bitcoinist.com

Stablecoin operator Tether has announced its decision to discontinue support for its offshore Chinese Yuan token CNH₮. The USDT operator has attributed this development to a lack of market demand, among other points.

Tether To Terminate CNH₮ Redemption In One Year 

In a recent blog post, Tether shared a strategic update on its CNH₮, communicating a management decision to withdraw the stablecoin product from its offerings. This decision is based on multiple factors centered around demand and operational efficiency.

A statement from the announcement read:

Community interest and adoption are central to every product decision we make. When evaluating whether to maintain or introduce a Tether token, we assess market demand, operational sustainability, and broader ecosystem conditions that influence long-term usability. Our priority is to allocate resources where they can most effectively enhance security, reliability, and innovation across the digital asset landscape.

Tether explains that the CNH₮ recorded low interest, adoption, and community demand compared to their products, thereby failing to produce an acceptable return on technical and operational efforts. 

As of this moment, all new issuance of CNH₮ has been halted. Meanwhile, CNH₮ users will have the next year to process any redemptions before the stablecoin is permanently phased out. The stablecoin operator will issue another reminder ahead of the redemption deadline. Following this development, Tether reiterates its commitment to stablecoin global growth and adoption. 

The statement read:

Tether will continue to focus its efforts on stablecoins and infrastructure that demonstrate strong, organic adoption and long-term relevance. This includes advancing core stablecoin liquidity, expanding tokenization infrastructure, and supporting new financial tools that better serve global users and builders.

Tether remains the operator of the world’s largest stablecoin, USDT, which presently boasts a total market cap of $183.7 billion. In January, the stablecoin company launched USAT, designed specifically for American users.

Nigeria Leads Demand For Stablecoins

In other news, a recent survey by BVNK has revealed that Africa’s largest economies are leading the demand for stablecoins. This survey, done in collaboration with Coinbase, YouGov, and Artemis, involved 4658 adults across 15 countries. The results revealed that 80% of Nigerian and South African respondents presently hold stablecoin, while 75% aim to increase holdings as citizens seek a haven from their local fragile currencies.

At press time, the total stablecoin market cap is valued at $310 billion, with high expectations of future market expansion following the approval of the GENIUS Act last July.

The biggest question so far in the bear phase has been when and where the Bitcoin price will bounce back. According to the latest on-chain data, there might be a fresh answer as to where the price bottom will be in the current bear market.

Here’s Why $40,000 Could Be Pivotal To The Bear Market

In a recent post on the X platform, crypto analyst Ali Martinez identified the $40,000 level as a potential bottom for the Bitcoin price in the current market phase. This projection is based on the cost basis of an old investor cohort known as the long-term holders (LTH)

For context, the cost basis of long-term holders refers to the average price at which Bitcoin investors (who have held their coins for 155 days or more) acquired their coins. This price level is often relevant because long-term investors are often referred to as diamond hands, who are less likely to sell during periods of downside volatility.

Moreover, the LTH cost basis tends to act as the ultimate support level during bear markets, as most long-term investors are usually still in profit even in the thick of the bear market. Hence, when the Bitcoin price falls to this support, the long-term holders double down on their positions.

This renewed buying activity by the long-term holders would prop up the price of the premier cryptocurrency above their cost basis, as observed in the chart above. According to the highlighted data, the LTH cost basis is currently around $40,363, about 40% from the current price point.

If the Bitcoin price were to face further downside pressure and approach this cost basis, there is a likelihood it would receive support from the long-term investors’ increased reaccumulation. Hence, this cost basis could become the bottom for the current bear market.

On the flip side, the Bitcoin market could face an even deeper correction if the selling pressure overwhelms the long-term holders’ reaccumulation spree. 

Bitcoin Price Overview

As of this writing, the price of BTC stands at around $68,330, reflecting a nearly 1% increase in the past 24 hours. However, this mild single-day action does little to correct the over 2% price decline witnessed by the premier cryptocurrency over the past week. According to data from CoinGecko, the Bitcoin price is currently down from its all-time high by more than 45%. 

As Bitcoin price struggles persist, the Bitcoin Spot ETFs continue to witness consistent net negative performance, highlighting the heightened bearish sentiments among retail and institutional investors. As the latest trading session closed on February 20, the Bitcoin ETFs have now experienced five consecutive weeks ending on a red note, as combined net outflows within this period climbed to $3.81 billion.

Investors’ Exit From Bitcoin Spot ETFs Continue

According to data from SoSoValue, the Bitcoin ETFs registered $315.89 million in net outflows in the third week of February. Notably, trading commenced on Tuesday with a negative showing that lasted for three days, resulting in aggregate net withdrawals of $403.9 million. On Friday, the institutional funds saw a positive change, as total net inflows reached $88.04 million, albeit still far from breaking the multi-week red streak.

More data from SoSoValue showed that BlackRock’s IBIT processes $303.4 million in net outflows, accounting for most of the bearish action as has been frequently observed. Meanwhile, Fidelity’s FBTC investors withdrew $19.60 million more than deposits. Other ETFs with significant negative readings included Grayscale’s GBTC, Bitwise’s BITB, and 21Shares/Ark Invest’s ARKB, with net outflows ranging from $8 million to $10 million. Valkyrie’s BRRR experienced the least net redemption activity, valued at $1.7 million.

On the other hand, Grayscale’s BTC registered $35.97 million in net inflows to maintain a positive showing for the third consecutive week. Other Bitcoin Spot ETFs, including VanEck’s HODL, Invesco’s BTCO, Franklin Templeton’s EZBC, WisdomTree’s BTCW, and Hashdex’s DEFI, all recorded zero netflow, highlighting a concerning reluctance in market participation by institutional investors. 

At press time, Bitcoin is valued at $68,357 as the cumulative total net inflow for the Bitcoin Spot ETFs stands at $54.01 billion, while total net assets are valued at $85.31 billion. Notably, BlackRock’s IBIT maintains undisputed market dominance, accounting for 60% of the reported assets under management.

Ethereum ETFs Mirror BTC Counterparts

Based on data from SoSoValue, the Ethereum ETFs are experiencing a persistent struggle similar to that observed with Bitcoin Spot ETFs. Over the last week, total net outflows reached $123.37 million, ensuring the institutional funds are yet to record a combined positive net flow in over six weeks.  At the time of writing, total net assets for the Ethereum Spot ETFs are valued at $11.14 billion.  Meanwhile, Ethereum trades at $1,978 following a 0.45% gain in the past day. 

Bitcoin supply structure is undergoing a notable transformation as the Network Distribution Factor (NDF) declines rapidly. While price action often dominates headlines, shifts in distribution metrics can reveal structural changes. A falling NDF suggests that the balance of BTC holdings across different wallet cohorts is evolving, and potentially signaling a redistribution of market participants.

What The Network Distribution Factor Actually Measures

An advanced on-chain data analytics firm, Alphractal, noted on X that the NDF of Bitcoin is declining sharply, and revealing an important structural shift in how the asset supply is distributed across the market. The NDF measures the proportion of the total BTC supply held by larger holders controlling at least 0.01% of the entire circulating supply.

When the metric declines, it indicates that the BTC supply concentration among large holders is decreasing. In practical terms, this shift represents a reduced relative dominance of large holders over the total supply and broader redistribution of BTC among smaller participants and new market entrants.

A declining extreme concentration is often seen during early accumulation phases, and a natural redistribution process follows the periods of strong accumulation by large entities. Historically, extended declines in the NDF tend to occur during phases when the market is mature, and the asset becomes more widely distributed. 

This often occurs after major bull cycles, when large players accumulate supply and are gradually absorbed by the broader market. Rather than signaling weakness, this dynamic can strengthen BTC economic decentralization and reduce structural risk tied to excessive concentration.

At the same time, it reflects a transition phase where supply is being redistributed globally, reinforcing BTC’s evolution from a relatively concentrated asset into a widely distributed global financial network. However, this does not signal structural weakness, but rather signals maturation and the expansion of BTC’s ownership base.

Why Bitcoin Represents A True Financial Revolution

The clearest reasons Bitcoin remains the most compelling asset of our generation are its ownership structure and fixed supply. According to Crypto Patel, roughly 63% of the total circulating supply is held by everyday individual participants, not Wall Street, not the government, or even the institutions.

At the core of this thesis, there are only 21 million BTC in existence, and the number is fixed permanently; no central bank can inflate it, no politician can alter the code, and no corporation can dilute holders.

In a world characterized by aggressive money printing and currency debasement, BTC stands alone as mathematically enforced scarcity, and the majority of that asset belongs to ordinary individuals. Crypto Patel frames BTC’s decentralized ownership and fixed supply not just as a technology, but as a structural revolution.

The price of Bitcoin has been stuck in a consolidation range below $70,000 so far this week, after spending most of the previous weekend above it. While the flagship cryptocurrency’s price movement has been largely — and painfully — sideways in recent weeks, this represents a notable improvement from how the month of February started.

The new month ushered in a fresh low just above the $61,000 level for Bitcoin, confirming the start of the bear market. Amidst the relative stability in recent weeks, a recent on-chain evaluation suggests that BTC and the broader cryptocurrency mark is still at risk of further downside volatility.

BTC’s Future In The Hands Of Large Investors: CryptoQuant

In the last bull cycle, the price action of Bitcoin was heavily influenced and impacted by the increased influx and activity of institutional investors (primarily through the spot exchange-traded funds). Similarly, it appears that the large investor cohort will still be at the wheel even during the bear market.

According to CryptoQuant’s latest market report, the Bitcoin exchange inflows — and the immediate selling pressure — have normalized since the capitulation spike in early February. This trend can be seen in the decline in exchange inflows from around 60,000 BTC at the start of the month to around 23,000 BTC now.

While the acute sell-off phase appears to be easing off, a troubling trend seems to be brewing among Bitcoin’s largest investors. In its market report, CryptoQuant highlighted that the BTC exchange whale ratio has climbed to 0.64, its highest level since 2015, suggesting that whale inflows account for a significant portion of the exchange deposits being seen.

Meanwhile, the average BTC deposit size has also reached a level not seen since mid-2022, during the heat of the last bear market. This trend further reinforces the idea that institutional or large investors are behind the increasing exchange supply.

CryptoQuant noted that the altcoin market is still facing elevated distribution pressure, with the average daily number of altcoin exchange deposits rising from 40,000 in Q4 2025 to 49,000 in 2026. This continuous capital rotation out of riskier assets reflects weakened market confidence and increases the risk of downside volatility.

Meanwhile, the ongoing flow of stablecoins out of exchanges points to a decline in marginal buying power (or “dry powder”) in the Bitcoin market. According to CryptoQuant data, net USDT flows into exchanges have fallen sharply from a one-year high of $616M in November 2025 to only $27M, turning negative at times (-$469M in late January).

Ultimately, the combination of the increased selling pressure from Bitcoin’s large holders, rising altcoin distribution, and consistent stablecoin outflows suggests that the crypto market structure remains at risk of further downside volatility. Bitcoin Price At A Glance

As of this writing, the price of Bitcoin stands at around $67,580, reflecting a mild 1% increase in the past 24 hours.

According to recent reports, the Dutch arm of the prediction markets platform Polymarket has been asked to cease its activities in the Netherlands. This order comes as the latest regulatory blow dealt to the prediction market platform in recent weeks.

Dutch Regulator Threatens Polymarket With $840,000 Fine

In a notice dated Tuesday, February 17, the Netherlands Gambling Authority ordered Polymarket’s Dutch arm, Adventure One, to “cease its activities immediately” or risk incurring up to $840,000 in fines per week. According to the Dutch regulator, Adventure One offered illegal bets, including on the local elections, to residents without a license.

While prediction markets do not particularly fall into the traditional gambling category, the Netherlands Gambling Authority has classified them as betting. The regulator revealed that it contacted Polymarket about its activities on the Dutch market, but have seen no corrective action or response from the prediction markets company.

Netherlands Gambling Authority’s director of licensing and supervision, Ella Seijsener, said in the notice:

Prediction markets are on the rise, including in the Netherlands. These types of companies offer bets that are not permitted in our market under any circumstances, not even by license holders. Besides the social risks of these kinds of predictions (for example, the potential influence on elections), we conclude that this constitutes illegal gambling. Anyone without a Ksa license has no business in our market. This also applies to these new gambling platforms.

This restriction in the Netherlands marks the latest stumbling block for Polymarket in terms of regulation over the past few months. Despite receiving approvals from the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), individual state authorities have placed significant scrutiny on the activities of prediction market platforms.

This has led to an issue of jurisdiction, as the CFTC chair criticized the state-level scrutiny which undermines their federal authority over prediction markets.

Dutch Unrealized Gains Tax On Crypto Rolls On

This crackdown on prediction markets comes just a week after the Dutch House of Representatives advanced a proposal to introduce a 36% capital gains tax on most liquid investments, including cryptocurrencies. This controversial bill, if passed, would see profits made from interest-bearing financial instruments, equity investments, cryptocurrencies, and savings accounts be subject to tax, whether realized or not.

The proposal of this capital gains tax led to interesting reactions, with several crypto analysts noting that the legislation will drive investors out of the Netherlands. “To be honest, the fact that there’s the unrealized gains tax for Bitcoin in the Netherlands is the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a long time. The amount of people willing to flee the country is going to be bananas,”  analyst Michaël van de Poppe said on X.

 

Bitcoin hashing power pushed the difficulty up about 15% to a little past 144 trillion on Friday, based on data from CoinWarz. That move reversed an earlier drop of 10% that followed widespread outages in parts of the US.

The numbers are blunt: machines went quiet during extreme weather, then came back online, and the protocol rebalanced itself.

Winter Outages And The Bounce Back

Foundry USA’s pool saw a dramatic swing in computing power, falling near 198 EH/s before climbing from roughly 400 EH/s. Reports say that many operators in affected regions shut down temporarily during the winter storms to protect equipment and help grids.

Some of the spaces that host miners coordinated with utilities. Power was conserved. Power was redirected.

Flexible Power Deals Changed The Game

Reports note that several miners did more than pause operations. LM Funding America reported curtailing machines and sending contracted power back to the grid, pocketing curtailment payments that helped offset lost mining time.

Canaan Inc. also said its US sites took part in demand response moves with local partners. These arrangements are part of why many facilities can afford to go offline when the grid needs relief, then restart when conditions improve.

What Higher Difficulty Means

Bitcoin’s difficulty is designed to reset every 2,016 blocks to hold average block times close to the 10-minute target. When more hash power returns, the algorithm raises difficulty. That makes the network harder to attack and raises the work needed to win a block reward.

For miners, higher difficulty reduces the Bitcoin earned per unit of compute, squeezing margins for outfits with older rigs or higher electricity bills.

Price Moves Stay Tied To Headlines

Bitcoin traded near $68,000 as markets reacted to rising geopolitical strain, especially between the US and Iran. Trading has felt cautious. Volume is lighter. Prices have bounced and then stalled on headline-driven flows, showing that investor mood still swings with global news.

At the same time, network metrics kept shifting under the surface — a reminder that technical and macro drivers can pull in different directions.

The US now supplies a big chunk of global hash power, according to Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. That means regional events, weather, and grid policies in the US matter a lot to global security and miner economics.

Some firms have begun to treat mining as a flexible load that can stabilize grids during stress, creating new income streams beyond pure block rewards.

Politics And Market Tone

Comments from politicians and geopolitical moves add friction. Mentions of US President Donald Trump in recent headlines have been tied to broader market nervousness; geopolitics can pull risk appetite downward and keep crypto prices range-bound.

The difficulty rebound itself didn’t spark a big price jump. Instead, it reinforced a simple truth: the protocol handled the shock, but miners felt the squeeze.

Featured image from Pexels, chart from TradingView

The crypto landscape remains in a widespread bear market following months of consistent market sell-off driven by geopolitical tensions, macro settings, and a shift in structure. In February alone, the total market cap has dropped by 12%, extending the total decline from October 2025 to around 44.5%. 

Interestingly, another geopolitical event has occurred in which the US Supreme Court has struck down the legality of trade tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under IEEPA. In a QuickTake post on CryptoQuant, XWIN Research Japan highlights the potential implications of this development for the crypto market.

Tariff Impact On Crypto Assets Hinges On Implementation 

On February 20, the US Supreme Court declared that the majority of the new tariffs imposed by Trump over the last year are illegal. The nation’s apex court clarified that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs; these taxes are being revoked, potentially those under Sections 232 and 301. 

According to XWIN Research Japan, the crypto market has barely reacted to this development. This is an important observation as digital assets experienced significant losses in reaction to these tariff announcements during 2025, most notably on October 10. However, the analysts explain that any impact on crypto prices relies on liquidity, which further hinges on the legal processes and political implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision. 

Notably, total tariff refunds from the US government are estimated between $40 billion and $170 billion. If the refunds proceed as instructed, liquidity will move from the US Treasury Account to the private business. This scenario is expected to improve companies’ cash flow and encourage investment and risk allocation. 

However, it’s worth noting that a decline in government revenue could raise fiscal concerns, resulting in increased bond issuance. Eventually, there is heightened pressure on long-term bonds as investors push for higher yields.

Bitcoin Remains Liquidity Sensitive

XWIN Research Japan notes that the Supreme Court’s decision does not immediately create a “cash-hit-market” scenario. Hence, the lack of corresponding price action. 

Data from the Bitcoin Exchange Netflow chart shows macroeconomic shocks have coincided with a surge in exchange inflows and a fall in price, reinforcing Bitcoin’s status as a liquidity-sensitive asset rather than a stable investment. Therefore, investors are advised to monitor indicators of this liquidity, including ETF flows. Stablecoin exchange inflows, Bitcoin exchange inflows, and the US dollar. At press time, the total crypto market is valued at $2.33 trillion, with total trading volume estimated at $103.2 billion.

Tony Severino, a Chartered Market Technician and Bitcoin trader, was among the rare few analysts who accurately pinpointed the peak in Bitcoin both in terms of timing and at what price.

In a recent X Space, Severino shared his official target for the bear market bottom in BTCUSD. The target includes at what price level the top cryptocurrency is expected to reach, when it will happen, and what the total percentage drawdown will be before it is “all said and done.”

Tony Severino, CMT Calls For $34,000 Bitcoin In October 2026

In this week’s Market Talk X Space hosted by Wolf Bitcoin and Wolf Financial, recurring featured guest and panelist Tony Severino revealed his “official” bottom call for BTC.

Severino, who is a highly-trained technical analyst focusing on cycles, patterns, and psychology, expects the bear market to end later this year around October 2026. Perhaps more importantly, the price prediction aspect is the result of what Severino expects to be a roughly -72% max drawdown. This figure takes BTCUSD to around $34,000 per coin.

While several technical levels exist as to why this zone could be reached, such as this level being the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement, the Chartered Market Technician points to a statistical formula.

Related Reading | Thinking Of Buying The Bitcoin Dip? Here’s What This Metric Says

The first ever bear market drawdown resulted in a -94% decline. Next, in 2014, BTCUSD fell by -86%. 2018’s bear market ended after reaching a full -84% max drawdown. Meanwhile, the last bear market set Bitcoin back -78% and ended with the FTX collapse.

The next average in the linear decay sequence would suggest a max drawdown of between -72 and -74%. Severino’s target is on the more conservative end. Linear decay essentially accounts for the diminished volatility in the cryptocurrency market, while maintaining a realistic average.

Why The Price Prediction Matters – A Transparent Track Record

Why does Tony Severino’s targets matter? Severino called for an initial top in Bitcoin in early 2025 around Trump’s inauguration. This was the precise top when comparing BTC against Gold, and was when the bear market started in the BTCUSD trading pair.

Related Reading | Convicted FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Breaks Silence On ‘10 Myths’

Tony even suggested Bitcoin would bounce in April 2025 based on a TD buy setup on the weekly chart, then warned Bitcoin was topping out once again when it reached $126K in late October.

Closed my remaining short for now and just hedged long with a tiny position

It’s yet another new record for me https://t.co/aduKoBc9T7 pic.twitter.com/EDq0riNAKE

— Tony Severino, CMT (@TonySeverinoCMT) February 5, 2026

The skilled trader has recently gained notoriety, sharing a number of high ROI short positions up to 13,000% (using leverage). Tony is also a mentor on Slice App, where he currently has the “best ROI” on the entire platform following a public trade on Silver that gained over 183% (without leverage). Slice App forces transparency and accountability by not allowing mentors to delete or edit posts or trade setups. All of Tony’s trades are public and proven – making his recent bottom call that much more credible and worth considering.

You can find Tony Severino on Slice App.

After months of aggressive positioning, Bitcoin’s market structure is increasingly defined by caution rather than conviction. Traders are stepping back as macroeconomic and geopolitical risks resurface.

Bitcoin Traders Adopt Deleveraging Strategy In Shaky Market

According to a CryptoQuant analyst, Darkfrost, investors are refraining from risky leveraged positions in Bitcoin futures. This behavioral shift is most evident on Binance. which currently dominates global BTC futures activity, accounting for over 31% of total Bitcoin open interest (excluding CME — Chicago Mercantile Exchange).

The BTC Estimated Leverage Ratio on the platform has declined steadily throughout February, falling from 0.19 to 0.15. At the same time, roughly 30,000 BTC worth of open interest has been wiped from the exchange. Darkfost explains that this development reflects traders deliberately closing positions and trimming exposure, rather than being a random fluctuation.

Bitcoin reserves on the exchange remain relatively stable, meaning investors are not rushing to withdraw funds; they are simply scaling back leverage. That distinction matters, suggesting strategic risk management rather than panic-driven capitulation.

 

More Macro Instability For Bitcoin Market

Analyst Darkfost noted that several macroeconomic and geopolitical pressures have contributed to the risk-off environment, which has weighed on the crypto market without any sign of improvement.  He mentioned that Donald Trump announced new 10% tariffs after a Supreme Court ruling against the previous tariffs. 

At the same time, statements surrounding potential limited strikes against Iran add another layer of geopolitical tension. On the economic front, US economic growth in the fourth quarter came in weaker than expected at 1.4%, reinforcing concerns about slowing momentum. Meanwhile, Core PCE inflation rose to 3%, in an unexpected upside move. In this kind of environment, leveraged risk-taking becomes far less attractive. Traders recognize that volatility driven by macro headlines can liquidate overextended positions quickly.

When leverage declines, it often creates short-term price pressure, as closing futures contracts can boost selling activity. However, Excess leverage makes markets fragile. By flushing out overextended positions, the market reduces systemic risk and undergoes a constructive structural reset. At this point, Bitcoin becomes less vulnerable to violent liquidation events and more capable of sustaining organic price discovery.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading at $67,965, showing a modest increase of around 2.45% over the past 7 days. Meanwhile, the daily trading volume is up by 36.98% and valued at $44.98 billion.

New research shows Bitcoin is facing a discount of about 20% due to the Quantum Computing threat, and it could rise further without an upgrade.

Bitcoin Quantum Discount Could Hit 60% By 2028

Capriole Investments founder Charles Edwards has published a new research piece on how the Quantum Computing risk could discount the fair value of Bitcoin. Quantum Computing is an upcoming technology that could, in theory, be used to break into certain old BTC wallets.

“A quantum hack would compromise the core tenets of Bitcoin,” noted Edwards. The analyst further added:

“Trust the code” and “hard money” value propositions would be crippled overnight as up to 30% of all Bitcoin supply (the coins with exposed public keys) are stolen and liquidated.

Currently, it’s yet unknown when Quantum Computing will advance enough to be able to compromise BTC’s cryptography (an event known as the “Q-Day”), but there has been an increasing amount of discourse surrounding the topic.

Edwards, who has been a vocal voice about the issue in the Bitcoin community, has argued that, given the Quantum threat, logical market participants must now discount the asset’s fair value by a “Quantum Discount Factor.”

The research article describes this metric as the number of years to upgrade BTC against the threat subtracted from the cumulative probability of Q-Day occurring by year. To find the probability of Q-Day taking place, Edwards has referred to estimates from various experts.

Below is the compiled data of these predictions.

As is visible in the chart, there is a 60% chance that Q-Day could occur by 2030 and about 80% that it could happen by 2031. All of the predictions put it as happening sometime in the next nine years (2035 and before).

As for how long it could take to upgrade Bitcoin, the article puts a realistic estimate at approximately two years. “In an extremely optimistic and aggressive scenario this might be feasible in 1 year, but is more likely to be closer to 3 years, as the below diagram elicits,” said Edwards.

Putting both the estimations together, the analyst has mapped out the Quantum Discount Factor for the digital asset.

From the graph, it’s apparent that the 2026 Quantum Discount Factor sits at 20% for Bitcoin. This means that the fair value of the asset should be 20% lower today due to the Quantum risk.

In the scenario that no action is taken for proofing the network against the threat, the discount will increase to nearly 40% by 2027. The figure will rise further to about 60% in 2028 and 75% in 2029.

BTC Price

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is floating around $67,700, down 2% in the last seven days.

Negotiations over the long-debated crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, appear to be moving forward after a third round of talks at the White House on Thursday, even though a final agreement has yet to be reached. 

White House Takes Lead In Crypto Talks

Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisers on Digital Assets, described the meeting as “a big step forward” in a post on social media platform X (previously Twitter). “We’re close,” Witt wrote, adding that if both sides continue negotiating in good faith, he fully expects the deadline to be met.

Additional details about the latest session were reported by Crypto In America journalist Eleanor Terrett. According to sources present at the meeting, the gathering was smaller than the previous week’s session and included representatives from Coinbase and Ripple. 

No individual bank executives attended directly. Instead, the banking industry was represented through trade associations, including the American Bankers Association, the Bank Policy Institute, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Terrett indicated that, unlike earlier sessions where industry groups largely guided the discussion, the White House took a more assertive role this time. Witt reportedly introduced draft legislative language that became the centerpiece of the conversation.

The proposed text addressed concerns raised by banks in a document circulated last week titled “Yield and Interest Prohibition Principles.” While acknowledging those objections, the draft also made clear that any restrictions on rewards would be limited in scope. 

One key takeaway is that paying yield on idle stablecoin balances — a central objective for many crypto firms — is effectively off the table. The debate has narrowed to whether companies may provide rewards tied to specific activities rather than simple account balances.

Daily Penalties Proposed In Draft 

According to one crypto industry participant, banks’ resistance may be driven more by competitive pressures than by fears of large-scale deposit flight, which had previously been framed as the core concern. 

A source from the banking side said their camp is still advocating for the inclusion of a formal deposit outflow study in the bill. Such a study would analyze how the growth of payment-focused stablecoins might affect traditional bank deposits over time.

That banking source noted optimism about a new proposed anti-evasion provision in the draft. The language would grant authority to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Treasury Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to ensure compliance with a ban on yield for idle balances. 

Civil penalties could reach $500,000 per violation, per day, underscoring the seriousness of the enforcement framework under consideration.

Terrett further disclosed in his coverage that the next phase will involve bank trade groups briefing their members on the latest developments to assess whether there is flexibility around permitting certain forms of stablecoin rewards. 

Talks are expected to continue in the coming days. One source familiar with the negotiations said that meeting the end-of-month deadline remains realistic, suggesting that, while differences persist, momentum toward a compromise is building.

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com 

The White House reportedly took the lead during the latest Crypto Council meeting, narrowing the stablecoin rewards dispute that has delayed progress in the long-awaited crypto market structure bill.

White House Steps In On CLARITY Act Dispute

On Thursday, the White House held another meeting between the crypto industry and the banking sector to negotiate the stablecoin yield dispute that has stalled the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, over the past month.

According to a report from journalist Eleanor Terret, the meeting was smaller than previous ones, with only a few representatives from each side. From the crypto sector, participants included representatives from Coinbase, Ripple, a16z, the Blockchain Association, and Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI).

Meanwhile, no individual bank representatives attended; bank voices were represented through trade associations, such as the American Bankers Association, the Banking Policy Institute (BPI), and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA).

Terret sources affirmed that there was a notable difference in yesterday’s meeting as the White House “took the lead in driving the discussion, rather than letting crypto firms and bank trades steer the discussion, as in prior meetings.”

For context, banks have heavily criticized the landmark stablecoin legislation, the GENIUS Act, due to “loopholes” that could pose risks to the financial system. The framework prohibits interest payments on the holding or use of payment-purpose stablecoins, but it only addresses issuers.

The banking side argues that allowing issuers and platforms to offer interest payments on stablecoins could distort market dynamics and affect credit creation in the country, hurting small- and medium-sized financial institutions in the sector.

To address these concerns, banking associations across the US urged senators to include language in the CLARITY Act that also bans digital asset exchanges, brokers, dealers, and related entities from offering yield on stablecoins.

The Senate Banking Committee’s draft proposed that issuers offer rewards for specific actions, such as account openings and cashback. However, it also prohibited issuers from providing interest payments to passive token holders.

The crypto side criticized the proposed measures, with some industry leaders publicly opposing the draft and withdrawing their support. As a result, a markup session on the Senate Banking Committee’s portion of the bill has been delayed.

Stablecoin Yield Out Of The Picture

At the Thursday meeting, Patrick Witt, executive director of the US President’s Council of Advisors on Digital Assets, reportedly brought a draft text that served as the anchor for the discussion. Sources in the room told Terret that the draft’s language acknowledged banks’ concerns raised in last week’s “Yield and Interest Prohibitions Principles” document.

Based on this, “earning yield on idle balances (…) is effectively off the table,” the journalist affirmed. The draft also clarified that any future restrictions on rewards would be narrow in scope. Therefore, the debate has now narrowed to whether crypto firms can offer rewards linked to specific activities.

An attendee from the crypto industry side reportedly said that banks’ concerns “appear to stem more from competitive pressures than from deposit flight.” Meanwhile, someone from the banking industry told Terret that they are still pushing to include a study examining the growth of payment stablecoins and their potential impact on bank deposits in the draft.

They also noted that the White House proposed anti-evasion language. The measure would give the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Department of the Treasury authority to enforce a ban on paying yield on idle stablecoin balances, and penalties of up to $500,000 per violation, per day, against companies that breach the ban.

Now, the banking industry representatives “will brief their members on today’s discussions and gauge whether there’s room to compromise on allowing crypto firms to offer stablecoin rewards,” Terret noted, adding that some attendees believe an end-of-month deadline isn’t unrealistic as talks are set to continue in the coming days.

Sam Bankman-Fried has once again taken to social media from prison, laying out what he describes as “10 myths” surrounding the collapse of crypto exchange FTX and his subsequent conviction. 

The former chief executive used the statement to challenge prosecutors, the bankruptcy process, media coverage, and even the conduct of his trial.

Sam Bankman-Fried Denies FTX Insolvency

Bankman-Fried began by disputing the allegation that FTX was insolvent and that $8 billion in customer funds vanished. He contrasted statements made by prosecutors to jurors with representations made by bankruptcy debtors to the court, and that his claim of solvency was false and that he had lost billions in customer money. 

Media reports, he said, reinforced the message that the funds were gone. In his version of events, however, FTX was solvent and is now repaying customers between 119% and 143% of their claims. 

Bankman-Fried also rejected persistent rumors about a lavish corporate culture. Addressing allegations of “polycule orgies,” Bankman-Fried flatly denied that such conduct took place. 

He insisted he did not party or take vacations, noting that while FTX owned a penthouse, he personally rented only 10% of it for six months for $50,000. He maintained that his personal spending and political donations were funded from his earnings and were less than those earnings.

Secret ‘Backdoor’ For Alameda

On the events leading to FTX’s bankruptcy, Bankman-Fried pushed back against the narrative that he filed because he could not meet surging withdrawal demands. According to him, there were offers to cover the liquidity shortfall and stabilize the platform. 

He claimed that within three days, financing proposals were on the table and withdrawals had begun to resume, but that lawyers nonetheless proceeded with the bankruptcy filing.

The former FTX CEO also addressed the structure of the exchange’s trading platform, Alameda Research, saying it was unrealistic to expect a margin exchange to be fully liquid at all times. 

Margin trading, he explained, involves customers — including Alameda Research — opting into lending and borrowing through a shared collateral pool. He asserted that most assets on the exchange were part of this lending program and that FTX had sufficient liquidity to cover assets outside of it.

Another key accusation he disputed was that he created a secret “backdoor” in FTX’s systems to siphon funds to Alameda. Bankman-Fried denied that such a mechanism existed, saying the account features in question had legitimate purposes and were not used to allow Alameda to borrow more from customers than it had lent.

Pardon Hopes Fade

A significant portion of his statement focused on his trial. Bankman-Fried claimed he did not receive a fair hearing, arguing that once the Department of Justice (DOJ) under former President Joe Biden and the bankruptcy debtors took control of FTX, they controlled the narrative, access to documents, and the pool of witnesses. 

Bankman-Fried also accused Judge Lewis Kaplan of restricting his ability to defend himself, including imposing a gag order, revoking his bail before trial, excluding evidence related to FTX’s solvency, and advice of counsel.

Regarding the revocation of his bail, Bankman-Fried maintained that it stemmed from his exercise of First Amendment rights and attempts to assist the bankruptcy debtors, rather than from witness intimidation. 

The statement comes as Bankman-Fried continues to pursue a new trial in New York. Speculation that he might receive a presidential pardon from President Donald Trump — similar to the one granted to former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao — has largely faded. 

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com 

Strategy CEO Phong Le is calling for a rethink of how banks are required to capital-charge bitcoin exposure under Basel-style rules, arguing that current risk-weighting treatment materially shapes whether regulated institutions can engage with digital assets at all.

The catalyst was a chart shared on X that labels bitcoin “unsecured crypto exposure” with a “typical risk weight” of 1,250% under an “Illustrative Basel III-Style” standardized approach, alongside 0% weights for cash, physical gold, and US Treasuries.

A Capital Penalty For Bank Bitcoin Exposure

Le framed the issue as structural rather than political, pointing to the way global capital rules flow into national bank regulation. “The Basel Accords set global bank capital standards and risk-weighting rules for assets. These frameworks materially shape how banks engage with digital assets, including bitcoin,” he wrote. “They are developed by the Basel Committee of central banks and regulators across 28 jurisdictions — the US is just one.”

He tied that directly to Washington’s stated ambitions for crypto leadership. “If the US wants to be the Crypto Capital of the World, our implementation of Basel capital treatment deserves careful review,” Le said.

Jeff Walton, who posted the image Le quoted, summarized the contrast in blunt numbers: “Basel III Risk weights for assets: Gold: 0% Public equity: 300% Bitcoin: 1,250%,” adding that if the US wants to be a “crypto capitol,” “the banking regulations need to change,” because “Risk is mispriced.”

The chart itself presents a ladder of “typical” risk weights across asset classes. Cash and central bank reserves sit at 0%, physical gold at 0%, and sovereign debt such as US Treasuries (USD, U.S. bank) also at 0%. Investment-grade corporate debt is shown in a 20–75% range, unrated corporate debt at 100%, high-yield at 150%, public equity at 250–300%, and private equity at 400%+. Bitcoin is set apart at 1,250%.

Conner Brown, Head of Strategy at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, argued that the practical effect is to make bank intermediation of bitcoin prohibitively expensive. “It’s hard to overstate how bad of a policy error this is,” he wrote. “Banks are required to set aside capital based on how risky regulators think an asset is. The higher the ‘risk weight,’ the more expensive it is for a bank to hold.”

Brown described the 1,250% figure as translating into a one-for-one capital requirement relative to exposure. In his words, bitcoin’s treatment “means banks must hold $1 in capital for every $1 of Bitcoin exposure,” while gold is treated “the same as cash” with “essentially no capital cost.”

He also pushed back on the premise that bitcoin should be penalized relative to legacy assets, pointing to operational traits he sees as favorable for risk management and market functioning, including continuous trading, fast auditability of holdings, fixed supply, rapid global settlement, and transparent pricing. The result, he argued, is that regulators have effectively discouraged banks from offering custody and related services that corporates and individuals might prefer inside the regulated perimeter.

Brown said the knock-on effects extend beyond bank balance sheets to competitiveness. He argued the framework diverts activity toward “non-bank entities and offshore jurisdictions,” which he characterized as carrying higher risks, and warned that failing to adjust the approach could leave US institutions at a disadvantage globally.

At press time, Bitcoin traded at $67,857.

Analytics firm Glassnode has highlighted how the current Bitcoin market pain echoes May 2022 based on the trend in the Relative Unrealized Loss.

Bitcoin Relative Unrealized Loss Has Shot Up Recently

As explained by Glassnode in a new post on X, the current structure of the Bitcoin Relative Unrealized Loss could mirror May 2022. The “Relative Unrealized Loss” is an on-chain indicator that measures the amount of unrealized loss being held by BTC investors as a whole as a percentage of the asset’s market cap.

The metric works by going through the transaction history of each coin on the blockchain to determine the last price it was moved at. If this last selling price was less than the current spot price for any token, then the indicator considers that particular coin to be underwater right now.

The exact degree of loss carried by the token is equal to the difference between the two prices. The Relative Unrealized Loss sums up this value for all underwater coins and calculates what part of the market cap that it makes up for. Another indicator called the Relative Unrealized Profit tracks the tokens of the opposite type.

Now, here is the chart shared by the analytics firm that shows the trend in the Bitcoin Relative Unrealized Loss over the last several years:

As displayed in the above graph, the Bitcoin Relative Unrealized Loss has witnessed a rise as the cryptocurrency’s price has gone through a bearish shift in recent months. The latest crash to $60,000, in particular, induced a sharp surge in the indicator.

Currently, the Relative Unrealized Loss is sitting at a value of about 19% as the asset trades near $67,000. From the chart, it’s apparent that this is the highest level that the indicator has hit since 2023. But more importantly, the recent trajectory in the metric has looked reminiscent to that witnessed during the bear-market transition from the last cycle.

“Current market pain echoes a similar structure seen in May 2022,” noted Glassnode. The bear market of 2022 didn’t reach its bottom until the FTX crash put investors in an unrealized loss exceeding 60% of the market cap. It now remains to be seen when Bitcoin will reach a low this time around.

In some other news, the market downturn that has followed since the October all-time high (ATH) has resulted in the largest drawdown in history for the US spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs), as the analytics firm has pointed out in another X post.

At the moment, Bitcoin spot ETFs are down 100,300 BTC. “Institutional de-risking has added structural weight to the ongoing weakness, reinforcing the broader risk-off environment,” explained Glassnode.

BTC Price

Bitcoin has been stuck in consolidation recently as its price is floating around $66,700.

A clear sign of more than hobbyist use: monthly Lightning activity climbed past a big mark late last year. According to a report from River, November saw about $1.1 billion flow over the Bitcoin network.

That money, according to a report shared by River’s marketing chief Sam Wouters, moved through over 5 million transactions, which shows both volume and movement. It matters because money actually changed hands on Bitcoin’s second layer, not just price bets.

Adoption Driven By Bigger Players

Reports say many of the biggest gains were not from tiny tips or in-app experiments this time. Exchanges and merchant integrations are carrying a lot of the load.

Back in 2023, monthly transactions peaked at 6.6 million as apps tried out micropayments in gaming and chat. Now the shape of use looks different. Average payment sizes appear larger and the profile of users has shifted toward trading desks and businesses.

https://t.co/5Kmor1eA1n

— Sam Wouters (@SDWouters) February 19, 2026

Institutional Transfers Show Network Muscle

A striking example came when Secure Digital Markets routed a million-dollar Lightning Network transfer to Kraken. That move showed big sums can be shifted quickly without waiting for on-chain confirmation.

Network capacity, which measures BTC tied up to keep channels open, reached 5,606 BTC in December. That increased liquidity matters for larger deals because it lowers the chance a large payment will fail for lack of routed funds.

Bitcoin Price Action And Market Mood

Market conditions were mixed as the network grew. Bitcoin slid under key levels this week, and traders grew cautious as geopolitical headlines piled up.

Volume in spot markets has been muted at times, yet Lightning traffic rose despite that. Price swings still happen, and low trading days tend to amplify those moves, but the network’s payment activity did not simply mirror price spikes. In short, payments rose while BTC sometimes moved sideways.

Why Lightning Is Different

The Lightning Network moves payments off the main chain by opening channels between parties. Transactions inside a channel settle almost instantly and at a fraction of the cost of a typical on-chain transfer.

Only the channel’s net balance is posted to Bitcoin when it’s closed. That design makes small and frequent payments practical, and it removes the 10-minute wait that can ruin buying something at a store.

Reports say Lightning transactions could climb if AI systems begin making automatic micro-payments for data and computing, but that shift still needs better software and clearer business models.

For the time being, the network’s growth signals progress toward everyday Bitcoin payments, though broader exchange support, deeper liquidity, and stronger merchant use will decide whether it becomes a common payment rail or stays a niche tool.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Ethereum continues to struggle below the $2,000 level as persistent selling pressure and elevated uncertainty weigh on broader crypto market sentiment. Despite occasional rebound attempts, price action remains fragile, with volatility still elevated after months of corrective momentum. The inability to decisively reclaim this psychological threshold has reinforced caution among traders, particularly as liquidity conditions tighten and macro uncertainty continues to influence risk appetite across digital assets.

Recent analysis from Darkfost adds further context to the current market structure. According to the data, the ongoing correction is now affecting all investor cohorts, including Ethereum’s largest holders. Notably, the unrealized profit ratio for whale groups has shifted into negative territory across the board. Wallets holding between 1,000 and 10,000 ETH show an unrealized profit ratio of approximately -0.21, while those with 10,000 to 100,000 ETH stand near -0.18. Even the largest cohort — addresses holding more than 100,000 ETH — has slipped into negative territory around -0.08.

This development is notable because Ethereum has not yet revisited its April lows, suggesting the depth of unrealized losses is expanding earlier than in some previous corrective phases. Such conditions can increase market sensitivity, as even traditionally resilient holders may reassess positioning amid prolonged volatility.

Whale Stress Raises Capitulation Risk While Bottom Formation Signals Emerge

Darkfost further notes that if Ethereum extends its decline, large holders could face increasing financial pressure. Sustained downside would deepen unrealized losses across whale cohorts, potentially forcing some participants to reduce exposure or liquidate portions of their holdings. Historically, such capitulation events among large investors tend to amplify short-term volatility, particularly when liquidity conditions are already fragile.

However, despite the negative profit ratios now visible across whale groups, Ethereum has so far managed to stabilize above recent local support zones. This relative resilience suggests that, while sentiment remains cautious, immediate large-scale distribution from whales has not yet materialized. The distinction is important because unrealized losses alone do not necessarily trigger selling unless accompanied by liquidity stress, leverage pressure, or broader market shocks.

Periods in which major holders experience stress have often coincided with medium-term bottom formation phases in previous cycles. As weaker hands exit and leverage unwinds, markets sometimes transition into accumulation regimes characterized by lower volatility and gradual stabilization.

Still, this interpretation should be approached cautiously. Whale positioning is only one element of market structure, and confirmation typically requires improving liquidity, stronger spot demand, and supportive macro conditions before a sustained recovery can take hold.

Ethereum Price Structure Remains Fragile Below Key Averages

Ethereum continues to trade under clear technical pressure, with the weekly chart showing a sustained inability to reclaim the $2,000 region decisively. Following the sharp rejection from the 2025 highs near the $4,800 zone, price action has transitioned into a sequence of lower highs and weakening rebounds, typically associated with corrective market phases rather than accumulation-led recoveries.

Technically, ETH is currently positioned below several major moving averages that previously acted as dynamic support. These levels now function as resistance, limiting upside attempts unless a strong reclaim occurs with expanding volume. The recent decline toward the $1,900 area reflects persistent selling pressure, while repeated failures near the mid-$2,000 range reinforce cautious market sentiment.

Volume activity has moderated compared with the impulsive rally phase, suggesting reduced speculative participation. While declining volume during corrections can sometimes signal seller exhaustion, confirmation of stabilization usually requires sustained buying interest rather than temporary rebounds.

From a structural perspective, immediate support appears concentrated near the recent local lows around the $1,800 region, while resistance remains clustered between roughly $2,200 and $2,600. Until Ethereum reclaims these levels convincingly, the broader technical outlook remains vulnerable, with consolidation or further downside still plausible.

Featured image from ChatGPT, chart from TradingView.com 

Ethereum saw a brief bounce on Thursday, but the $2,000 price level proved once again to be a formidable resistance zone, rendering the bullish move void as it pulls back toward $1,900. This brief bounce might be linked to renewed sentiment of investors toward accumulation, which appears to have reached key levels not seen in several years.

Falling Ethereum Prices, Rising Conviction

After weeks of selling pressure due to waning market conditions, buying activity and interest in Ethereum, the second largest cryptocurrency asset, have significantly picked up pace. On-chain data suggests that renewed buying pressure from investors has pushed toward historic levels.

As outlined in the data shared by Batman, a crypto analyst and investor, ETH is experiencing one of its strongest accumulation phases in years. ETH has managed to remake history even as its price continues to trend lower, making this a pivotal moment for the leading altcoin and its future outlook.

Rising buyer conviction and declining values divide, indicating that long-term participants are discreetly positioning amid weakness rather than withdrawing from turbulence. The constant flow of capital from investors demonstrates confidence in Ethereum’s longer-term plan in spite of immediate market pressure.

As selling pressure collides with steady accumulation, the current pattern could lay the foundation for the altcoin’s next short-term structural move. In another X post, Batman revealed that accumulation has also increased among newly created wallet addresses. Based on the flow data for Ethereum in a 24-hour period, over $490.9 million has been moved into a freshly created wallet address.

Interestingly, this notable fresh capital is 2.4x higher than average, pointing to significantly elevated activity today. During the period, whale wallet addresses also secured approximately $39.2 million inflow, indicating a 30.7x increase above average. 

Furthermore, top PnL wallets recorded $46.9 million inflow, rising by 12.2x above average, while exchange wallets saw $56.9 million outflow, which is still a bullish signal. Whale buildup, exchange outflows, and large inflows of new wallets all point to the presence of substantial accumulation activity.

Investors Are Stacking Up More ETH Than Bitcoin

While Ethereum is attracting a wave of aggressive accumulation from large holders, its net buying from these investors now significantly outpaces that of Bitcoin. High-net-worth investors increasing their positions in ETH hints at a robust condition in the altcoin compared to BTC. The disparity in accumulation patterns raises the possibility that capital rotation is taking place as key participants in the ETH ecosystem move ahead of possible catalysts.

According to CW, a verified author on CryptoQuant, whales are quietly buying massive amounts of ETH in a volatile market environment. Interestingly, the expert noted that the cohorts are particularly focused on positioning in the futures market.

At the time of writing, the price of ETH was trading at $1,957 after recording a more than 1% drop in the last 24 hours. Its trading volume has flipped bearish alongside its price, dropping by over 11% within the same time frame, according to CoinMarketCap’s data.

The crypto market is entering a critical phase as persistent selling pressure and rising fear continue to dominate sentiment across digital assets. Price action has remained fragile in recent weeks, with both major cryptocurrencies and altcoins struggling to regain sustained momentum. Investors are increasingly cautious as liquidity tightens, volatility persists, and macro uncertainty weighs on risk appetite. While corrective phases are not unusual after strong rallies, the current environment suggests the market is still searching for stability rather than transitioning into a clear recovery.

A recent CryptoQuant report highlights a significant regulatory development that could influence longer-term market structure. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse recently indicated there is roughly a 90% probability that the CLARITY Act will pass by the end of April. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act aims to define the regulatory boundary between the SEC and CFTC, establish clearer registration frameworks for exchanges and brokers, formalize custody and asset segregation rules, and codify AML and KYC requirements.

Progress has slowed primarily due to debate around stablecoin yield products. While some proposals restrict issuers from paying interest, banks argue that exchange-based rewards may function as indirect yield instruments. Meanwhile, on-chain data shows yield-bearing stablecoin supply expanding rapidly since late 2024, highlighting growing structural demand.

Regulatory Uncertainty And Stablecoin Policy Frictions Continue To Shape Market Sentiment

Regulatory developments are increasingly shaping sentiment across the crypto market, and recent analysis suggests that the rapid growth of yield-bearing stablecoins has intensified political and financial tensions. Crypto firms are attempting to draw a distinction between interest paid directly by issuers and rewards distributed through exchanges or platforms, arguing that these mechanisms serve different economic functions.

Traditional banks, however, are advocating for tighter restrictions, concerned that such products could accelerate deposit outflows from the conventional financial system. Until compromise language is formally codified in legislation, momentum within the Senate remains uncertain.

At the same time, legislative complexity continues to increase. The Senate Agriculture Committee has already advanced a separate text focused primarily on Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight. This creates a scenario in which multiple legislative packages will eventually need to be reconciled. Bipartisan vote requirements, questions around federal versus state regulatory authority, and unresolved provisions related to decentralized finance further complicate the timeline. These factors suggest that even broadly supported frameworks may face procedural delays.

If enacted, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act could reduce regulatory risk premiums in the short term while gradually reshaping market structure over the longer horizon. However, clarity is unlikely to emerge instantly. Historically, regulatory transitions unfold sequentially — first through political signaling, then formal rulemaking, and ultimately enforcement. Until that process matures, regulatory uncertainty will remain embedded in the market environment.

Total Crypto Market Cap Tests Structural Support

The total cryptocurrency market capitalization continues to face downward pressure, with the weekly chart showing a clear rejection from the multi-trillion-dollar peak reached during the 2025 rally. After topping near the $4 trillion region, the market has entered a sustained corrective phase, recently pulling back toward the $2.3 trillion area. This zone now functions as a key structural support level, reflecting the midpoint between the previous expansion phase and the ongoing consolidation.

Technically, price action remains below the shorter-term moving averages, which have begun to slope downward and act as dynamic resistance. The medium-term average is flattening, suggesting loss of bullish momentum, while the longer-term trend line still trends upward but with a lag typical of macro support indicators. Until capitalization reclaims these levels decisively, upside follow-through may remain limited.

Volume patterns also reflect caution. Participation has moderated compared with the peak rally phase, although occasional spikes suggest intermittent repositioning rather than uniform capitulation. Historically, such environments often precede extended consolidation periods as excess leverage unwinds.

If support near current levels holds, the market could enter a stabilization phase. A breakdown below this zone, however, would likely confirm continued corrective pressure across the broader crypto ecosystem.

Featured image from ChatGPT, chart from TradingView.com