Feed aggregator

Moscow Trading Week — международная конференция для трейдеров, инвесторов и профессиональных участников финансовых рынков. Мероприятие пройдет в Башне «Федерация» и объединит более 5000 участников. Свыше 15 стран представлены спикерами и партнерами форума.

Комиссия по корпорациям штата Аризона обязала компанию LABI Investments, также известную как Wealthwise, и ее гендиректора Лизу Энн Буассель (Lisa Anne Boisselle), вернуть клиентам $1,3 млн и заплатить административный штраф $75 000 за мошенничество с ценными бумагами.

Специалисты международного финансового холдинга CitiBank заявили, что уровень поддержки $70 000 критически важен для биткоина. Если первая криптовалюта опустится ниже этой отметки, это может привести к еще более глубокому падению.

Министр финансов США Скотт Бессент (Scott Bessent) в выступлении перед Конгрессом подтвердил, что США продолжат хранить конфискованные биткоины, но не будут обязывать частные банки покупать больше BTC при спаде рынка.

Российский Совкомбанк объявил о запуске программы кредитования юридических лиц под залог биткоина. Кредит в первой криптовалюте смогут получить компании, соответствующие требованиям банка.

Мир криптовалют готовится отражать угрозу, исходящую от квантовых компьютеров, которые способны преодолеть существующие криптографические решения. Разные проекты предлагают свои ответы квантовым вызовам.

Vitalik Buterin is signaling a major reframing of Ethereum’s layer-2 narrative: not the death of rollups, but the end of the idea that L2s are shards whose primary job is scaling the network. With L1 fees now low and gas limit projected to rise sharply in 2026, he argues the rollup-centric roadmap’s original premise no longer fits the reality on the ground.

Buterin opened his X post on Feb. 3 by pointing to two pressures that have been building in parallel: L2s have moved to “stage 2” far more slowly than expected, and Ethereum mainnet is scaling in its own right. In his telling, those trends break the old mental model in both directions.

“Ethereum needs to scale,” he wrote, recapping what he framed as the original thesis. “The definition of ‘Ethereum scaling’ is the existence of large quantities of block space that is backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum… block space where, if you do things (including with ETH) inside that block space, your activities are guaranteed to be valid, uncensored, unreverted, untouched, as long as Ethereum itself functions. If you create a 10000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum.”

The punchline is blunt: “This vision no longer makes sense.” Buterin says L1 doesn’t need L2s to serve as “branded shards” if base-layer capacity is expanding, and he’s increasingly skeptical that many L2s either can or want to meet the security and control expectations that label implies. He pointed to at least one L2 that, in his words, “may never want to go beyond stage 1,” citing not only technical concerns around ZK-EVM safety but also customer-driven regulatory requirements that “require them to have ultimate control.”

Ethereum Layer-2’s Need To Change

That’s not presented as an indictment so much as a categorization shift. If an L2 retains ultimate control, it may still be a valid product for its users, Buterin suggested, but it shouldn’t be marketed as “scaling Ethereum” in the strict sense envisioned by the rollup-centric roadmap. In that context, he argues, “we should stop thinking about L2s as literally being ‘branded shards’, with the social status and responsibilities that this entails.”

Instead, he sketches a spectrum model: some L2s can be tightly backed by ETH’s security guarantees, while others can be looser and more optional depending on user needs. That spectrum framing implicitly makes room for app-specific chains, different trust models, and non-EVM environments—without forcing them into a single “rollup as shard” storyline.

For L2 teams, Buterin’s guidance is straightforward: stop anchoring your identity on scaling alone. If you’re handling ETH or Ethereum-issued assets, he argues “stage 1 at the minimum” matters; otherwise, you’re effectively operating as “just a separate L1 with a bridge.” The real differentiator, in his view, should be features and properties that a larger L1 still won’t provide—whether that’s specialized execution environments, privacy, sequencing characteristics like ultra-low latency, or non-financial use cases.

Buterin says he’s become “more convinced of the value of the native rollup precompile,” especially once Ethereum has enshrined the ZK-EVM proof verification it “need[s] anyway to scale L1.” The idea is a protocol-level precompile that verifies ZK-EVM proofs and is treated as part of Ethereum itself, meaning it would “auto-upgrade along with Ethereum,” and if it shipped with a bug, “Ethereum will hard-fork to fix the bug.”

That last point is the subtext: he wants a path where trustless verification and interoperability are easier to achieve without a “security council,” and where rollups can add custom features while still anchoring their EVM correctness directly to Ethereum. He also tied this direction to the prospect of synchronous composability: transactions that can safely span L1 and L2 liquidity with tight coupling, referencing ongoing research on combining preconfirmations with based rollups and real-time proving.

Buterin’s conclusion leaves room for uncomfortable outcomes. A permissionless ecosystem will produce chains with “trust-dependent, or backdoored, or otherwise insecure” elements, he wrote, calling that “unavoidable.” The job, as he frames it, is to make guarantees legible to users while strengthening Ethereum’s base layer, suggesting that the next phase of L2 competition may be less about who “scales Ethereum,” and more about who can credibly define, and prove, what they’re actually offering.

At press time, ETH traded at $2,256.

Questions around whether XRP can be copied often focus on open-source code and blockchain forks, but a recent explanation shared by an XRP community member points attention to something deeper. 

His comments are focused on Ripple’s patented payment architecture and how XRP’s real function is protected not just by network effects and liquidity but by intellectual property that governs how value actually moves across financial systems.

XRP Is Legally Protected By Patents

The XRP community member, known as Wilberforce Theophilus, pointed to U.S. Patent No. 10,902,416 as a reason why XRP cannot be recreated by another cryptocurrency. This patent covers a system for settling cross-border payments using a digital asset as a bridge between different currencies and institutions. 

The focus is on the full settlement process that removes the need for pre-funded accounts and reduces cost and time. The patented flow describes how liquidity is sourced, exchanged, and settled using XRP. With this patent, it means that no cryptocurrency can perform this function without XRP. 

The second patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,998,003, builds on Ripple’s earlier designs and is designed to cover advanced interoperability between different ledgers and payment networks. This protection applies to how disparate systems are linked together into a single payment flow that can operate across jurisdictions and infrastructures. 

According to Wilberforce’s explanation, this is where replication becomes impossible in practice. Even if another project designs a fast blockchain, it cannot copy Ripple’s exact architecture for connecting banks, payment providers, and blockchains with XRP embedded as the settlement medium. That architecture is legally protected.

Why Copying The Code Is Not The Same As Copying XRP

The patents mentioned above are only a few from the total number of patents held by Ripple Labs, XRP’s parent company. As it stands, Ripple Labs holds approximately 39 patents globally, out of which 18 have been granted. 

At a surface level, parts of the XRP Ledger are open source, which means developers can study the code and even fork it to create similar-looking networks. This has led to assumptions that XRP itself can be easily replicated. 

A team could replicate the consensus mechanism, transaction speed, and fee structure and even issue a new token that functions almost identically on paper. In that narrow technical sense, then XRP can be copied. However, XRP’s value does not come from the code alone.

XRP’s value can be attributed to over a decade of live operation, deep exchange liquidity across jurisdictions, and its association with Ripple, which has spent years building relationships with banks, payment providers, regulators, and institutions. 

The software defines how transactions are processed on a ledger, but it does not define the legally protected system that uses XRP as a bridge asset between financial institutions. Ripple, for one, is working fervently to position XRP as the bridge asset, with a recent example being the expansion into the Middle East with a partnership with Riyad Bank.

BitMine chairman Tom Lee has responded to talks about the firm’s unrealized Ethereum treaury losses, arguing they are part of the design.

BitMine’s Ethereum Holdings Are In Notable Loss After The Crash

The digital asset sector has seen a major bearish turn over the past week and Ethereum has been among the worst-hit assets, declining by nearly 25%. A consequence of this drawdown has been that BitMine, the largest corporate holder of ETH, has witnessed its reserves go into a significant loss.

BitMine is still relatively new in the treasury space, having adopted Ethereum on its balance sheet in only June of last year. Despite the short span that the strategy has had to run, the firm has already accumulated a notable amount of the cryptocurrency. As of a Monday press release, BitMine holds 4,285,125 ETH, equivalent to 3.55% of the asset’s total supply in circulation.

However, since BitMine started buying right on the heels of the ETH bull rally, a lot of its tokens were purchased at levels much higher than today’s. The market downturn that followed the price growth already pushed the company’s holdings into loss, and the latest price crash has magnified them further.

Discussions related to BitMine’s upwards of $6 billion in unrealized Ethereum losses have begun circulating on social media, with some users criticizing the treasury company. Chairman Thomas “Tom” Lee has addressed the topic in an X post, quote-reposting one such user.

Lee said that the criticism “misses the point of an ethereum treasury,” explaining that BitMine is designed to track the ETH price and outperform it over a cycle. With the market currently being in a downturn, he added, unrealized losses on the company’s holdings are to be expected during such periods.

The chairman argued that this isn’t a bug, rather “it’s a feature.” He compared the firm’s situation to that of index exchange-traded funds (ETFs), saying, “shall we call out all index ETFs for their losses?”

During this downtrend, BitMine has been making a push toward staking, rapidly locking up its supply in the Ethereum staking contract to generate some passive income. So far, the firm has staked 2,897,459 ETH, corresponding to roughly 67% of its holdings.

The recent market downturn has been so intense that even the longstanding Strategy has seen its profit-loss status come under threat, with Bitcoin currently trading right around its cost basis. Strategy is the largest digital asset treasury company in the world with 713,502 BTC sitting in its reserves, but these massive $54.3 billion holdings would go underwater if the cryptocurrency losses $76,000.

ETH Price

Ethereum saw a drop into the low $2,100 levels on Tuesday, but the coin has since seen a rebound back to $2,250.

Galaxy Digital posted a heavy loss for the year as the crypto slump bit into its holdings and trading business. The numbers show a company that weathered big markdowns on digital assets while trying to bulk up its cash and new revenue streams.

Losses And Liquidity

Reports say Galaxy recorded a GAAP net loss of $241 million for the full year, and a much larger hit in the fourth quarter alone: a $482 million net loss.

The quarterly shortfall came after a steep drop in the value of the firm’s crypto holdings and lower trading volumes, which together pushed reported results well below Wall Street expectations.

The Downturn Behind The Numbers

According to the company’s results, the value of its digital assets and investments fell sharply late in the year, producing most of the headline losses.

Trading activity cooled, and that reduced fees and transaction income. At the same time, one-time charges tied to mining infrastructure and a corporate reorganization added to the drag on annual results.

Data Center And New Business

Galaxy has not only been a crypto trading and asset management shop. It has been building out a large data-center footprint in Texas, including the Helios campus with approvals to scale power capacity to over 1.6 GW.

The company says that infrastructure work and deals with cloud partners could produce steadier revenue streams over time, even if crypto markets stay weak in the near term.

Cash Cushion And Balance-Sheet Moves

Reports note that Galaxy finished the year with roughly $2.6 billion in cash and stablecoins, a position management highlights as a buffer against further market volatility.

The firm also raised capital and tapped debt markets late in the year, steps meant to preserve optionality while trading revenues slump.

At the same time, some asset management lines reported record activity, which helped offset a part of the losses when measured on an adjusted basis.

Market Reaction And Outlook

The market reacted quickly. Shares slid in premarket trading after the release and then fell further as investors digested the scale of the write-downs.

Analysts are split: some see the data-center push as a sensible hedge against volatile crypto returns, while others point out that near-term earnings will remain pressured until trading volumes and asset prices recover.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

After a significant pullback this week and a bottom at $74,000, analysts suggest Bitcoin (BTC) is now poised to test former resistance levels around $80,600. According to technical analysis from market expert Tara, Bitcoin’s structure remains bullish, with technical indicators pointing to further upside despite the ongoing downtrend. She has identified potential price targets that could be reached if momentum continues, and outlined invalidation zones that traders should monitor closely. 

Bitcoin To Test Key Resistance After Double Bottom

In a Monday X post, Tara noted that Bitcoin has formed a classic double bottom around $74,000, following last week’s significant price crash. She noted that the cryptocurrency is now retracing upward from that zone and steadily approaching its next resistance level. 

Tara has said that the market is entering the final stages of its prolonged corrective cycle. As a result, she has outlined her expectations for BTC’s next moves, presenting both bullish and bearish scenarios depending on how the cryptocurrency’s price reacts to key resistance levels. 

The analyst anticipates a three-step movement. First, Bitcoin is expected to climb toward the Wave A resistance level near $80,600 in the chart. Afterwhich, she expects the cryptocurrency to experience a minor retracement down to $77,600. Following this pullback, Tara believes BTC could see a bullish reversal and return above the $80,000 region. She has projected a surge toward the 0.382 macro Fibonacci level, which also approximately aligns with $83,700. 

Tara’s projection does not stop there. She believes that after this initial climb to $83,700, BTC could experience one final pullback, targeting the macro 0.5 support level around $70,700. She identifies this area as the Wave 4 invalidation level and noted that it would be unsurprising for Bitcoin to test this new low as support before entering Wave 5.  

Invalidation Levels And Wave 5 Expectations

When asked by a community member what Bitcoin’s next move could be if it drops further and invalidates Wave 4, Tara responded that even if Bitcoin targets Wave 2 lows, it will still find and hold support at $70,700. She added that the cryptocurrency would inevitably test the $100,000 level, which would be a defining moment for the cryptocurrency.

The analyst also shared her bullish target for Wave 5. She forecasted that once Bitcoin enters this final wave, it could skyrocket to $150,000. She added that if the cryptocurrency were to drop to the $70,700 support level, then the Wave 5 target would adjust slightly to $145,000, still marking a fresh all-time high for BTC.

As of now, Tara says Bitcoin is filling up support at every macro level. She noted that it has already filled the 0.236 and 0.382 Fibonacci support levels and is now targeting the final 0.5 Fib support. The analyst also emphasized that Bitcoin’s $150,000 Wave 5 target has not changed since the Wave 3 top, reinforcing the cryptocurrency’s long-term bullish outlook.

Bitcoin’s price is experiencing one of its steepest declines ever for this cycle, after falling by nearly 50% from its all-time high of $126,000. The decline has ultimately triggered a crucial shift in the sentiment of BTC large holders and retail investors, who appear to be moving on separate trajectories.

Smart Money Steps Back, Retail Embraces Risk

While the price of Bitcoin has fallen sharply towards the $73,000 mark, a key divergence has emerged among BTC investors, which could play a role in its next direction. Specifically, this ongoing divergence is being observed among large BTC holders or whales and retail holders.

A recent analysis by Joao Wedson, a market expert and founder of Alphractal, shows that whales are starting to close their long positions in BTC while retail traders move in the opposite direction. Looking at the chart, the high-net-worth investors are closing their longs opened around the $75,000 price level.

Wedson’s research is primarily centered on the Bitcoin Whale vs Retail Delta metric, which is a powerful tool as it typically anticipates what price will do next. The trend suggests that large players are reducing risk and locking in gains. Meanwhile, smaller traders are increasing their bullish exposure in anticipation of a potential rebound.

This is a typical trend in a highly volatile market, as institutional traders are often opportunistic. During periods like this, these major investors tend to hunt for volatility, open longs and shorts aggressively, and later reduce exposure. 

On the other hand, retail investors tend to be stubborn, which is evidenced by them holding positions longer than they are supposed to. A key driver of this action from the investors is greed rather than structure. According to the expert, two scenarios appear extremely likely now that whales are closing longs or starting new shorts at these levels. 

The first scenario is that Bitcoin will experience steady sideways movement for a few days before deciding its next trajectory. For the second scenario, the price of BTC may continue to move lower. In the meantime, the imbalance raises questions about the short-term viability of the current market structure.

BTC Addresses Are In Distribution Mode

Given the ongoing decline in the Bitcoin price, Joao Wedson shared in another post on X that many BTC wallet addresses appear to be shifting toward a distribution mode. Such a development directly contradicts what most market participants believe in. 

In the past, addresses holding 0.1 BTC to 100 BTC have been the most effective group. When prices are low, this group tends to build up and then disperse into strength when prices are higher. 

Furthermore, this trend challenges a common misconception that relying solely on mega-whale addresses is an unreliable tactic. However, market structure is shaped by coordinated behavior across cohorts, not by isolated large wallets.

Coinbase is facing a civil enforcement action in Nevada after state gaming regulators said the company offered event contracts that look like wagers to local users.

Based on reports, the Nevada Gaming Control Board filed suit in state court asking a judge to stop Coinbase from offering these contracts inside Nevada and to grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

Nevada Files Civil Enforcement Action

The complaint says Coinbase’s event contracts operate like unlicensed sports betting under Nevada law, and that the exchange did not hold the required state gaming license to offer them.

The filing seeks immediate court steps to halt the products while the state pursues its claims. Reports note the move follows similar actions against other prediction platforms and comes as the legal fight over where these products belong—state gaming law or federal derivatives law—intensifies.

Background On Prediction Markets And Coinbase’s Response

Prediction markets have grown quickly. Coinbase rolled out a prediction market product that lets customers take positions on the outcomes of sports and other real-world events, working with established market operators.

Coinbase has pushed back by suing multiple states in federal court, arguing that event contracts are regulated by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission and not by individual state gaming regulators. Those federal suits targeted Connecticut, Illinois, and Michigan, among others.

Federal Regulator Signals New Rules

Reports say the CFTC’s chair has signaled a shift toward clearer federal rules for event contracts and suggested the agency may issue new guidance that affects ongoing state cases.

That announcement could change the legal balance, since a stronger federal stance would bolster exchanges that claim CFTC jurisdiction over these products. Still, state claims press on, and courts will have to sort out who has the power to regulate.

Nevada’s Push Comes As Other States Act

Nevada’s action is not isolated. A Nevada state court recently granted a temporary restraining order that barred another major prediction platform from offering event contracts in the state for a short period while the matter moved toward a hearing.

Regulators in several states have issued cease-and-desist letters or sued operators they say are offering unlicensed wagering.

Featured image from Shutterstock, chart from TradingView

The release of documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has sparked renewed debate within the crypto community, as newly surfaced details appear to show deeper — though still indirect — links between Epstein and some of the earliest institutions and figures connected to Bitcoin (BTC). 

While none of the material provides evidence that Epstein played a role in creating Bitcoin itself, the disclosures have fueled questions about how early crypto infrastructure was funded during a critical period.

Epstein’s Alleged Crypto Investments

The discussion gained momentum after a widely shared social media post by market analyst Hugo Crypto, who summarized what he described as verified information drawn from DOJ documents. 

According to that assessment, Epstein’s involvement with crypto was primarily as an investor and networker, rather than a technical contributor. 

One of the most notable revelations involves US-based crypto exchange Coinbase. DOJ records reportedly show that Epstein invested approximately $3 million into Coinbase in 2014 through IGO Company LLC, an entity organized by Brock Pierce and Blockchain Capital. 

The documents further suggest that Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam was aware of Epstein’s involvement and had expressed interest in meeting him personally. In 2018, Epstein allegedly sold part of his Coinbase stake back to the company for roughly $15 million. 

Another area drawing attention is Blockstream, a major Bitcoin infrastructure company. According to the documents, Epstein participated in Blockstream’s seed round through Joi Ito, with an initial commitment of $50,000 that was later increased to $500,000. 

An April 2014 email attributed to Epstein shows him telling Bitcoin developer Amir Taaki that he had recently hosted “Andy Back,” understood to mean Adam Back, on his private island, Little Saint James. Adam Back has since stated that Epstein’s investment in Blockstream was unwound.

Early Bitcoin Funding At MIT Media Lab

The documents also shed light on Epstein’s indirect connection to Bitcoin Core developers through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab. 

After the collapse of the Bitcoin Foundation in 2015 left core developers without funding, Joi Ito reportedly helped bring three of the five core developers — Wladimir van der Laan, Gavin Andresen, and Cory Fields — to MIT’s “Digital Currency Initiative.” 

That initiative was allegedly funded by Epstein’s donations to MIT, which totaled about $850,000 between 2002 and 2017, with roughly $525,000 directed specifically to the Digital Currency Initiative. 

In an internal message cited in the files, Ito allegedly thanked Epstein for gift funds that allowed MIT to “move quickly and win this round.” The developers themselves have said they were unaware of the source of the funding, and internal MIT communications reportedly referred to Epstein as “Voldemort.”

Satoshi Nakamoto Speculation

Speculation around Bitcoin’s anonymous creator has also resurfaced. A screenshot of an email allegedly sent by Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell, claiming that “the pseudonym Satoshi works perfectly,” circulated widely online but has since been debunked. 

Hugo Crypto asserts that the documents confirm that in a 2016 email, Epstein claimed he had “spoken with some of the founders of Bitcoin.” 

Additionally, Epstein’s personal guest lists reportedly include an entry labeled “satoshi (bitcoin)” for a United Nations (UN) Climate Week event, listed alongside figures such as Larry Summers and Peter Thiel. Who that reference was meant to identify remains unknown.

While the documents suggest Epstein had financial exposure to early crypto companies and supported institutions that housed Bitcoin developers, there is no evidence linking him to Bitcoin’s code, cryptography, wallets, or technical design. In that sense, claims that Epstein “built” Bitcoin appear unfounded.

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com 

Controversy is sweeping across the XRP community after a crypto market commentator shared shocking details linking Coinbase and American financier and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, with former regulatory actions that impacted XRP. The claims have ignited debate within the community over whether compliance concerns solely drove previous exchange decisions and enforcement activity targeting XRP.

Claimed Ties Connect Coinbase, Epstein, And XRP’s SEC Lawsuit

Shocked reactions have emerged from XRP community members after market expert Crypto Bitlord raised allegations suggesting a possible link between Coinbase’s early investment history, communications tied to Epstein’s legal counsel, and subsequent events surrounding XRP. He argued that emails shared from Coinbase’s early fundraising period showed that entities connected to Epstein invested early in the crypto exchange through intermediary Limited Liability Companies (LLCs). 

The emails show Coinbase Co-founder and CEO Brian Armstrong communicating with Darren Indyke, a lawyer who represented Epstein, about a $3 million investment made when Coinbase was still in its early stages. In the messages, Armstrong discussed the possibility of buying back the early investors’ stake since Coinbase had grown in value. He also mentioned changing the name of the company that had initially invested, possibly for privacy or legal reasons.  

Crypto Bitlord claimed that these Epstein emails suggest that funds linked to the deceased sex offender were previously invested in Coinbase. He argued that this link might help explain why the crypto exchange delisted XRP in the US after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against Ripple Labs. 

According to the expert, the timing of XRP’s delisting and the SEC investigations suggests coordinated pressure from early Coinbase investors allegedly linked to Epstein, who reportedly wanted to limit XRP’s growth during its formative years. He claimed these investors had pushed for XRP to be removed from the market long before regulatory action followed. As a result, Crypto Bitlord described the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple as a “rigged setup from day one.” 

While there is no public evidence supporting Crypto Bitlord’s claims, he said he is working to piece together the timelines and gather proof. So far, neither Coinbase nor the US SEC has confirmed any Epstein-linked involvement with XRP. The SEC has also consistently maintained that its lawsuit against Ripple was based on securities law concerns. 

Leaked Emails Show The Bill Gates Foundation Evaluating Ripple In 2017

In other news, leaked emails from the Bill Gates-backed Foundation reveal early assessments of Ripple and Stellar compared to the Mojaloop payment platform. The messages, dating back to October 2017, were shared by crypto analyst SMQKE and highlighted internal discussions on overlaps between blockchain systems and potential integrations. 

Myrle Krantz, a developer associated with Apache Fineract, an open-source platform for core banking systems, noted that Mojaloop, a Ripple fork, shares similarities with Stellar, which was also created as a fork of the original Ripple codebase. The correspondence highlights the Gates Foundation’s focus on Ripple’s technology and its influence on Mojaloop’s design. 

Вокруг дохода от владения стейблкоинами в США разгорелся серьезный спор. Законопроект под названием CLARITY завис в Сенате. Всему виной недовольство американских банков. Что именно делят эмитенты стейблкоинов и банкиры? Как итог противостояния отразится на покупателях и держателях стейблкоинов из других стран?

With volatility intensifying in the broader cryptocurrency market, the price of Ethereum has fallen sharply, drawing dangerously close to the $2,000 level. While there are speculations that the ongoing trend is akin to a bear market phase, investors seem to be unshaken by the sharp pullback in ETH’s price, with accumulation not showing signs of slowing down.

Investors’ Behavior After Ethereum’s Drop Below Realized Price

Following the sharp pullback on Tuesday, the Ethereum price has now fallen below a key level regarded as the Realized Price. Despite the price experiencing steady downside movements, investors are moving in the opposite direction, as evidenced by their continued interest in the leading altcoin.

Related Reading: Ethereum Holders Jump 3% In January, Clear 175 Million Milestone

According to CW, a market expert and investor, investors continue to steadily stack the altcoin even with ETH trading below its realized price, which puts a large portion of the market in unrealized loss territory. On-chain data points to continued accumulation from large holders or whales and conviction-driven buyers.

What’s interesting about the whale’s action is that these investors are persistently accumulating Ethereum despite being in a loss. Large investors sitting on unrealized losses are still buying, which is a pattern typically linked to heightened stress and shifting sentiment across the network.

Even with the current pullback, ETH inflows into accumulation addresses have also increased. CW highlighted that Ethereum had previously hit this level in April of last year, but it swiftly recovered before rising again. When the buying power of whales remains intact, this implies that the group has found the current price attractive. As a result, a significant rebound in ETH’s price is expected in the near future. 

ETH Seeing Heightened Social Media Interest

Ethereum may be struggling with volatility, but the leading altcoin is experiencing increased interest from investors and social media participants. This is because of price movements, investment strategies, staking, and its potential as a deflationary asset following upgrades like EIP-1559 and the merge.

Related Reading: Here’s How Ethereum Staking Transforms Into A Multi-Billion-Dollar Bet For Bitmine Immersion

Data from Santiment, a popular on-chain data analytics firm, shows that ETH is commonly brought up in flash deals and cryptocurrency trading services, emphasizing its usage across platforms such as Binance, MetaMask, and Trust Wallet. 

ETH’s increased social media mentions are attributed to the massive buying activity by BitMine. The company recently bought a large amount of ETH, signaling robust confidence in the altcoin’s future despite ongoing market volatility and unrealized losses.

CW reported that the company has acquired another 20,000 ETH, valued at approximately $46.04 million, through FalconX. With this purchase, Tom Lee’s Bitmine now boasts over 4.305 million ETH, worth a staggering $9.99 billion, which represents about 3.56% of the total ETH supply. 

Despite this massive figure, Bitmine’s goal is to own 5% of all ETH supply. Bitmine remains the largest Ethereum treasury company in the world, with 2.87 million of its ETH holdings being locked away in staking. Other coins owned by the company include Bitcoin, of which they hold over 193 BTC.

Shiba Inu lead developer Shytoshi Kusama has returned to the X platform, teasing an important update for the SHIB community. This comes just as the meme coin’s price crashed to a 3-year low amid the recent crypto market crash. 

Shiba Inu Lead Developer Returns as Price Hits New Lows

In an X post, the Shiba Inu lead developer revealed that he had an “ultra important” update for the SHIB community. Shytoshi indicated that it was a very important update, noting how it could take 2 more hours to explain and that it was “extremely important to many.” Meanwhile, in a subsequent X post, the developer hinted that the update may be related to AI and a potential integration.

Meanwhile, Shiba Inu developer Kaal Dhairya has yet to comment on what the update may be about. However, he defended Shytoshi following criticisms from some members of the SHIB community over the developer’s cryptic comments. SHIB marketing lead Lucie also commented on Shytoshi’s statement, indicating that she was waiting on the update. 

The Shiba Inu lead developer’s return comes amid the recent crash in the Shiba Inu price, with the meme coin falling to a 3-year low of $0.000006461. SHIB’s crash follows the broader crypto market downtrend, with Bitcoin dropping to a new yearly low of $73,000. Crypto traders also appear to be bearish on the meme coin at the moment as CoinGlass data shows a 4% drop in SHIB’s open interest. 

Furthermore, the long/short ratio is currently below 1, signaling that more traders are shorting Shiba Inu in anticipation of lower prices. The SHIB price is now down year-to-date (YTD), erasing the double-digit gains that it recorded at the start of the year. 

SHIB’s Rebuild Depends On Execution, Not Price

In an X article, Lucie indicated that the key to rebuilding confidence in the Shiba Inu ecosystem is execution and not price. She remarked that real confidence would show up first in behavior, not charts. She outlined ways they can improve this execution, including ensuring steady activity on the Ethereum layer-2 network, Shibarium. 

Furthermore, the Shiba Inu marketing lead stated that they must avoid repeating exploit patterns and ensure a smooth LEASH migration. She also addressed the developers, saying that they have to ship new upgrades without drama. 

Meanwhile, Lucie noted that users must continue interacting on the network even when the Shiba Inu price is stagnant, as this is what a recovery phase looks like. The SHIB executive added that the meme coin sits between two states as an asset that is no longer just a meme coin but one that isn’t yet a mature infrastructure network. 

At the time of writing, the Shiba Inu price is trading at around $0.000006774, down almost 2% in the last 24 hours, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

A fresh bout of “quantum panic” broke out across Bitcoin X on Tuesday after Castle Island’s Nic Carter and longtime Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo sparred over whether the ecosystem is treating post-quantum security as an urgent protocol priority or a speculative distraction. The exchange landed on a familiar Bitcoin fault line: decentralized development culture versus the market’s appetite for visible coordination and timelines.

The flare-up began with a prompt from Kellan Grenier, who said he wished a “Tier 1 custodian” would partner with Castle Island to “spin up a Quantum Resistance BTC dev tiger team,” arguing there’s a “building wall of worry” that needs to be addressed “head on by reputable forces.” Corallo shot back that prominent Bitcoin developers have been “hard at work on QC for a while,” rejecting the premise that the space is asleep at the wheel.

Post-Quantum Bitcoin Plan Debate Heats Up

Carter disagreed sharply, arguing that scattered individual efforts don’t address the core bottleneck in Bitcoin upgrades: social consensus among the small set of developers and institutions who typically “set pace” for changes that actually ship and get adopted.

He pointed to Bitcoin’s historical upgrade cadence, saying the last two major upgrades took “7–8 years from first proposal to meaningful adoption on chain,” and added that the only named Bitcoin Improvement Proposal he cited as “pertaining to quantum,” BIP360, “has not been co-signed by any major dev,” describing it as “only a first of many, many steps that need to be made.”

Carter’s central claim was that Bitcoin can’t afford to wait for cryptographically relevant quantum computers to be demonstrably real before mobilizing, because the migration burden is asymmetric and slow. “And no, you cannot just ‘wait until CRQCs are real’ to act,” he wrote. “You need to act with a 5–10 year lead time. So if you think QCs might exist in 2035, you need to start acting now.”

He framed the risk in operational terms: custodians, exchanges, and individual holders would need to rotate keys across the entire network within a finite window or face catastrophic loss. He repeatedly linked to his essays arguing quantum timelines are accelerating and that Bitcoin developers should treat the threat proactively.

Corallo rejected both the tone and the factual framing, accusing Carter of manufacturing fear and ignoring ongoing institutional work. “Man you seriously need to stop talking out of your ass,” Corallo wrote, disputing the characterization of post-quantum work as “minuscule” and “scattered.”

He argued that “the top two Bitcoin developer institutions (Blockstream Research and Chaincode) each [have] several people working hard on what a post-quantum Bitcoin upgrade should look like,” and said he has not heard influential developers dismiss quantum as “only driven by investors” or “hype.”

Sleepwalking Or FUD?

The argument also rewound to 2021 debates around Taproot. Carter claimed quantum concerns were raised then and dismissed, calling the risk “far more urgent since.” Corallo countered that Carter was misrepresenting the earlier discussion: “The concern that was dismissed is that taproot made it materially worse, not that there was no risk and that there would never be any risk,” he wrote, adding that he still believes that narrower claim is correct.

As the thread escalated, Carter argued that Bitcoin’s culture of obscured influence and informal governance makes accountability difficult even when the stakes are existential. “There has been turnover in core dev, there has been a deliberate attempt to disguise who is a core dev for liability reasons, and because the most influential bitcoin devs try to keep their importance obscure,” he wrote, suggesting that outsiders can’t easily verify where “consensus” actually sits.

Corallo’s rebuttal was that the work exists, even if it doesn’t present as a public campaign. “That is what it looks like when devs take a problem seriously — research into available options, new cryptographic primitives that are better for Bitcoin than available standard PQC options,” he wrote, arguing that absence of conference-stage messaging is not evidence of inactivity.

A key technical disagreement surfaced late in the exchange: whether post-quantum safety would require essentially every user to migrate. After Carter told another developer it was “a lot more complicated than a simple patch” because “every user individually” would need to migrate “in a finite period of time,” Corallo responded: “No it doesn’t. If you have a wallet derived from a seedphrase, that is actually fine (assuming unsafe spend paths are disabled).”

Christine D. Kim, founder of Protocol Watch, jumped in to argue that Carter’s comparisons to councils and roadmaps in other ecosystems miss Bitcoin’s structure. Bitcoin “isn’t a company,” she wrote, and post-quantum discussions already occur through the usual venues — “the mailing list, IRC meetings, delving bitcoin”, adding that what Carter cited elsewhere can be “marketing… it’s just more centralized.”

At press time, BTC traded at $76,268.

Alors que le marché crypto tente de retrouver un second souffle, certaines projections commencent à faire beaucoup de bruit. Dernière en date : une prédiction avancée par Gemini AI concernant XRP à l’horizon 2026. Une estimation ambitieuse, presque provocante, qui relance le débat autour du potentiel réel du jeton de Ripple.

XRP : au bord d’une explosion inédite ?

XRP est loin d’être un nouvel arrivant. Lancé pour faciliter les paiements transfrontaliers rapides et peu coûteux, le token est au cœur de l’écosystème Ripple, une entreprise qui vise clairement les institutions financières plutôt que le grand public. Cette orientation a longtemps été un frein en termes de narration crypto, mais elle pourrait aussi devenir un atout dans un contexte de régulation accrue.

Sur le plan fondamental, XRP sort progressivement d’une période extrêmement tendue. Le feuilleton judiciaire avec la SEC a pesé lourd sur le prix et la perception du projet. Pourtant, ces derniers mois, le climat s’est nettement apaisé. Ripple continue de signer des partenariats bancaires, notamment en Asie et au Moyen-Orient, là où l’adoption institutionnelle avance plus vite qu’en Europe ou aux États-Unis. Ce n’est pas spectaculaire, mais c’est solide.

Techniquement, la situation est plus intéressante qu’il n’y paraît. XRP évolue depuis longtemps dans une large zone de compression, avec une volatilité historiquement basse pour un actif de cette taille. Ce genre de configuration précède souvent des mouvements violents, sans que l’on sache dans quel sens. Les volumes restent modestes, mais stables. Certains analystes y voient un manque d’intérêt, d’autres une phase d’accumulation discrète. La vérité est probablement entre les deux.

XRP n’est donc pas un pari évident. Mais c’est précisément ce flou qui nourrit aujourd’hui les scénarios les plus extrêmes.

Gemini fait une prédiction impressionnante pour XRP en 2026

C’est dans ce contexte que Gemini AI avance une projection qui a surpris une partie de la communauté. Selon les simulations du modèle, basées sur des cycles de marché, l’évolution de la régulation et l’adoption institutionnelle, XRP pourrait atteindre une zone de prix comprise entre 8 et 12 dollars d’ici 2026, dans un scénario haussier crédible mais non garanti.

Si XRP parvient à consolider sa position comme infrastructure de paiement transfrontalier de référence, tout en bénéficiant d’un marché crypto globalement haussier, une valorisation à deux chiffres devient mathématiquement envisageable à l’horizon 2026. Ce scénario repose toutefois sur une adoption institutionnelle continue et un cadre réglementaire stabilisé.

Cette projection ne doit pas être lue comme une certitude. Gemini AI évoque d’ailleurs plusieurs scénarios alternatifs, dont un plus conservateur où XRP resterait coincé sous les 3 dollars pendant encore plusieurs années. Tout dépendra de facteurs externes difficiles à anticiper : décisions politiques, concurrence d’autres blockchains de paiement, et surtout dynamique globale du marché crypto.

Ce qui rend cette prédiction intéressante, ce n’est pas tant le chiffre avancé que le raisonnement derrière. XRP n’est plus perçu uniquement comme un token spéculatif, mais comme une brique potentielle de l’infrastructure financière mondiale. Cela ne garantit rien, mais cela change la grille de lecture.

En clair, XRP reste un actif clivant. Capable de décevoir pendant longtemps… puis de surprendre brutalement. La prédiction de Gemini AI est peut-être optimiste. Elle n’est pas absurde pour autant. Et c’est précisément ce qui la rend dérangeante.