a different story.

Over the past two months alone, XRP has declined by more than 25%, underperforming during a period that included positive corporate developments. Historically, similar announcements have triggered short-lived volatility but rarely sustained upward momentum. The pattern has created a perception gap between corporate growth narratives and investor outcomes.

Amid XRP’s continued price weakness, an analyst resurfaced Garlinghouse’s post on the Hidden Road deal, arguing that investors are funding corporate expansion that mainly benefits executives. He maintained that billions tied to the ecosystem have been used to acquire traditional financial firms, while token holders have seen little in return. For price-focused investors, acquisitions mean little unless they materially lift XRP’s value.

This disconnect explains the mounting frustration, as holders are primarily concerned with capital appreciation, liquidity growth, and long-term upside. When high-profile acquisitions are announced, expectations rise. When price charts fail to respond meaningfully, those expectations turn into skepticism. The recurring cycle of optimism followed by muted market reaction has intensified scrutiny around whether Ripple’s expansion strategy directly benefits XRP investors.

Broader Acquisition Strategy May Shape Long-Term Outcomes

Hidden Road is only one component of Ripple’s recent expansion. Garlinghouse also pointed to GTreasury, Rail, Standard Custody, and Metaco as part of a concentrated acquisition push over the past two years.

The 2023 acquisition of Metaco strengthened institutional-grade custody infrastructure. Standard Custody, added in 2024, enhanced regulated asset safeguarding capabilities. Rail expanded payment rails, while GTreasury integrated enterprise treasury management tools into Ripple’s ecosystem. Each deal broadened Ripple’s operational footprint across custody, settlement, payments, and financial services.

Beyond acquisitions, Ripple has maintained partnerships with financial institutions and payment providers across global corridors, steadily embedding its infrastructure into traditional finance frameworks. Collectively, these moves represent vertical integration and long-term positioning rather than short-term market catalysts.

While XRP’s immediate price response has been limited, these integrations may serve as foundational infrastructure for future demand dynamics. Institutional custody, treasury management, prime brokerage, and payment rails could, over time, increase the token’s utility within Ripple’s ecosystem.

For now, price performance remains the primary concern for holders. However, the accumulation of regulated entities and enterprise-grade platforms may indicate that Ripple is building structural depth before potential market repricing. Whether that foundation ultimately translates into sustained XRP appreciation remains to be seen, but the company’s acquisition strategy suggests a long-term roadmap that extends beyond immediate market reactions.

Crypto analyst Crypto Patel has stated that this is not the first time that XRP has crashed 69%. He provided a positive outlook for the altcoin, noting that it recorded a parabolic rally the last time this happened. 

XRP Pumped 835% Last Time It Crashed 69%

In an X post, Crypto Patel stated that XRP rallied 835% the last time it crashed 69%, suggesting that this was a reason to remain positive despite the current downtrend. The analyst noted that the altcoin is trading around $1.39 after breaking down from the $2 support zone. It is currently retesting the higher time-frame demand level, which previously served as the upper boundary of the multi-year accumulation zone.  

Crypto Patel also noted that XRP already a 69% correction from its recent all-time high (ATH) of $3.66, with a classic breakout-retest setup forming. Furthermore, price is testing a critical support zone after an explosive 835% rally from accumulation. The analyst also alluded to on-chain indicators, noting that XRP has just posted its largest realized loss spike since November 2022. There has been $1.93 billion in weekly losses as holders capitulate. He indicated that this may be a positive, as extreme capitulation often signals a local bottom. 

The analyst also touched on the current technical structure for XRP. The bullish support zone is between $0.86 and $0.66. As such, the price must hold above $0.66 for bullish continuation. A multi-year breakout, retest, and accumulation zone confluence will signal strong demand. A massive capitulation event and key support will signal a high probability reversal zone. Meanwhile, a weekly close below $0.66 will invalidate the bullish thesis, the analyst said.

Upside Targets For The Altcoin

Crypto Patel stated that the upside targets for XRP are $2, $3, $5, and $10, which represent a 10x rally from the accumulation zone below $1. The analyst opined that the altcoin is currently trading at a generational re-accumulation zone after a breakout retest. He added that the $1.93 billion capitulation event often marks the bottom as smart money accumulates while weak hands exit. 

In the meantime, crypto analyst CasiTrades has warned that XRP could still drop lower. She noted that price is starting to gather sell strength and the trendline break is looking to form resistance. She further remarked that the altcoin is losing the B-wave low, shifting momentum towards support, with the $1.11 and $0.87 levels as the main downside targets. 

CasiTrades also mentioned that the local resistance is at $1.40 and that, as long as the altcoin stays below it, the market is likely headed lower. As such, she declared that this is still a no-trade zone and urged market participants to wait for lower supports to be reached or a flip of the $1.65 macro resistance. 

At the time of writing, the XRP price is trading at around $1.37, up over 3% in the last 24 hours, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

Americans lost $333 million to crypto ATM fraud last year alone. That staggering number sits at the heart of why Bitcoin Depot, the country’s biggest Bitcoin ATM operator, just made a sweeping change to how it does business — one that affects every single person who walks up to one of its machines.

Starting this February, the company began rolling out a requirement for customers to show identification before completing any transaction, not just when signing up for the first time. No ID, no Bitcoin. Simple as that.

A History Of Half-Measures

It is not as though Bitcoin Depot had never tried to address fraud before. Back in October 2025, the company introduced ID checks for new users joining the platform. But returning customers? They could keep transacting without further scrutiny. Critics say that gap was wide enough for bad actors to slip through — and the numbers suggest they did exactly that.

The FBI’s data on crypto ATM-related fraud losses last year made it impossible to ignore the scale of the problem. Scammers, many of them targeting elderly Americans, have perfected a disturbing routine: they coach victims into feeding cash into Bitcoin ATMs under false pretenses — fake government notices, phony tech support calls — then vanish once the money clears. Because Bitcoin transactions cannot be reversed, victims are almost always left with nothing.

Legal Heat From All Directions

Bitcoin Depot has not just been dealing with bad headlines. It has been dealing with lawyers. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell filed a lawsuit against the company this month, alleging it knowingly allowed crypto scams to happen while stripping away fraud protections.

Campbell’s office asked a court to block Bitcoin Depot from accepting any transaction above $10,000 unless additional fraud-prevention steps were taken.

Maine told a different story — one with a price tag. The company reached a $1.9 million settlement with that state’s consumer credit bureau after agreeing to return money to scam victims. And Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled, somewhat controversially, that Bitcoin Depot was legally permitted to keep cash deposited through scams, since customers must confirm they own the receiving wallet.

According to reports, at least 17 US states have now passed laws demanding better protections at crypto ATMs, including daily spending limits and clearer fraud warnings posted on the machines.

9,000 Machines, One New Rule

Bitcoin Depot’s reach is enormous. Reports say the company operates over 9,000 kiosks across North America, making it the dominant player in a US market that accounts for 78% of all Bitcoin ATMs worldwide — more than 31,000 machines in total, based on data from Coin ATM Radar.

CEO Scott Buchanan framed the new ID policy as a security upgrade, not just a legal shield. “By requiring identity verification at every transaction, we are taking an additional step to strengthen security, protect customers, and maintain the integrity of our services,” he said.

The company says continuous verification will allow it to flag suspicious behavior tied to specific customers, locations, or amounts before a transaction is even approved.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Bitcoin may be shaping a bottoming structure that looks like the formation seen at the end of the 2018 bear market, according to crypto analyst Osemka. After reviewing past macro lows, the analyst is of the notion that the current Bitcoin setup is not similar to the 2022 cycle but instead is closer to the drawn-out descending pattern that preceded BTC’s price action in 2019.

The comparison is based on a falling resistance structure, a potential liquidity sweep below $60,000, a bear market bottom, and the development of a bullish divergence on multiple timeframes.

Descending Structure Points To Bear Market Bottom

Bitcoin is currently trading around $65,000, meaning it has dropped by about half from its October 2025 peak price of $126,080. By that measure, BTC has already entered bearish territory, and investor sentiment of extreme fear also supports that view. 

In an analysis posted on X, Osemka explained that after reviewing all major macro lows on Bitcoin, the current setup resembles the 2018 bear market bottom more closely than the 2022 bear market bottom. The chart he shared shows a descending pattern with a falling blue trendline that connects successive lower highs made by Bitcoin’s price action in February.

The structure shows price trading below the descending resistance, much like the late-2018 environment when Bitcoin continued to grind lower. According to the analyst, the present pattern appears to be forming a similar liquidity setup, and Bitcoin’s price is expected to gradually bleed lower before a final decisive move.

Bitcoin Price Chart. Source: @Osemka8 on X

Liquidity Hunt To $60,000, 3D Bullish Divergence As Bottom Signal

An important part of Osemka’s bottom prediction is the possibility of a liquidity sweep just below $60,000. The chart includes a dotted horizontal line near that level as a downside target where resting liquidity may sit.

The idea is that if Bitcoin continues to follow the 2018 price action, then it could continue to fall and briefly dip below $60,000, which would then absorb sell-side liquidity before stabilizing. If a comparable liquidity hunt unfolds, it could complete the descending pattern. Until then, the analyst’s message is patience.

Another major factor highlighted in the chart is the formation of a 3D bullish divergence. This is a case where BTC prints lower lows across multiple time frames, but a momentum indicator like RSI, MACD, or Stochastic makes a higher low. 

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading at $65,100 and is only a 7.8% correction move away from breaking below $60,000. Bitcoin is increasingly at risk of breaking below this level, with the fear and greed index at an extreme fear level of 11. This trend is reflected in persistent outflows from US Spot Bitcoin ETFs. The funds have now recorded five straight weeks of net withdrawals.

TD Cowen is reiterating a bullish medium-term path for Bitcoin, projecting roughly $225,000 per coin by the end of fiscal 2027, while sketching an upside scenario that would take the asset to around $450,000. The call leans on tokenization as a structural demand driver, but the firm flags that the relationship it’s modeling may not hold if market dynamics evolve differently than expected.

TD Cowen’s Bitcoin Outlook

In a research note dated Feb. 24, 2026, TD Cowen framed its more aggressive scenario around two interacting assumptions: “the number of tokenized assets increases 100-fold (over time)” and transaction velocity tied to those assets falls by 90%. Under those conditions, the firm said its analysis “suggests a potential five-fold increase in the price of bitcoin, to roughly $450k per coin.”

The $450,000 figure is positioned as a “bull case” illustration rather than a point forecast. TD Cowen emphasizes that its current base expectation is lower, writing: “our current forecast calls for Bitcoin to reach a price of ~$225k per coin by the end of FY27.”

The firm adds a key caveat about methodology and uncertainty: “While not a bottom-up forecast, our current Bitcoin price estimate reflects a variety of assumptions, one of which is increased tokenization of real-world assets, potentially including equity securities. Though we believe our assumptions are well-supported by trends observed to date, there can be no assurance that these relationships hold going forward.”

The logic is straightforward: if tokenized real-world assets proliferate and the on-chain “velocity” associated with those assets slows sharply, the implied value captured by the underlying settlement asset in TD Cowen’s framework rises. The note doesn’t present this as a mechanical law, but as a sensitivity to how tokenization adoption and transactional behavior could reshape demand conditions around crypto rails.

Policy remains the other major moving part in TD Cowen’s broader crypto framework. In early January, the firm pointed to market-structure legislation,specifically the CLARITY Act, as a potential catalyst that could formalize jurisdictional lines across the SEC and CFTC and bring clearer rules for staking, custody, and trading platforms.

TD Cowen wrote at the time: “We believe there is room for compromise on all the issues in ways that the crypto sector can accept.” But it warned the harder constraint may be political rather than technical: “The problem will be the White House as Senate Democrats will likely insist on ethics rules for elected officials including the President and his family.”

The bank’s timeline expectation is that Congress acts this year, but not without slippage risk. “We expect Congress will enact legislation in 2026,” TD Cowen wrote, “though there is a risk it could spill into 1H 2027.”

Still, the firm’s Bitcoin targets arrive with fresh scrutiny after a recent miss. In mid-October last year, with Bitcoin around $111,000, TD Cowen projected $141,000 by December; instead, Bitcoin closed the year near $88,000.

At press time, Bitcoin traded at $65,422.

The Bitcoin price continues to be stuck in a drawdown trend and broke below the $64,000 support at the start of this week. This move solidified the bears being in charge, thereby signaling the possibility of more sell-offs as investors move to avoid more losses. Amid the chaos, a major historical trend looks to be at risk of being broken. This has to do with the monthly close high of the previous cycle, a level that Bitcoin has now fallen dangerously close to.

Bitcoin Threatens To Break Previous Monthly Cycle High

Crypto analyst Mr. Anderson pointed out in an analysis posted on X that Bitcoin is now dangerously close to breaking the previous monthly cycle high. The interesting thing about this development is that with each cycle, the Bitcoin price has never closed a monthly candle lower than the previous monthly cycle high. What this means is that if this happens, it would be the first time in history, marking probably a new trend for the digital asset.

With the Bitcoin price skirting around $65,000, it is only $4,000 away from the previous monthly cycle high of $61,359. With the Bitcoin price still stuck in a downtrend and several days left before the close of February, the possibility of this previous cycle high breaking becomes higher.

In the post, the analyst shared the performance from previous cycles, showing there has never been a break of the highest monthly cycle close. If anything, this level has previously served as major support, often helping to mark the bottom before the next wave of rallies began. “If we close below it, it’s the first confirmed monthly cycle-level top-side breakdown in history,” Mr. Anderson explained.

There’s A First Time For Everything

In response to Mr. Anderson’s post, another crypto analyst, Crypto Feras, explained that the break could happen, explaining that there is always a first time for everything. One example given was the fact that the Bitcoin price had actually never fallen below its Weekly MA200. However, this was broken in the last cycle, marking a new era. “Now since monthly is a higher TF, it may take longer time to break its rule, which is one-extra-cycle on top of weekly MA200 rule break,” Crypto Feras added.

Acknowledging the possibility, Mr. Anderson opined that Bitcoin had actually fallen below the Weekly 200-EMA and 200-SMA previously before breaking the Weekly 200-MA. But as for breaking the monthly close high from the last cycle, it remains unheard of, making it a notable development if it happens.

As the Trump administration pushes lawmakers and regulators to develop clear regulatory frameworks, a former Chainlink executive has joined the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Crypto Task Force as its new legal chief.

SEC Appoints New Crypto Task Force Legal Advisor

On Monday, Chainlink’s social media announced Taylor Lindman’s departure from the company to join the SEC’s Crypto Task Force as its Chief Counsel. The executive worked at Chainlink Labs for 5 years, where he held several senior legal positions, including Deputy General Counsel.

In an X post, the company thanked Lindman for his service, affirming that it looks forward to “modernizing the U.S. financial system together, taking it to the next level of its development and rapid growth.”

The former Chainlink executive will replace Michael Selig, who was appointed Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in December 2025. He will serve as the Crypto Task Force’s new senior legal advisor, ensuring compliance, risk management, and guiding legal interpretation.

Following the departure of Gary Gensler, the SEC’s former acting chairman, Mark Uyeda, established the Crypto Task Force to review the agency’s approach to digital assets and to develop a clear, comprehensive regulatory framework.

Since its launch, the task force has held multiple roundtable events to engage with industry leaders and discuss different aspects of the sector’s regulation, including tokenization, DeFi, financial surveillance, and privacy.

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who also leads the task force, confirmed the news, welcoming Lindman in an X post. “Welcome to our new Crypto Task Force Chief Counsel, Taylor Lindman, who joined the SEC today. I predict great things!” the post reads.

SEC To Advance Digital Asset Regulation

Last week, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins shared how the agency plans advance digital assets regulation this year. Speaking at ETH Denver alongside Commissioner Peirce, Atkins affirmed that the Commission would move forward with its regulatory work through Project Crypto, which was recently relaunched as a joint initiative with the CFTC.

He noted that the two Commissions are “planning great things together – harmonization, joint rulemaking – a common, coordinated approach unlike anything seen before at these two, often sparring agencies.”

As reported by Bitcoinist, the sister agencies partnered to advance a clear crypto asset taxonomy, clarify jurisdictional lines, remove duplicative compliance requirements, and reduce regulatory fragmentation.

In addition, he announced that in the coming months, the agency will review multiple initiatives, including a Commission framework “to explain how we think about crypto assets that are subject to an investment contract.”

In addition, they will consider an innovation exemption for firms to facilitate limited trading of certain tokenized securities on novel platforms; no-action letters and exemptive orders to provide additional clarity; rulemaking on custody of non-security digital assets, such as payment stablecoins, by broker-dealers; and a transfer agent modernization rulemaking, which will “accommodate the role that blockchain can play in recordkeeping.”

Earlier this month, Atkins also outlined the SEC’s plan to develop formal guidance on token classification. At a House Financial Services Committee hearing, the chairman noted that regulatory clarity for crypto assets is “long overdue,” emphasizing that a comprehensive federal framework, such as the market structure bill, would be needed to offer long-lasting rulemaking that can’t be easily changed.

“Under Commissioner Hester Peirce’s leadership of our Crypto Task Force, SEC staff has provided more clarity in the past year than in the prior decade, but there is no action we can take that future-proofs our rulebook more formidably than nonpartisan market structure legislation,” he stated.

The market for XRP ETFs has already secured full approval from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with six products now managing more than $1 billion in combined assets. Yet one major player remains absent: BlackRock. 

According to Canary Capital Chief Executive Officer Steven McClurg, that may not last forever. He believes the world’s largest asset manager could file for a spot XRP ETF by late 2026 or early 2027, assuming current trends continue.

XRP ETF Assets Must Hit $3B Before BlackRock Moves

As noted by market expert Sam Daodu in a Tuesday report, assets in XRP-linked ETFs climbed to a peak of $1.6 billion in January before experiencing approximately $500 million in outflows, bringing total assets back to around $1 billion. 

According to McClurg’s outlook, BlackRock is unlikely to move unless certain market signals become undeniable. One of the clearest indicators would be sustained growth in existing XRP ETF assets. 

While assets peaked at $1.6 billion in January 2026 and have since settled near $1 billion, a rise toward $3 billion or more would demonstrate robust and durable demand. 

Canary’s CEO asserts that BlackRock pays close attention to market capitalization and investor appetite. If current XRP ETFs were to triple in size, the commercial rationale for launching a competing product would become far more compelling.

Competitive dynamics could also accelerate the timeline. BlackRock is not typically the first to enter a new segment, but it rarely allows rivals to dominate uncontested. 

McClurg noted that it may not be long before BlackRock feels pressure to respond if another large firm files for a spot XRP ETF. A rival’s move could force BlackRock’s hand sooner than its current projected window.

Perhaps the most decisive factor would be demand from institutional clients. If state pension funds, university endowments or sovereign wealth funds begin allocating XRP within their approved asset classes, that shift would likely serve as a clear signal. 

Ripple Connection

Notably, BlackRock’s relationship with Ripple’s broader ecosystem may already be closer than many assume. The firm’s tokenized treasury fund, BUIDL, utilizes Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin as collateral. 

That integration suggests a degree of familiarity and comfort with Ripple-linked infrastructure, even in the absence of an XRP ETF. Such ties could potentially shorten the distance between monitoring the market and formally entering it, should demand accelerate.

For now, BlackRock remains on the sidelines of the XRP ETF space. Whether it steps in by late 2026, in 2027, or further down the road will likely depend on one central factor: whether institutional demand grows strong enough to make staying out the greater risk.

As of this writing, XRP was trading at $1.34, marking an 8% drop over the past week. 

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com 

MoneyGram has joined Midnight’s launch-phase infrastructure as a federated node operator, adding a major cross-border payments brand to the Cardano based privacy-focused network’s initial mainnet cohort ahead of a planned March launch. The move matters because Cardano’s Midnight is explicitly positioning its early validator set around operators with compliance-heavy, always-on production experience rather than crypto-native firms alone.

In a February 24 update, the Midnight Foundation said the network is expanding its federated node operator roster during the Kūkolu phase of its roadmap, a stage designed to prioritize coordinated participation and operational stability as mainnet goes live. MoneyGram was announced alongside Pairpoint by Vodafone and eToro, building on previously named partners that include Google Cloud, Blockdaemon, Shielded Technologies, and AlphaTON. The announcement adds to the institutional profile of the Cardano-linked privacy network ahead of launch.

Why MoneyGram Matters For Cardano’s Midnight

Midnight describes MoneyGram as a cross-border digital P2P payments leader operating in more than 200 countries and territories. Beyond simply running a node, the Foundation said the two organizations are also exploring how established payment networks could move onto blockchain rails while preserving regulatory trust. The specific focus is on confidential transactions where settlement can function as verifiable proof of compliance without exposing sensitive user data.

Luke Tuttle, MoneyGram’s chief product and technology officer, framed the move as a continuation of the company’s existing crypto strategy rather than a new experiment. “MoneyGram has been delivering real-world crypto solutions for years, focusing on making the benefits of digital finance accessible to the people who actually need them,” Tuttle said. “Working with Midnight and running blockchain nodes fits naturally into this strategy, allowing us to help ensure that privacy, compliance and reliability are built in from day one.”

The Foundation’s announcement repeatedly ties the federated model to launch reliability. Its argument is straightforward: operators that already manage high-volume, mission-critical systems in payments, telecom and regulated fintech are better suited to support early mainnet performance while developers begin deploying privacy-preserving applications. Midnight also says this phase is part of a longer path toward community-driven decentralization, not the endpoint.

That framing comes through clearly in comments from both eToro and the Foundation. eToro Chief Blockchain Officer Omri Ross said, “We were excited to learn about Midnight’s novel approach to programmable data protection and selective disclosure, designed to balance user confidentiality with regulatory compliance. We believe technologies enabling granular control over data visibility will be foundational to the next generation of blockchain infrastructure. Midnight’s architecture for confidential smart contracts with built-in verifiability aligns with our long-term view that, over time, all asset classes will increasingly move on-chain.”

Midnight Foundation President Fahmi Syed made the same point in more strategic terms, arguing the mix of operators itself is the signal. “When a global payments network, a leading technology company backed by a Fortune 500 telco, and a publicly traded fintech all choose to operate nodes on the same privacy-enhancing blockchain, that tells you where this industry is heading,” Syed said, adding that the consortium is only the beginning.

At press time, Cardano traded at $0.2649.

The likelihood that the long‑awaited crypto market structure legislation, known as the CLARITY Act, will become law this year has fallen sharply over the past 24 hours, according to data from prediction platform Polymarket. 

Traders now assign the bill a 42% chance of passing in 2026, reflecting growing skepticism that ongoing negotiations between the crypto industry and the banking sector will produce a breakthrough in time.

Crypto And Banks Remain Divided

The drop in confidence comes despite months of high-level discussions at the White House. Lawmakers and industry representatives have been attempting to build consensus around a broader market structure framework. 

However, three key White House meetings between crypto firms and banking representatives have yet to yield a final agreement. Even so, public messaging from officials has remained upbeat. 

As Bitcoinist reported last week, Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, described the latest round of talks as “a big step forward.” “We’re close,” Witt wrote, adding that if both sides continue negotiating in good faith, he expects the administration’s March 1 deadline to be met.

At the center of the discussions is draft legislative language designed to address concerns raised by banks in a document titled “Yield and Interest Prohibition Principles.” 

While the proposed text acknowledges the banking sector’s objections, it also makes clear that any restrictions on crypto rewards programs would be narrowly tailored. 

One significant outcome of the negotiations is that paying yield on idle stablecoin balances — a major objective for many crypto firms — is effectively off the table. 

Instead, the debate has shifted toward whether companies should be permitted to offer rewards tied to specific user activities rather than simple account balances.

How New Rules Could Change Bitcoin Derivatives Markets

Beyond the political back‑and‑forth, market expert MartyParty recently highlighted potential structural shifts that could follow the bill’s passage, arguing that the changes may be more significant than many investors realize.

In the Bitcoin (BTC) futures market, clearer jurisdictional boundaries would likely cement the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) authority over digital asset commodities. 

The expert believes that could accelerate the growth of regulated US trading venues, similar to CME, and potentially open the door to CFTC‑registered perpetual futures platforms. 

According to MartyParty’s analysis, clear commodity classification may also encourage greater institutional participation, particularly from funds that are restricted from investing in assets deemed securities. 

Perpetual futures contracts — a crypto‑native product widely used outside the United States — could also evolve. With CFTC registration, US‑based perpetual products might emerge with stronger consumer protections, greater transparency around funding rates, and tighter safeguards against manipulation. 

Greater regulatory clarity could also reduce discrepancies between spot and futures markets, narrowing price gaps and stabilizing funding dynamics. At the same time, stricter leverage caps or margin requirements imposed under CFTC rules could limit the extreme levels of retail speculation currently seen on offshore platforms.

Bitcoin options markets would likely experience parallel shifts. The expert asserts that a clearer regulatory framework could encourage the development of additional US‑regulated options venues offering both physically settled and cash‑settled contracts tied to Bitcoin futures. 

Reduced enforcement uncertainty may also lower implied volatility premiums, potentially making options more affordable for hedging and speculative strategies. 

Institutional investors, in particular, could more confidently deploy advanced strategies — including collars and straddles — if Bitcoin’s commodity status is firmly established.

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com 

Ark Invest has been putting real money where its mouth is. In a single day — February 12 — the firm snapped up shares across three separate companies tied to the crypto space.

According to trading disclosures, Ark purchased 212,314 shares of Bitmine worth roughly $4.2 million, 74,323 shares of Bullish valued at about $2.4 million, and 174,767 shares of Robinhood totaling nearly $12.4 million.

These weren’t small, cautious moves. They were deliberate bets made during a stretch when Bitcoin has been losing ground.

The Numbers Tell An Uncomfortable Truth

Bitcoin is down 26% so far this year. Gold, by comparison, has climbed 19% over the same period. At the time of writing, Bitcoin was changing hands at $63,200 while gold traded at around $3,180 per troy ounce.

Those figures don’t exactly support the case for dumping the old safe haven in favor of the new one — at least not right now. The gap between what Cathie Wood believes and what the market is actually doing has never been more visible.

Wood isn’t backing down. In a recent Bloomberg interview, the Ark Invest founder called Bitcoin “hands down” better than gold — a strong claim for an asset that has spent most of this year sliding.

Cathie Wood: Bitcoin is “hands down” better than Gold. pic.twitter.com/38LYF4IcaF

— Altcoin Daily (@AltcoinDaily) February 23, 2026

Her argument isn’t built on this month’s price chart. It’s built on where she thinks money is headed over the next decade. Reports say she views Bitcoin as a hedge that works in both inflationary and deflationary conditions, a flexibility she believes gold cannot match in the same way.

Younger Money Is Moving Differently

Part of Wood’s conviction rests on who is doing the buying — and who isn’t. Institutional exposure to Bitcoin is still being built out, she noted, while younger investors are increasingly choosing digital assets over physical bullion.

Gold’s buyer base is mature and well established. Bitcoin’s is still forming. That distinction matters to Wood because it suggests the bulk of Bitcoin’s demand hasn’t arrived yet. Early adoption, in her reading, means there’s still a long runway ahead.

Ark’s portfolio reflects that view. Bullish has climbed to the ninth-largest holding in the firm’s ARKF fund, carrying a 3.4% weighting valued at close to $30 million.

Ark also holds positions in Block, Circle, and Coinbase — a collection of bets that together paint a picture of a firm fully committed to the idea that crypto-linked companies will be worth far more in the years ahead.

A Long Game In A Short-Term Market

The tension Wood is navigating is real. Gold is winning 2025 so far. Bitcoin is not. But Ark’s buying activity suggests the firm sees that gap not as a reason to pull back, but as a window.

Reports note that Wood and her team remain focused on adoption curves and structural shifts rather than quarterly returns.

Featured image from Kanchanara on Unsplash, chart from TradingView

As congressional momentum behind the crypto market structure bill known as the CLARITY Act slows, the Blockchain Association has stepped forward with its own proposal aimed at shaping the next phase of digital asset regulation in the United States.

On Tuesday, the Washington-based nonprofit — which represents more than 125 crypto companies — released a document titled Digital Asset Tax Principles. 

The framework is intended to guide lawmakers as they revisit tax policy for digital assets amid broader regulatory discussions. The association has also participated in White House meetings over the past month related to the CLARITY Act.

Blockchain Association’s Proposal

In announcing the framework, Summer Mersinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Blockchain Association, said lawmakers must ensure that any tax legislation reflects the economic realities of how digital assets function. 

She emphasized that tax rules should be practical for both taxpayers and regulators, adding that the group’s recommendations are designed to provide clarity while reinforcing US competitiveness in the global digital economy.

The principles outlined in the document focus heavily on making crypto taxation workable in practice. One major recommendation is the creation of a meaningful de minimis exemption for small digital asset transactions, which would ease compliance burdens for everyday users. 

The association also proposes that stablecoins be treated as cash for tax purposes, arguing that such treatment would prevent disproportionate reporting requirements for routine payments.

Another key theme is functional consistency. The group argues that economically similar activities should be taxed similarly, regardless of the technical structure behind them. 

For example, it recommends that mining and staking rewards be treated as self-created property, taxable only when the tokens are sold or otherwise disposed of, and sourced to the owner’s residence.

Crypto Tax Plan

The framework also addresses economic ownership, urging lawmakers to allow nonrecognition treatment for transactions that do not materially change a taxpayer’s economic exposure. 

In addition, the association highlights privacy and safety concerns, advocating for reporting requirements that achieve legitimate enforcement goals without unnecessarily compromising taxpayer privacy.

Global competitiveness is another pillar of the proposal. The Blockchain Association suggests implementing a safe harbor for foreign individuals trading on US exchanges and adopting policies that encourage digital asset activity to remain onshore rather than move abroad. 

It also calls for anti-abuse provisions that close wash sale loopholes while preserving the ability of Americans to use digital assets in everyday transactions. Further recommendations aim to improve access and flexibility within the tax system. 

Currently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies crypto as property rather than currency. As a result, most crypto-related activity falls into one of two categories: capital gains or ordinary income. 

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com 

The crypto market remains under pressure as Bitcoin and major altcoins continue to lose key support levels, reinforcing a cautious tone across digital assets. Momentum has weakened in recent weeks, with price action struggling to stabilize after the correction that began in October 2025. While intermittent rebounds have occurred, they have largely failed to restore confidence, leaving sentiment fragile and volatility elevated. Investors appear increasingly selective, deploying capital carefully rather than aggressively accumulating risk assets.

A recent CryptoQuant report highlights a critical structural factor behind this weakness: limited incoming liquidity. According to the analysis, the absence of sustained capital inflows has prevented the market from transitioning into a clear recovery phase. Broader macro conditions also appear unsupportive in the near term. Federal Reserve member Christopher Waller noted that strong February labor market data could justify maintaining the current interest rate stance, an environment that historically constrains risk-on capital flows.

As liquidity tightens, capital rotation dynamics are becoming more pronounced. Funds are increasingly shifting toward equities and commodities, partly driven by continued expansion in the artificial intelligence sector and the persistent strength of precious metals. This redistribution of capital suggests crypto markets may remain in a defensive posture until broader liquidity conditions improve.

Stablecoin Outflows Signal Liquidity Drain Across Crypto Markets

The report explains that liquidity dynamics within crypto markets are often reflected through stablecoin flows, which act as a proxy for deployable capital. When stablecoin reserves rise on exchanges, it typically signals increasing readiness to enter risk positions. Conversely, sustained outflows tend to indicate capital withdrawal or reduced trading appetite.

On Binance, stablecoin reserves have been declining steadily since November 13, with nearly $10 billion withdrawn as investors gradually reduce market exposure. These reserves, which generally fluctuate based on investor demand, have fallen from approximately $50.9 billion to $41.4 billion — a contraction of about 18.6%. This shift suggests a measurable reduction in immediately available liquidity across one of the industry’s largest trading venues.

As stablecoins continue to flow out, Binance’s reserve levels have now returned to those last observed around October 2024. Although the platform still accounts for roughly 64% of total stablecoin reserves across centralized exchanges, changes at this scale tend to influence broader market liquidity conditions.

If this trend persists, price stability may remain elusive. Historically, renewed stablecoin inflows have coincided with improving risk appetite and stronger price support. Therefore, a sustained reversal in stablecoin flows will likely be necessary before a more durable recovery phase can develop.

Total Crypto Market Cap Tests Key Structural Support

The total crypto market capitalization chart shows a clear transition from expansion to consolidation following the peak reached during the 2025 rally. After climbing toward the $4 trillion region, total market cap entered a sustained corrective phase, gradually compressing toward the $2.1–$2.2 trillion zone. This decline reflects broad risk-off behavior affecting both Bitcoin and altcoins, rather than an isolated asset-specific retracement.

From a structural perspective, the market has recently broken below the 50-week moving average and is now approaching the 100-week average, while the 200-week moving average continues to trend upward beneath price. Historically, this configuration often characterizes mid-cycle corrections rather than full structural reversals, although confirmation requires stabilization above longer-term support levels.

Volume patterns also suggest distribution rather than aggressive accumulation. Selling spikes during declines appear more pronounced than buying reactions, indicating persistent caution among market participants. The absence of strong follow-through rallies reinforces the idea that liquidity remains constrained.

If the $2 trillion region fails to hold, downside volatility could increase due to thinner liquidity conditions. Conversely, stabilization above current levels combined with renewed inflows — particularly through stablecoins — would be the first indication that broader market confidence is gradually returning.

Featured image from ChatGPT, chart from TradingView.com 

Jameson Lopp is escalating his criticism of BIP-110, arguing the proposal could trigger a disruptive Bitcoin chain split while failing to stop the behavior it is meant to curb. In a Feb. 23 post, Lopp frames the plan as a consensus-layer response to a policy and cultural dispute around transaction “spam,” with risks that extend well beyond mempool debates.

BIP-110 is pitched as a soft fork led by Luke Dashjr that would temporarily restrict arbitrary data in transactions. Lopp summarizes it as adding seven new transaction-validity restrictions, including limits on where data can be placed and constraints on certain script behavior, but says the tradeoffs are far more severe than supporters admit. He calls the proposal “reckless and doomed to fail,” setting the tone for a post that is less a technical explainer than a warning about governance and coordination risk.

Why Lopp Thinks The Activation Path Is Dangerous For Bitcoin

The core of Lopp’s argument is not just what BIP-110 changes, but how it tries to activate. He points to the proposal’s 55% miner-signaling threshold for a user-activated soft fork and says that low bar materially increases the probability of two competing chains if the ecosystem is not aligned.

He also stresses that BIP-110 nodes would reject non-compliant blocks outright, which raises coordination risk compared with soft forks that old nodes can continue to follow without enforcement conflicts.

Lopp is especially pointed on the mandatory activation posture at block height 961,632. In one of the sharpest passages, he writes: “This is not a neutral, low-drama deployment posture. It’s dogmatic bullying. […] you cannot pretend it’s low-risk.” He ties that warning to a broader point: even if one views UASF tactics as legitimate, the proposal’s design increases the odds of a messy failure mode if miners, exchanges, wallets, and infrastructure providers do not converge in time.

He also pushes back on comparisons to 2017, noting that the UASF many people cite in the SegWit era never actually had to run to the edge because SegWit activated via miner signaling instead. That distinction matters in Lopp’s framing, because BIP-110 proponents are, in his view, leaning on a historical precedent that did not test the exact scenario they now describe as manageable.

Another major section of Lopp’s post targets the claim that BIP-110 has meaningful grassroots momentum. He argues that raw node counts (roughly 20% run Knots) are a weak proxy for consensus because signaling is cheap, node operation can be low-cost, and Tor addresses are “effectively zero” cost to create at scale. He publishes a breakdown of reachable nodes and highlights the higher Tor-to-IPv4 ratio among Knots and BIP-110 signaling nodes as a reason to treat node-count narratives cautiously.

On mining support, Lopp says the gap is more straightforward. At the time of publication, he writes miner signaling was “precisely […] zero,” and he cites public opposition from F2Pool while arguing miners have limited incentive to back a proposal that could reduce fee revenue. That point reinforces his broader thesis that BIP-110 supporters are overestimating social signaling and underestimating the role of economically significant actors in Bitcoin upgrade politics.

Lopp’s post ultimately reads as a warning that the immediate issue is not simply whether BIP-110 activates, but what the campaign reveals about where Bitcoin’s internal dispute over neutrality, censorship resistance, and block-space usage is heading. Even a failed fork push, in his framing, can still impose real costs by forcing operators and businesses to plan around low-probability but high-impact coordination failure.

At press time, Bitcoin traded at $62,791.

Bitcoin has remained under sustained pressure since losing the $70,000 level, entering a corrective phase that has gradually pushed price lower while defining a consolidation range just above the $63,000 zone. Momentum has weakened noticeably, with buyers struggling to regain control and volatility compressing as the market searches for direction. This range-bound behavior reflects a transitional phase rather than a confirmed trend reversal, as traders weigh macro uncertainty, liquidity conditions, and broader risk sentiment across digital assets.

Amid this backdrop, Bitcoin mining difficulty has recently rebounded following a brief dip. Mining difficulty adjusts roughly every two weeks to maintain consistent block production timing. When difficulty rises, it typically signals that more computational power — or hashrate — has returned to the network. Temporary drops can occur when external factors, such as weather disruptions, energy constraints, or operational shutdowns, force some miners offline.

The recent rebound, therefore, suggests renewed miner participation and sustained network resilience. Greater difficulty often indicates confidence among miners in Bitcoin’s long-term viability, as maintaining operations becomes more competitive and capital-intensive. However, it can also increase cost pressure on less efficient miners, potentially influencing short-term supply dynamics if some are forced to liquidate holdings to cover expenses.

Mining Difficulty Rebound Signals Network Resilience

The recent dip in mining difficulty was largely weather-driven rather than structurally bearish. Severe winter storms temporarily disrupted energy supply in key mining regions, forcing portions of the network’s hashrate offline. As a result, the previous difficulty adjustment registered a short-lived decline, reflecting reduced computational power securing the network at that moment.

However, the disruption proved brief. According to on-chain data, the latest adjustment reversed the drop and pushed difficulty back to new highs, confirming that miners rapidly restored operations. Network hashrate has rebounded toward its prior range, signaling that the infrastructure impact was temporary rather than systemic. Block production times, which had briefly slowed, normalized quickly as computational power returned.

This rebound carries structural implications. Mining difficulty rising after a shock indicates that capital remains committed to the network despite price weakness below $70,000. It also suggests that the broader mining ecosystem retains operational resilience, even under adverse conditions.

At the same time, greater difficulty increases production costs, particularly for less efficient operators. If Bitcoin’s price remains compressed near the $63,000–$65,000 range, margin pressure could intensify for high-cost miners. Nonetheless, the swift recovery in difficulty reinforces the view that network fundamentals remain intact despite short-term volatility.

Bitcoin Tests Key Support As Downtrend Pressure Persists

Bitcoin’s weekly chart shows a clear deterioration in momentum after losing the $70,000 level, with price now consolidating near the $63,000 zone. The structure reflects a sequence of lower highs since the late-2025 peak above $120,000, indicating that sellers remain dominant despite intermittent stabilization attempts.

Technically, Bitcoin is trading below the 50-week and 100-week moving averages, both of which have shifted from support into dynamic resistance. This configuration typically signals a transitional or corrective phase rather than a confirmed bullish continuation. Meanwhile, the 200-week moving average — currently much lower — remains the long-term structural support reference.

Volume patterns also suggest caution. Selling activity increased during the latest decline, pointing to distribution rather than simple low-liquidity drift. However, recent candles show some compression in volatility, implying that the market may be attempting to establish a short-term base around current levels.

From a structural perspective, the $60,000–$63,000 region now acts as immediate support. A sustained break below it could expose deeper retracement zones toward the mid-$50,000 area. Conversely, reclaiming the $70,000 threshold would be necessary to restore bullish momentum and shift sentiment toward recovery.

Featured image from ChatGPT, chart from TradingView.com 

Market jitters over a futuristic risk met a calm reply this week. Some voices warn that quantum machines could one day threaten the keys that protect Bitcoin and other cryptos. Other leaders say the danger is distant and that systems can be fixed well before disaster strikes.

Saylor’s View On Timing And Response

According to a recent interview, Michael Saylor argued that a true quantum threat is probably more than 10 years away and that the tech world would notice any real leap in time.

He said upgrades would follow naturally when a credible danger showed up. His point: the same signals that warn banks and cloud providers would also alert the crypto sector.

Strategy has acquired 592 BTC for ~$39.8 million at ~$67,286 per bitcoin. As of 2/22/2026, we hodl 717,722 $BTC acquired for ~$54.56 billion at ~$76,020 per bitcoin. $MSTR $STRC https://t.co/jSQroB4LnE

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) February 23, 2026

Strategy’s Holdings And Industry Signal

Strategy remains heavily invested in Bitcoin, and that context matters when a company leader downplays a remote risk. The firm has been buying and holding large amounts of the asset for years, a fact that shapes how comments are framed.

Markets may react to tone as much as to facts. A calm remark from a high-profile buyer can soothe some traders, while others will want hard timelines and technical road maps.

Where Caution Comes From

Reports say that not everyone agrees with a distant-timeline view. Vitalik Buterin has urged more urgency, citing probability models and scheduling a faster push toward quantum-safe tools.

The Ethereum Foundation has added post-quantum work to its security plans, showing a shift from talk to action in parts of the industry. That split is worth noting: some groups are preparing now, while others expect more warning.

The Technical Middle Ground

Quantum computers threaten certain math problems that underpin signatures and keys used across the internet. Breaking a private key would let an attacker move funds from exposed addresses.

But two points matter: first, not all addresses reveal the same information; second, moving an entire system to new algorithms is slow and social as much as it is technical.

A staged upgrade is possible. It would take years of testing, broad software updates, and coordination among node operators, wallet makers, exchanges, and regulators.

What Investors Should Watch

Watch for clear signals, not headlines. Evidence could show up as public research breakthroughs, large-scale error-corrected machines appearing in labs, or coordinated alerts from government agencies and major tech firms.

“You’ll see it coming. We’ll all see it coming,” Saylor said.

Bitcoin’s software, he pointed out, is designed to change over time, with nodes and hardware capable of upgrading in reaction to emerging threats.

Featured image from Vecteezy, chart from TradingView

The founder of Capriole Investments has highlighted how Bitcoin is currently facing the most net selling pressure from institutions in history.

Bitcoin Is Observing An Exit From Institutional Entities

In a new post on X, Capriole Investments founder Charles Edwards has discussed the latest trend in the behavior of institutional entities on the Bitcoin network. To gauge institutional activity, Edwards has used the spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and treasury companies as a proxy.

Spot ETFs are investment vehicles that trade in traditional markets and allow for indirect exposure to BTC. Similarly, treasury companies hold BTC on their balance sheet, making their stock price tied to the cryptocurrency’s movements. Traditional institutional entities are typically wary of blockchain infrastructure, so they tend to take one of the regulated, indirect routes into the asset.

Now, here is the chart shared by the analyst that shows how the monthly rate-of-change (ROC) in the combined ETF and treasury holdings has fluctuated over the last few years:

As displayed in the above graph, the monthly ROC for these entities has plummeted into the negative territory recently, indicating an outflow of capital has been taking place. Treasury companies alone are still just inside the positive territory, likely due to the continued accumulation from Strategy, but spot ETFs have sunk deep into the red zone.

In the same chart, Edwards has also attached the data of another indicator: Net Institutional Buying. This metric compares the combined ROC in the balance of the spot ETFs and treasury companies against the Bitcoin being mined by the blockchain’s validators.

During the January recovery, this indicator saw a brief turn to green, implying that institutional entities were accumulating faster than miners could produce new supply. With the capital exit that has occurred recently, however, the Net Institutional Buying has plummeted to a highly negative value of -319%.

Such a low level in the indicator hasn’t been witnessed before in the cryptocurrency’s history. “Most aggressive institutional net selling of Bitcoin EVER this last week,” noted the Capriole founder.

As for the reason behind this shift among institutional investors, Edwards has pointed to the Quantum threat to Bitcoin. Quantum Computing is an upcoming technology that could be used to break into old, vulnerable BTC wallets, at least in theory. The analyst published a research piece last week talking about how this risk could “discount” the value of the digital asset.

“When you consider the statistics for when Q-Day is expected to occur, the rational investor is discounting the fair value of Bitcoin by 20% today,” explained Edwards. Below is a chart that showcases how this discount will go up each year the BTC network isn’t upgraded against the Quantum threat.

BTC Price

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is floating around $62,300, down nearly 7% in the last seven days.