Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) miners are increasingly looking beyond crypto mining toward AI infrastructure, as access to massive amounts of power becomes potentially more valuable than the BTC mining machines plugged into it.

Are Mining Economics Less Attractive?In a podcast on Aug. 12, prominent crypto investor and "Wolf of All Streets" host Scott Melker argued on what may have been miners’ most valuable resource all along.

His commentary comes after Riot Platforms (NASDAQ:RIOT) reportedly signed a $9.1 billion, 20-year data center agreement with Anthropic. The agreement could rise to $16.1 billion if extension options are exercised.

The deal represents one of the clearest examples yet of Bitcoin miners repurposing their power-rich infrastructure for the booming AI computing market.

Melker said miners’ biggest asset may not be mining equipment but access to electricity and infrastructure capable of supporting energy-intensive computing.

Riot’s own numbers help explain the attraction. The company reported an average cost to mine Bitcoin of $49,912 during Q2, excluding depreciation, up from $48,992 a year earlier. Riot produced 1,587 BTC during the quarter.

Melker noted that once depreciation and other expenses are considered, the economics of mining become substantially less attractive, particularly with Bitcoin trading well below its October 2025 all-time high.

Other BTC miners have also been exploring AI and high-performance computing opportunities, turning what was once primarily a Bitcoin-mining infrastructure story into a broader race to monetize scarce power capacity.

What Does It Mean For Bitcoin?Melker argued the shift could create an unexpected positive for Bitcoin despite reducing the incentive for large U.S. miners to dedicate their infrastructure exclusively to BTC.

If major publicly traded mining companies redirect capacity toward AI, Bitcoin’s hash rate could become distributed across a broader set of operators.

That could potentially reduce concerns about mining concentration among a relatively small number of large corporate players, though lower mining participation would not automatically guarantee greater decentralization.

For investors, however, Riot’s deal illustrates a more immediate change. The valuation case for some Bitcoin miners is increasingly becoming an AI infrastructure thesis rather than simply a leveraged bet on Bitcoin.

Riot still generated most of its latest quarterly revenue from Bitcoin mining, but the Anthropic agreement represents its largest step yet toward becoming a high-performance computing and data center operator.

The transition suggests the next major competition among Bitcoin miners may not simply be over who can mine BTC most efficiently.

It may be over who controls the electricity, land and grid connections needed to power the AI boom.

Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Kostas Chalkias, co-founder and chief cryptographer at Mysten Labs, has revealed he is building affordable quantum-safe two-factor authentication cards for the Sui blockchain. The project puts a fresh spotlight on hardware wallet security at a moment when the sector is dealing with one of its worst-ever exploits.

Sub-$10 Cards, NFC Signatures and a Dedicated Factory Chalkias has set a target of under $10 per quantum card key and one to two seconds per NFC quantum signature. To reach that at scale, he quietly leased a factory to mass-produce quantum-resistant hardware wallet cards for Sui. The work has been carried out on personal time outside his day job, and Chalkias has said he may go as far as sponsoring cards for users who cannot afford them.

The push fits a broader pattern of quantum preparedness at Mysten Labs. Sui can adopt new authentication methods, including post-quantum cryptography, at the flip of a switch, and Chalkias has said the network was "designed to be quantum-ready from day one." Existing Sui accounts would be able to rotate into a quantum-safe key derived from their existing recovery phrase rather than requiring a full migration to a new wallet. Chalkias holds a PhD in identity-based cryptography and plays a key role in the development of the Sui blockchain and the Walrus decentralised storage layer.

Coldcard Exploit Sharpens the Focus on Wallet Security Chalkias has cited recent hardware wallet failures as part of his motivation, and the timing is pointed. Beginning July 30, 2026, an attacker exploited a five-year-old firmware flaw in Coinkite's Coldcard hardware wallet to systematically drain bitcoin from affected devices, with the root cause traced to a March 2021 firmware release that caused seed generation to fall back on a weak software random number generator rather than the device's hardware-based source of entropy.

Galaxy Research confirmed 1,596 $BTC stolen across three attack waves, with a suspected fourth wave that could bring the total to approximately 2,055 BTC, worth close to $130 million. At least four waves of theft followed, draining funds from more than 5,200 addresses. The root cause was weak random-number generation dating to a March 2021 firmware build, not a flaw in the Bitcoin protocol itself.

Coinkite shipped emergency firmware for every affected model on July 31, but installing it does not repair an existing seed. Anyone who generated a seed on a Coldcard between March 2021 and the patch should treat it as compromised and migrate to a new seed. The incident has reinforced the case for rethinking how cryptographic keys are generated and secured at the hardware level, the precise problem Chalkias says he is working to address.

Sources:
Bitcoin.com News: Sui Co-Founder Is Building Quantum-Safe Hardware Wallets For $10
TRM Labs: The Largest Hardware Wallet Exploit of 2026, Inside the $116 Million Coldcard Hack
The Hacker News: Coldcard Hardware Wallet Flaw Linked to $70 Million Bitcoin Theft in 41 Minutes

Strategy, a leading institutional Bitcoin holder, plans to resume its Bitcoin acquisition efforts later this year after shifting aspects of its business focus and drawing attention for recent sales of its holdings. CEO Phong Le outlined the company’s current and future approach to Bitcoin investment during an interview with FOX Business.

Significant net buying despite salesPhong Le revealed that Strategy acquired approximately 175,000 Bitcoin so far in 2024, while also selling about 7,000 BTC. These figures place the company firmly in net buyer territory and reinforce its status as a dominant player in the corporate Bitcoin holdings landscape.

According to Le, this pace means the company has purchased about 25 times more Bitcoin than it has sold over the period. The executive said that this activity moved Strategy from the second to the first position among institutional Bitcoin holders worldwide.

Strategy CEO Phong Le indicated, “We’ll get back to buying more Bitcoin throughout the course of the year,” reaffirming commitment to the firm’s core digital asset strategy.

Since May, Strategy has sold Bitcoin on four occasions, including a recent sale of 1,690 BTC. The firm has used proceeds from these transactions to fund preferred stock dividends, undertake share repurchases, and boost its US dollar reserve.

Departure from ‘never sell’ policy faces scrutinyWhile the scale of Strategy’s sales remains modest in comparison with its total holdings, the company has encountered increased scrutiny in the market for shifting away from its traditional “never sell” approach. This adjustment highlights the challenges that public companies face as they attempt to balance long-term digital asset strategies with near-term financial responsibilities to both common and preferred shareholders.

Strategy is known for accumulating over 840,000 BTC, making it a central figure in institutional Bitcoin investment.

Shares of the company have often been viewed by market participants as an indirect way to gain exposure to Bitcoin, with company decisions frequently subject to market analysis.

BTC treasury model faces broader market challengesThe broader corporate Bitcoin treasury model is confronting pressures in the current market environment. According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET, public companies collectively hold more than 1.26 million BTC. However, they trail exchange-traded funds and other investment funds, which now command over 1.6 million BTC.

Novaque Research has detailed that the Bitcoin treasury model benefited in the past from a favorable financing cycle, as market premiums above net BTC holdings enabled companies to raise funds and accumulate more Bitcoin through equity or debt offerings.

Maintaining this cycle becomes difficult when companies trade below the net asset value of their Bitcoin, making new capital raises more dilutive for existing shareholders.

Mini dictionary: Novaque Research, an independent research firm specializing in digital assets and financial markets, is known for its analysis of Bitcoin treasury models and institutional investment trends.

EntityBTC Holdings (approximate)Public Companies1.26 millionETFs and Other Funds1.6 millionStrategy840,000Observers continue to examine how the corporate accumulation strategies and financial priorities of leading institutional holders like Strategy shape both their own performance and broader trends in the digital asset market.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

Table of contents

Investors pulled $145 million from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs on Aug. 10, the largest single-day redemption in over a week, according to data tracked by SoSoValue and highlighted in the original report. Spot Ether ETFs also bled $14.59 million, extending a pattern of tepid demand for Ethereum-based fund products. But the headline numbers masked a telling fissure: Grayscale’s mini trusts, which offer the same underlying exposure at a sharply lower fee, registered notable inflows, with the Bitcoin Mini Trust pulling in $37.06 million and the Ethereum Mini Trust attracting $8.59 million.

The divergence points to a market increasingly discriminating about cost. The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) and its larger Ethereum counterpart have long struggled with outflows as early investors exit and competitors undercut them on management fees. The mini versions, introduced this year, are designed to recapture those dollars by matching fee structures of leading rivals like BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s FBTC. Monday’s data suggests that strategy is working, at least in relative terms, even as the broader ETF complex faces headwinds.

The Mini Trust Divergence Grayscale’s mini trusts, which trade under tickers BTC and ETH, are physically backed and carry expense ratios of just 0.15%—a fraction of GBTC’s 1.5% fee. When spot Bitcoin ETFs launched in January 2024, GBTC hemorrhaged billions as traders arbitraged the discount to NAV and rotated into cheaper products. That exodus has slowed, but last week’s net outflows show that the product still leaks capital. By contrast, the Bitcoin Mini Trust has steadily grown, and Monday’s $37 million intake was its best day since early July. The gap between the two vehicles reflects the fee sensitivity of both retail and institutional allocators.

Cost is not the only variable. Liquidity, spread, and custody considerations matter, but the fee line is the first filter many investors apply. As the mini trusts gain scale, they could cannibalize GBTC further, forcing a deeper restructuring of Grayscale’s product suite. The question is whether the mini trust inflows represent new money or simply a migration from the older, pricier wrapper.

Ether ETF Demand Remains Soft Ether ETFs fared worse, with the entire category posting $14.59 million in net redemptions. Unlike Bitcoin funds, which have attracted net positive flows over the past month, Ether ETFs have yet to demonstrate durable demand. Since their July launch, spot Ether funds have struggled to convert curiosity into committed capital. Part of the problem is the lack of staking yield: holding ETH through an ETF means forgoing the staking rewards that native holders earn, a drag that becomes more pronounced as on-chain staking rates rise.

The Ethereum Mini Trust’s $8.59 million inflow, though small, suggests that cost-conscious investors are the ones testing the waters, not large-scale institutional whales. Without a staking component, the value proposition for Ether ETFs remains incomplete. Until issuers find a way to incorporate staking returns within a regulated vehicle—something the SEC has so far blocked—these funds will likely trail their Bitcoin counterparts in asset gathering.

Fee Wars Reshape the ETF Landscape The crypto ETF market has evolved into a race to the bottom on cost. With 11 spot Bitcoin ETFs now trading in the U.S., issuers have slashed fees to near zero to differentiate. BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s FBTC, both waiving fees for initial periods, have dominated flows. Grayscale’s mini products are its defensive response, and the numbers indicate they are clawing back share. Still, Monday’s outflows from the broader group highlight that cost alone cannot shield funds from sentiment-driven redemptions. When Bitcoin’s price wavers or risk appetite contracts, even the cheapest wrapper will see money leave.

Institutional capital is, however, finding other on-chain products. A recent weekly tokenization roundup noted that real-world asset (RWA) markets crossed $20 billion on-chain, with institutions opting for tokenized Treasuries and private credit over volatile crypto funds. This suggests that the same allocators who pulled from Bitcoin ETFs on Monday may be parking capital in yield-generating instruments that feel less speculative. The ETF flows, in that light, look less like a rejection of crypto and more like a rotation within digital asset strategies.

What remains unclear is whether the Grayscale mini trusts can maintain their momentum once the initial fee advantage narrows. As more issuers introduce similar low-cost products, the mini trusts’ edge will erode. Additionally, regulatory uncertainty—something that continues to hang over the sector following a last-minute push by banks to derail a landmark crypto bill—keeps institutional investors cautious. The Senate vote on that bill, covered in a separate report on bank lobbying, could reset the risk calculus for digital asset funds. Until then, flows may remain erratic.

For now, the takeaway is one of fragmentation. The days when one Bitcoin ETF product could dominate are over. Investors are parsing fees, liquidity, and redemption mechanics like never before, and capital flows are reflecting those calculations. The mini trusts may not reverse the overall trend, but they are carving out a growing niche—proof that in an increasingly crowded field, even single-digit basis points can redirect millions.

AUTHOR

With over five years of experience in crypto, blockchain, and tech content, Ishtiyaq makes complex topics easy to understand. He simplifies blockchain and digital currency concepts for a wide audience, ensuring that beginners and experts alike can grasp key ideas. His clear and engaging writing helps readers stay informed about the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the crypto space. Whether explaining blockchain technology, digital assets, or DeFi, Ishtiyaq breaks down complicated ideas into simple, digestible content. His goal is to help people navigate the fast-changing world of cryptocurrency with confidence, clarity, and a deeper understanding.

Tether-backed Bitcoin-focused company Twenty One Capital has reported a $413.5 million net loss for the second quarter of 2026 after Bitcoin’s decline reduced the value of its holdings.

Summary

Twenty One Capital lost $413.5 million during the second quarter of 2026. A $401.5 million Bitcoin valuation loss accounted for most of the quarterly deficit. CEO Raphael Zagury plans to add acquisitions, capital markets services, and Bitcoin-backed loans. The NYSE-listed company gives U.S. investors stock-based exposure to a large corporate Bitcoin reserve. Bitcoin losses have dominated Twenty One Capital’s results According to Twenty One Capital’s second-quarter financial report, a $401.5 million decline in the value of its Bitcoin holdings accounted for most of the company’s quarterly loss.

Twenty One Capital’s latest loss has shown how strongly its financial statements depend on Bitcoin’s price at the end of each reporting period. Because the company holds the cryptocurrency as its main asset, changes in Bitcoin’s fair value pass through its reported earnings even when it does not sell the coins.

The $401.5 million reduction tied to Bitcoin represented about 97% of the total second-quarter loss. Remaining expenses accounted for roughly $12 million, based on the two figures in the report, although the source did not provide a complete breakdown of those costs.

A similar effect appeared in the company’s first-quarter accounts. Twenty One Capital reported an $859.7 million net loss for the three months ended March 31, according to its SEC quarterly filing. An $847.8 million decline in the fair value of its Bitcoin holdings caused most of that loss.

As of March 31, Twenty One held 43,514 BTC with a reported fair value of $2.95 billion, down from $3.80 billion at the end of 2025. Its cost basis for the holdings stood at about $3.69 billion, while the price used to value each coin fell from $87,316 on Dec. 31 to $67,832 on March 31.

Combined, the first two quarters have produced reported net losses of about $1.27 billion. Nearly $1.25 billion of that amount came from the lower accounting value of the company’s Bitcoin, based on the first-quarter filing and the second-quarter figures.

Such fair-value losses do not necessarily represent cash leaving the business. The first-quarter filing shows that Twenty One sold one Bitcoin and recorded a $3,180 gain on that disposal, while the much larger loss came from revaluing the coins it continued to own. Bitcoin’s closing price in later reporting periods can reverse part of a previous loss or create another expense under the same accounting treatment.

Twenty One Capital plans businesses beyond its treasury New CEO Raphael Zagury has said Twenty One cannot rely only on holding Bitcoin and must develop businesses capable of producing cash flow. His plan centers on buying operating companies, using debt and equity markets to raise capital, and offering loans secured by Bitcoin.

Zagury took over from Strike founder Jack Mallers on July 20, according to the company’s leadership announcement. Mallers stepped down to concentrate on Strike but remained involved in the leadership handover.

“Twenty One holds one of the largest Bitcoin balance sheets in the public markets,” Zagury said in the announcement.

“My job is to build the operating company around it, with the discipline, governance, and executional rigor of an institution.”

The company identified five strategic priorities when Zagury became CEO. In addition to acquisitions and Bitcoin financial services, management plans to develop its capital markets operation, manage its Bitcoin reserves through debt and equity transactions, and keep a holding-company structure for acquired businesses.

Zagury has experience across both traditional finance and Bitcoin infrastructure. Before taking the top job, he served as a Twenty One director and interim audit committee chair. His earlier roles included positions at Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and Merrill Lynch, while he also helped lead Bitcoin mining and infrastructure company Elektron Energy.

In May, Twenty One said it was considering a combination with Strike and Elektron that would have joined payments, mining, treasury management, and financial services. The company later removed Strike from consideration after Mallers left the CEO position, leaving the payments business as an independent company.

Tether has tightened control of the Bitcoin company Twenty One began with support from Tether, Bitfinex, SoftBank, and Cantor Equity Partners. Its 2025 launch plan valued the business at $3.6 billion and called for more than 42,000 BTC, alongside capital raised through convertible notes and a private investment in public equity.

Tether later acquired SoftBank’s full interest in the company, crypto.news reported in May. The transaction removed a large outside shareholder and increased Tether’s influence over the listed company.

The original structure had included Bitcoin contributions from Tether, Bitfinex and SoftBank. A separate financing package consisted of convertible senior secured notes and common equity, with the proceeds allocated mainly to additional Bitcoin purchases and corporate expenses.

By the time Twenty One entered the public market in December 2025, its treasury had grown to more than 43,500 BTC. Earlier coverage of its debut noted that falling Bitcoin prices were already putting pressure on the stock and other digital-asset treasury companies.

Investors were also questioning whether Twenty One could develop enough operating revenue to distinguish its shares from direct Bitcoin holdings or spot exchange-traded funds. At the time, the company employed four full-time workers and had not provided a product-launch schedule.

Under Zagury, management has placed more attention on acquiring businesses and generating income rather than measuring performance only by the size of the Bitcoin reserve. Twenty One still uses Bitcoin per share, expressed in satoshis, as one of its internal performance measures.

The company’s first-quarter filing showed 12,557 satoshis per Class A share at both Dec. 31 and March 31. Twenty One had 346.5 million Class A shares outstanding at the end of the quarter, while its Bitcoin balance fell by one coin.

U.S. investors face Bitcoin and company-specific risks Twenty One trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker XXI, giving U.S. investors access to its Bitcoin holdings through a regulated public stock. That exposure also includes corporate expenses, debt, management decisions, and share issuance, which do not apply when an investor holds Bitcoin directly.

The shares were trading near $4.59 on Aug. 11, while Bitcoin changed hands around $63,802. Because XXI represents an operating company rather than a spot Bitcoin ETF, its stock price can trade above or below the value of the Bitcoin attributable to each share.

Twenty One has also used Bitcoin to support its financing. Its first-quarter SEC report listed about $484.4 million of convertible notes and said 16,116 BTC served as collateral for them. Management stated that the pledged coins could not be treated as an available source of liquidity while they remained tied to the notes.

At the end of March, the company held $114.1 million in cash and $117.9 million in net working capital. Management said those resources were sufficient to fund operations for at least one year from the filing date and did not expect to sell Bitcoin during that period to meet ordinary liquidity needs.

A governance issue emerged after SoftBank’s representatives left the board following Tether’s purchase. As crypto.news covered in June, the NYSE warned Twenty One that its audit committee no longer met the exchange’s independence rules.

The exchange gave the company until June 5 to appoint a qualified independent audit committee member before attaching a below-compliance indicator to its listing. Twenty One appointed an independent director on June 8, according to its investor-relations records.

Bitcoin 65 bin doların üzerinde kalıcı olamazken, büyük cüzdanların sayısı dikkat çekici biçimde artıyor. En az 10 bin BTC tutan Bitcoin cüzdanlarının sayısı altı ayın en yüksek seviyesine çıkarken, küçük yatırımcıların elindeki Bitcoin miktarı ağustos ayında gerilemeye devam ediyor. Santiment verilerine göre en az 10 bin BTC tutan cüzdanların sayısı 90’a çıktı.

Bu gelişme, Bitcoin arzının daha büyük cüzdanlarda yoğunlaştığı bir döneme işaret ediyor. Ancak spot Bitcoin ETF’lerindeki çıkışlar ve Strategy’nin yeni BTC satışı, piyasanın tamamında aynı yönde bir hareket olmadığını gösteriyor.

Bitcoin Balinalarının Sayısı Neden Artıyor? Santiment verilerine göre en az 10 bin BTC tutan cüzdanların sayısı son sekiz haftada net 6 artarak 90’a çıktı. Böylece bu kategori, son altı ayın en yüksek seviyesine ulaştı.

Söz konusu cüzdan sayısındaki artış %7,1 olarak hesaplandı. Buna karşılık mikro cüzdanların Bitcoin varlıkları ağustos ayında gerilemeye devam etti.

Küçük yatırımcıların elindeki Bitcoin miktarı azalırken, en büyük cüzdanların ağırlığı yeniden artıyor. Santiment’e göre arzın daha güçlü ellere doğru kayması, bir sonraki büyük piyasa hareketinin yukarı yönlü olma ihtimalini artıran bir sinyal olabilir.

Santiment, mikro cüzdanlardaki düşüşü bireysel yatırımcıların artan korkusuyla ilişkilendiriyor. Şirket, özellikle Coldcard saldırılarının yarattığı endişe ve CLARITY Act sürecindeki gecikmelerin bireysel yatırımcı davranışını etkilediğini belirtiyor.

Bitcoin Arzı Büyük Yatırımcılara mı Kayıyor? Asıl dikkat çeken nokta yalnızca büyük cüzdanların sayısındaki artış değil.

Santiment, Bitcoin arzının daha güçlü ellerde yoğunlaşmasının büyük bir piyasa hareketi öncesinde görülebilen bir yapı olduğunu belirtiyor. Analiz şirketine göre bu tür bir dağılım, sonraki büyük hareketin yukarı yönlü olma ihtimalini artırabilir.

Ancak bu veri tek başına BTC fiyatının yükseleceğini doğrulamıyor.

Büyük cüzdanların sayısındaki artış, piyasadaki arz dağılımının değiştiğini gösterirken fiyatın yönü için ETF akışları ve teknik seviyeler de önemini koruyor.

Bitcoin İçin Kritik Seviye 65.400 Dolar Bitcoin’in önündeki en önemli kısa vadeli eşiklerden biri 65.400 dolar seviyesi olarak öne çıkıyor.

BTC salı günü bu seviyenin üzerine çıkmayı denese de hareket kalıcı olmadı. Fiyat daha sonra 64 bin doların altına geriledi.

Analist Doctor Profit, Bitcoin’in güçlü bir yükseliş trendine geçtiğini söylemek için yalnızca 65.400 doların aşılmasının yeterli olmadığını belirtiyor. Analiste göre bu seviyenin üzerinde birden fazla haftalık kapanış görülmesi gerekiyor.

Bu senaryoda sonraki önemli direnç bölgeleri 77-78 bin dolar ve 83 bin dolar olarak öne çıkıyor.

Buna karşılık 65.400 doların yeniden aşılamaması hâlinde aşağı yönde 61.500 dolar ve ardından 54 bin dolar seviyeleri gündeme gelebilir.

Bitcoin ETF’lerinden 144 Milyon Dolarlık Çıkış Büyük BTC cüzdanlarındaki artışa rağmen kurumsal yatırımcı tarafında aynı güç görülmüyor.

ABD spot Bitcoin ETF’leri pazartesi günü 144,67 milyon dolarlık net çıkış kaydetti. Böylece ağustos ayındaki ilk negatif işlem günü yaşandı ve beş günlük giriş serisi sona erdi.

En büyük çıkış BlackRock’ın IBIT fonunda gerçekleşti. IBIT’ten 53,5 milyon dolar çıkarken, Grayscale’in GBTC fonunda 52 milyon doların üzerinde, Fidelity’nin ETF’sinde ise 40 milyon doların üzerinde net çıkış görüldü.

Bu tablo, büyük cüzdanlardaki hareketliliğe rağmen spot ETF kanalındaki kurumsal talebin kısa vadede zayıfladığını gösteriyor.

Strategy Bitcoin Satışına Devam Ediyor Kurumsal taraftaki satış baskısının bir diğer göstergesi ise Strategy‘nin yeni Bitcoin satışı oldu.

Şirket 1.690 BTC’yi 108,6 milyon dolar karşılığında sattı. Elde edilen kaynakla 1,15 milyon adet STRC imtiyazlı hisse geri alındı.

Strategy ayrıca 6,59 milyon MSTR hissesi satarak 653 milyon doların üzerinde kaynak sağladı. Şirketin nakit rezervi böylece 4,6 milyar doların üzerine çıktı.

Satışın ardından Strategy’nin Bitcoin varlığı 840.447 BTC’ye geriledi. Şirket bu varlıkları toplam 63,36 milyar dolar maliyetle ve ortalama 75.385 dolar fiyattan satın almış durumda.

Bitcoin’de Sıradaki Büyük Hareket Hangisi Olacak? Bitcoin’de büyük cüzdanların artışı dikkat çekici bir sinyal verirken, ETF çıkışları ve Strategy’nin satışı kurumsal tarafta aynı gücün görülmediğini ortaya koyuyor.

Fiyat açısından ilk kritik eşik ise 65.400 dolar olmaya devam ediyor. Bu seviyenin üzerinde birden fazla haftalık kapanış gelmesi hâlinde 77-78 bin dolar ve 83 bin dolar bölgeleri gündeme gelebilir. Aşağıda ise 61.500 ve 54 bin dolar seviyeleri izlenecek.

Dolayısıyla piyasanın önündeki kritik soru yalnızca büyük cüzdanların Bitcoin toplamaya devam edip etmeyeceği değil, bu hareketin fiyat üzerinde gerçek bir talebe dönüşüp dönüşmeyeceği.

Bu içerik genel piyasa verilerine dayanır ve yatırım tavsiyesi değildir. Kendi araştırmanızı yapmanızı öneririz.

Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.

Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.

Coinbase on Tuesday said it is expanding derivatives access to professional investors in the UK. This represents another milestone for the crypto exchange amid its Everything Exchange strategy, following the rollout of 24/5 US stock trading to all users in the UK. COIN stock rebounds in premarket hours in Tuesday.

Coinbase Rolls Out Crypto Derivatives Trading in the UK Crypto exchange Coinbase is launching futures, perpetuals and options in the UK, rolling out access to professional investors over the coming months.

Eligible investors can trade over 170 contracts across crypto, stocks, commodities and forex. Among these, perpetual contracts support 24/7 trading with up to 50x leverage, while dated futures offer up to 20x leverage.

Also, crypto options support calls, puts, and multi-leg strategies. These services are exclusively available to qualified investors classified as professional clients.

The derivatives launch in the UK comes after Coinbase secured MiFID license from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) last month. The license enabled the crypto exchange to offer derivative contract trading to UK investors.

“This launch is part of our global commitment to build a unified, borderless, and fully transparent derivatives ecosystem. It gives professional traders the tools to navigate any market,” said Coinbase UK arm CEO Keith Grose.

As CoinGape reported recently, Coinbase launched 24/5 stock trading to all users in the UK. It enabled eligible UK investors to buy, sell, and hold US stocks alongside crypto and fiat in the same app.

COIN Stock Price Sees Slight Rebound Coinbase stock (COIN) is up 0.40% during the premarket trading hours on Tuesday. COIN stock closed 3.20% lower at $148.68 on Monday, as the broader US stock market fell on Iran’s refusal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Coinbase stock outlook revealed the price remains below the 20-day EMA and the 50-day EMA at $162. Also, the short-term momentum is favoring bears, with potential drop continuing unless buying pressure rises.

The derivatives trading expansion in the UK continues Coinbase’s push to diversify beyond pure crypto trading volume into a multi-asset platform.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin has also recorded a slight rebound after dropping more than 2% over the past 24 hours. The price is currently trading at $64,134, with a massive 45% bounce in trading volume.

Prediction markets show 26% odds for Bitcoin to dip below $60,000 in August, with Wednesday’s CPI inflation data as the major event to watch this week.

3 hrs ago

2 min read

President Donald Trump at the White House (Jesse Hamilton/CoinDesk)Summary

Trump Media held 9,477 bitcoin at the end of June, down from 9,542 at the end of 2025, while the position's fair value fell to $557 million from $836 million.The company recorded $360.6 million in losses on digital assets and digital assets pledged during the first half of 2026, much of it unrealized.The results come days after Trump Media and Crypto.com scrapped plans for a publicly traded CRO treasury company and abandoned a separate ETF servicing partnership.Trump Media and Technology Group's (DJT) bitcoin holdings shrank during the second quarter of the year as falling crypto prices saddled the Truth Social parent with $360.6 million in losses in the first half of the year.

The company held 9,477.16 bitcoin BTC$63,940.84 with a fair value of $557.1 million as of June 30, according to its quarterly filing Monday. That's down from 9,542.16 BTC at the end of March, translating to a 65 BTC decline in holdings through the quarter.

Trump Media's Crypto.com-linked cronos CRO$0.04685 holdings remained unchanged at roughly 756.1 million tokens, but their fair value fell to $40.6 million from $68 million at the end of 2025.

A significant chunk of the company's bitcoin was also tied up as collateral. Trump Media, which is majority owned by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, had 4,260.73 BTC pledged against convertible notes and another 2,077.34 BTC pledged for its bitcoin options strategy as of June 30.

U.S. President Donald Trump owns a significant stake in the trust, which is controlled by Donald Trump, Jr., one of the president’s children.

The results landed only days after Trump Media pared back parts of its crypto ambitions.

On Friday, Trump Media, crypto exchange Crypto.com and Yorkville Acquisition said they mutually terminated their proposed business combination to establish Trump Media Group CRO Strategy, a publicly traded company designed to build a large CRO treasury.

The companies cited "prevailing market conditions, and shifting business and stakeholder priorities." They also abandoned a separate partnership under which Crypto.com would have serviced certain planned Yorkville America exchange-traded funds, though Yorkville America said its existing and future ETF plans otherwise remain unchanged.

Related Assets

12345678910

Building the Zcash Machine: Tachyon and Quantum Readiness

Building the Zcash Machine: Tachyon and Quantum Readiness

Zcash’s Tachyon upgrade aims to scale shielded payments, improve quantum readiness, and test whether its funding, security, and governance can hold.

Jun 30, 2026

Zcash’s Tachyon upgrade aims to scale shielded payments, improve quantum readiness, and test whether its funding, security, and governance can hold.

Why it matters:

Zcash’s Tachyon upgrade aims to scale shielded payments, improve quantum readiness, and test whether its funding, security, and governance can hold.

A Brazilian company that barely existed two years ago now holds roughly $255 million worth of Bitcoin, making it the largest corporate Bitcoin treasury in Latin America and one of the top 25 among public companies globally.

OranjeBTC, trading on Brazil’s B3 exchange under the ticker OBTC3.SA, has accumulated 3,950 BTC as of early August 2026. The company went public less than a year ago with around 3,650 BTC. It has been buying steadily ever since.

The company behind the stack OranjeBTC was founded by Guilherme Gomes, a former partner at Bridgewater Associates. The company went public in October 2025 through a reverse IPO, acquiring the educational platform Intergraus to gain its B3 listing.

Advertisement

Its average cost basis sits at approximately $105,000 per BTC, which means the company has been acquiring through what has been a sustained high-price environment rather than buying at cycle lows.

The investor list includes Adam Back, the cryptographer whose work Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism is directly based on. So are the Winklevoss twins, who have been institutional Bitcoin advocates since 2013. Ricardo Salinas Pliego, the Mexican billionaire who has publicly called Bitcoin his second-largest personal asset, is also involved.

The STRC move and what it signals In March 2026, OranjeBTC became the first public company to hold STRC, Strategy’s variable-rate perpetual preferred equity, on its balance sheet.

Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, pioneered the corporate Bitcoin treasury playbook under Michael Saylor. Perpetual preferred equity with a variable rate pays ongoing dividends and never matures. The company still holds Bitcoin as its primary reserve, and STRC represents a secondary position rather than a pivot.

Why LatAm matters for this story OranjeBTC also has ADR availability under the ticker ORNJY, meaning US investors can access the stock through American depositary receipts without touching Brazilian markets directly.

What to watch from here OranjeBTC currently ranks around 23rd among public companies by Bitcoin holdings worldwide.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Strategy just sold Bitcoin—again. The world’s foremost digital asset hoarder announced on Monday that it unloaded 1,690 Bitcoin, or nearly $109 million, using the proceeds to buy back one of its preferred-stock products rather than expanding its treasury. The sale comes seven weeks after Strategy made its last purchase, according to the company’s catalog of crypto transactions. After the announcement, Strategy’s shares fell 1.5% at market open but quickly rebounded to $100. Bitcoin’s price briefly dropped 1% before climbing back to $64,700, according to CoinGecko. 

Monday’s sale marks the second time this month that Strategy has sold Bitcoin. On Aug. 3, the company sold roughly $105 million worth of the cryptocurrency. Since announcing in late June that it could sell up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin to build its cash reserves, Strategy has now sold the asset on four separate occasions. 

The sales mark a sharp shift for a company whose strategy has long centered on accumulating—not selling—Bitcoin. Michael Saylor, Strategy’s executive chairman, began adding the cryptocurrency to the balance sheet of his cybersecurity firm, then known as MicroStrategy, in 2020. The company’s holdings have since grown to roughly $54 billion, which represents about 4% of the total Bitcoin supply, according to the company’s own data.

Strategy has reversed course in recent months as Bitcoin’s price and the company’s own shares have declined. Since the Oct. 10 crash, which wiped out more than $19 billion in leveraged crypto positions, Bitcoin has fallen nearly 43% and MSTR shares have dropped almost 70%. Because Strategy traditionally funds its Bitcoin purchases by selling common and preferred stock and issuing convertible debt, it has moved to build up its dollar reserves to show investors it can meet its cash obligations even if markets remain volatile. Against that backdrop, CEO Phong Le praised the company’s latest Bitcoin sale.

“Our USD Reserve and Duration are now at all-time highs. In 2.5 months, we added nearly $3.8 billion and grew both more than 5X,” he said in a social media post. 

Strategy is not alone in feeling the fallout from the broader crypto downturn. Over the past year, a wave of imitators loaded public-company balance sheets with cryptocurrencies in hopes of sparking stock rallies, but that trade has since soured. Solana-focused Solmate has lost nearly all of its value, saddling investors with steep paper losses, while Cantor Fitzgerald’s BSTR Bitcoin vehicle has struggled to keep its SPAC deal afloat amid waning investor appetite.

Fortune Daily breaks the traditional barrier between audience and newsroom. The show transforms Fortune’s trusted reporting into actionable, conversational, and entertaining insights for an emerging class of business leaders. Watch here.

BlackRock Canada launched two exchange-traded funds Monday, including a portfolio that combines globally diversified equities with a 3% allocation to Bitcoin.

The two funds, which began trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange, are the iShares Equity + Bitcoin ETF Portfolio (IBQT) and the iShares Core MSCI All-International Equity Index ETF (XINT).

IBQT allocates 97% of its portfolio to Canadian, US, international and emerging-market equities and 3% to Bitcoin (BTC) exposure through BlackRock’s Canadian iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT), which trades on Cboe Canada. Rather than investing in individual stocks, IBQT primarily holds other iShares ETFs to provide its equity and Bitcoin exposure.

XINT tracks the MSCI ACWI ex North America IMI Index, providing exposure to more than 5,000 companies across over 40 developed and emerging markets outside Canada and the US.

Both funds are managed by BlackRock Asset Management Canada through the RBC iShares alliance. BlackRock said its iShares business managed approximately $6.2 trillion in assets across more than 1,700 ETFs as of June 30.

The asset management giant’s US-listed iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) is the largest US spot Bitcoin ETF by assets under management, with about $47.9 billion in AUM, according to CoinMarketCap data.

Top five US spot Bitcoin ETFs by AUM. Source: CoinMarketCap

Magazine: BIP-110 ends with a whimper, CLARITY vote punted: Hodler’s Digest, Aug. 9

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Italy’s largest banking group, Intesa Sanpaolo (BIT: ISP), has executed a notable shift in its cryptocurrency-related exchange-traded fund portfolio during the second quarter of 2026. According to its latest quarterly disclosure submitted to US regulators, the institution substantially reduced its position in a major Bitcoin ETF while expanding its allocation to a staked Ethereum product.

The bank’s Form 13F filing, covering holdings as of June 30, 2026, reveals that its common-share stake in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) declined by approximately 93.7 percent.

The position fell from 646,809 shares at the end of the prior quarter to just 40,723 shares.

The remaining IBIT holding was valued at roughly $1.36 million.

In parallel, the bank sharply curtailed its call options linked to the same ETF, reducing the underlying share equivalent by more than 99 percent to only 18,000 shares.

A new put option position covering 500,000 underlying IBIT shares also appeared in the filing, suggesting a more defensive posture toward Bitcoin.

In contrast, Intesa Sanpaolo significantly increased its exposure to BlackRock’s iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (often referred to as ETHB). Holdings in this product roughly tripled, rising from 116,200 shares to 349,600 shares.

The position’s reported value grew to about $7.1 million from $3.15 million three months earlier.

This staked Ethereum ETF provides investors with price exposure to ether while also passing through staking rewards generated by the underlying network.

The bank did not abandon Bitcoin entirely.

It continued to maintain a substantial position in the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB), holding approximately 3.47 million shares valued at $67.6 million at quarter-end.

That stake experienced only a modest reduction of around 4 percent from the previous period and remained the institution’s largest reported crypto-linked holding by value.

Its position in the Grayscale XRP Trust stayed unchanged at 712,319 shares.

Meanwhile, exposure to the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF was nearly eliminated, dropping from 2,817 shares to just seven.

These portfolio adjustments occurred against a backdrop of declining cryptocurrency prices during the second quarter.

Bitcoin and ether both recorded notable losses over the period, and U.S. spot crypto ETFs experienced net outflows.

The selective reduction in one Bitcoin product alongside growth in a yield-bearing Ethereum vehicle may reflect institutional interest in assets that can generate ongoing returns through staking, rather than a complete retreat from digital assets.

Form 13F disclosures provide only a snapshot of long positions and certain options at quarter-end.

They do not detail trading activity throughout the period, net exposures after accounting for short options, strike prices, or expiration dates.

As a result, the precise overall strategy remains partially opaque.

Nevertheless, the reported changes offer a clear view of how one of Europe’s major banks adjusted its regulated crypto ETF allocations amid market volatility.The filing was submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 31, 2026.

Researchers found 821 accounts that made $8.2 million by manipulating bitcoin prices in the final seconds before Polymarket settled its short dated contracts. Polymarket has now replaced instant snapshots with time weighted averages, but the structural vulnerability they exposed is not unique to one platform.

Summary

Polymarket replaced its instant price snapshot settlement mechanism with time weighted average prices on August 7, 2026, after a study identified 821 accounts that collectively made $8.2 million in settlement windows classified as likely manipulated across roughly two months of five minute bitcoin contracts. The manipulation worked by accumulating a large position on Polymarket, then placing unusually large orders on Binance in the final seconds before settlement to move the bitcoin price across the contract’s strike threshold, causing the contract to resolve in the manipulator’s favor before the price reverted. Excluding market makers, 93 percent of the losses in windows classified as manipulated fell on retail traders, and the researchers found that a bet the market treated as near certain was overturned one time in three during manipulated windows. Under the new system, five minute markets will use a 30 second average and 15 minute and four hour markets will use a 60 second average, with price data delivered through Chainlink Data Streams, and Polymarket committed $1 million in liquidity rewards across affected markets through August to cushion the transition. Rival platform Kalshi already uses a regulated CF Benchmarks price index with a 60 second moving average and reported conducting 150 to 250 material investigations per quarter with 40 to 50 CFTC referrals so far in 2026, highlighting the surveillance gap between DeFi native and regulated prediction market venues. On August 7, 2026, Polymarket announced it would replace the single price snapshot it had used to settle short dated crypto contracts with a time weighted average price, known as a TWAP. The change followed months of trader complaints, public warnings from onchain analysts, and a peer reviewed study from researchers at Stanford University and Singapore Management University that documented how a small number of accounts systematically profited by moving bitcoin prices on Binance in the final seconds before Polymarket’s settlement windows closed.

The exploit was not a hack. No smart contract was compromised. No private key was stolen. The vulnerability was a design choice: Polymarket settled its short dated crypto markets using a single price at a single moment. Anyone who could move that price for a few seconds could change the outcome of the contract. The researchers called the vulnerability “structural,” and their language was precise. “An asset price contract settles on a financial price,” they wrote, “and that price can be moved by trading the underlying market itself.”

The finding raises questions that extend well beyond one platform. Prediction markets handled $50.6 billion in volume in July 2026 alone. As these markets grow, the intersection between prediction contract settlement and spot market manipulation becomes a systemic concern, not a niche complaint from retail traders who lost money on five minute bets.

The timing of the fix also coincides with Polymarket’s reported effort to raise $1 billion at a $20 billion valuation. For a platform seeking institutional capital, the public documentation of a manipulation vulnerability that went unaddressed for months creates a due diligence problem. Institutional investors do not merely evaluate growth metrics. They evaluate integrity infrastructure. The TWAP transition can be read as both a genuine security improvement and a necessary precondition for closing a fundraising round with investors who take market structure risk seriously.

How the manipulation worked The mechanics were straightforward. A trader would accumulate a position on Polymarket’s five minute bitcoin up or down contract. These contracts pay out based on whether bitcoin’s price is above or below a specific threshold at the moment of settlement. The trader would then wait until the final seconds before settlement and place a large order on Binance, the world’s largest spot exchange by volume, to push bitcoin’s price across the strike threshold.

The order did not need to be large enough to sustain a price move. It only needed to last long enough for the settlement snapshot. Once the contract resolved, the manipulator would close the Binance position, often at a small loss, and collect the Polymarket payout. The Binance loss was the cost of doing business. The Polymarket profit was the payoff.

The strategy worked because five minute contracts have thin time horizons. Moving bitcoin’s price by a fraction of a percent for five seconds is expensive but achievable for a well capitalized trader with access to Binance’s spot order book. The study found that the manipulation was concentrated in the final seconds, with unusually large orders appearing just before settlement and rapid price reversals immediately after.

The cost structure made the trade attractive. A trader might lose $5,000 to $20,000 pushing bitcoin’s price on Binance, but collect $50,000 or more from the Polymarket payout. The spot market loss was predictable and bounded. The prediction market gain depended only on whether the price crossed the threshold at the exact moment of settlement. As long as the Polymarket position was large enough relative to the Binance cost, the combined trade was profitable regardless of where bitcoin’s price ended up minutes later.

The researchers noted that the manipulators showed increasing sophistication over the study period. Early instances involved crude large orders that were visible in the order book for several seconds. Later instances used more fragmented order placement, splitting the price push across multiple smaller orders that arrived in rapid succession during the final two to three seconds. This fragmentation made the activity harder to detect in real time, though the statistical signature in the settlement data remained clear.

The paper did not prove that the Binance orders and the Polymarket positions were placed by the same individuals. It could not, because Polymarket operates as a DeFi native platform where traders use pseudonymous wallets. But the statistical patterns were consistent with coordinated activity, and the timing correlations were tight enough for the researchers to classify specific settlement windows as “likely manipulated.”

What the research actually found The study, published on arXiv by researchers from Stanford and Singapore Management University, analyzed roughly two months of five minute bitcoin contracts on Polymarket. The researchers identified 821 accounts whose trading activity was concentrated in windows where the statistical signatures of manipulation were present.

Those accounts collectively made $8.2 million during the study period. The losses came almost entirely from retail traders. After excluding market makers, who are structurally neutral and profit from spreads rather than directional bets, the researchers found that 93 percent of the losses in likely manipulated windows were borne by retail participants.

One finding stood out. In manipulated windows, “a bet the market treated as near certain was overturned one time in three.” This means that contracts priced at 90 percent or higher probability of resolving one way were flipped by last second price movements. For retail traders relying on market pricing as a signal of likelihood, this created a situation where the odds they saw on screen bore little relationship to the odds they actually faced.

The scale of the losses was asymmetric. A retail trader placing a $100 bet on a five minute bitcoin contract that was priced at 90 percent certainty expected to win $10 in profit nine times out of ten. When manipulation flipped the outcome, that trader lost $100. Across hundreds of settlement windows and thousands of participants, these small individual losses aggregated into the $8.2 million figure the researchers documented. No single retail trader lost a fortune. The damage was distributed across a large number of small participants, each of whom had no way to know that the odds they saw on screen had been distorted.

The researchers described the vulnerability as inherent to any event contract that settles on a real time financial price. The specific platform, the specific asset, and the specific contract duration all affect how easy the manipulation is. But the underlying dynamic, that the settlement price can be influenced by trading the referenced asset, applies to any platform using instant price snapshots.

The manipulators exploited a timing asymmetry that exists whenever a financial contract settles on a single price observation. In traditional futures markets, settlement prices are typically calculated from a volume weighted average of trades over a defined window, precisely to prevent the kind of end of period manipulation that Polymarket experienced. The fact that Polymarket launched with a single snapshot mechanism suggests either that the platform’s designers did not anticipate this attack vector or that they accepted the risk as a tradeoff for simpler oracle design. Either way, the result was a settlement system that rewarded traders who could move prices by small amounts for brief periods, a capability that requires modest capital relative to the profits available from correctly positioned prediction market contracts.

JUST IN: Polymarket adopts Chainlink TWAP for short-term crypto markets

Five-minute contracts now settle on a 30-second average price pic.twitter.com/EmC268lyeh

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) August 8, 2026 Why it took months to fix The capital efficiency of the attack is what made it particularly difficult to detect through conventional surveillance. Each individual trade was small enough to look like normal market activity. The manipulators did not need to sustain the price movement for more than a few seconds, and the prediction market positions they held to profit from the manipulation were on a separate platform from the spot exchange where they moved prices. This cross platform structure meant that no single exchange could see both sides of the trade. Binance saw small orders that briefly moved bitcoin’s price. Polymarket saw contracts settling at prices that happened to favor certain accounts. Only by correlating the timing of trades across both platforms could the researchers identify the pattern, and that correlation required access to data from both systems and the statistical tools to analyze it. The attack surface existed not in any single platform’s code but in the gap between two platforms that each operated correctly in isolation but whose interaction created an exploitable seam.

Polymarket knew about the problem before the study was published. Onchain analysts raised concerns publicly as early as May 2026. Variance Lover, a pseudonymous analyst, posted an extensive breakdown on May 21 documenting the manipulation mechanism and identifying specific settlement windows where the patterns were visible.

“By now, most people are aware that market manipulation has become a major problem on Polymarket’s five minute crypto markets,” Variance Lover wrote. “The mechanism is simple: accumulate a large position on Polymarket, then move the price on Binance during the settlement window to force the market to resolve in your favor.”

A contributor who goes by the handle Christine on X noted on May 11 that the manipulation was becoming more severe, citing “precise reversals in the last few seconds.” Josh Stevens, a Polymarket developer, responded publicly: “We are looking into this a bit deeper. Do not worry.”

The gap between acknowledgment and action spanned nearly three months. During that time, the manipulation continued. The delay is notable because the fix Polymarket ultimately deployed, replacing a snapshot with a TWAP, is not a novel solution. Time weighted averages have been standard in DeFi oracle design for years. Uniswap V2 introduced TWAP oracles in 2020 specifically to prevent single block price manipulation. The concept was available off the shelf.

Polymarket has not publicly explained why the fix took as long as it did. One possibility is that switching the settlement mechanism required changes to the smart contracts that resolve bets, which need auditing and testing. Another is that the platform was reluctant to change rules midstream for live markets with open positions. A third, less charitable interpretation is that the manipulation generated volume and fees that the platform was not in a hurry to curtail.

The delay had real costs. Variance Lover estimated that manipulation continued throughout June and into July, with increasingly aggressive activity as manipulators learned they could operate without consequences. Several retail traders posted screenshots showing positions that should have been winners based on prevailing market prices but resolved as losers because of last second price spikes. The trust damage was compounding. Each manipulated settlement that went unaddressed made the next complaint louder and the platform’s credibility thinner.

JUST IN: Study finds signs of manipulation in Polymarket Bitcoin prediction markets

Stanford and Singapore Management University researchers identified 821 suspected manipulators who earned 8.2 million dollars pic.twitter.com/CQuLUeX9YO

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 16, 2026 How Polymarket’s fix compares to Kalshi The fix Polymarket deployed mirrors safeguards that Kalshi, its regulated rival, already had in place. Kalshi resolves its short dated crypto markets using a CF Benchmarks price index, which aggregates prices from multiple regulated exchanges. It then applies a 60 second moving average, making it significantly harder to move the settlement price with a brief burst of trading on a single venue.

Kalshi also operates under CFTC oversight, which gives it enforcement tools that Polymarket lacks. A Kalshi spokesperson told CoinDesk that the platform has conducted 150 to 250 material investigations per quarter and made 40 to 50 referrals to the CFTC so far in 2026. Those figures cover all Kalshi markets, not just short dated crypto contracts, but they illustrate the surveillance infrastructure that comes with operating within a regulatory framework.

The structural difference between the two platforms matters. Kalshi requires identity verification for all traders. Polymarket’s DeFi version does not. When manipulation is detected on Kalshi, the platform can identify the trader, freeze the account, and refer the case to a regulator. When manipulation is detected on Polymarket, the platform can identify a wallet address but cannot easily connect it to a person.

Polymarket does operate a US regulated version under CFTC oversight, but its integrity and surveillance infrastructure has been developed largely in response to external pressure rather than as a foundational design choice. The company is reportedly seeking a $1 billion raise at a $20 billion valuation, and the manipulation episode highlights the tension between growing rapidly as a DeFi protocol and building the compliance infrastructure that institutional capital typically requires.

Polymarket faces manipulation allegations as $58M Zelenskyy suit bet nears resolution

Polymarket’s $58M Zelenskyy suit bet nears resolution as $UMA voters dispute media consensus, sparking manipulation claims and credibility concerns.

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 4, 2025 What the exploit reveals about prediction market design The comparison between Polymarket and Kalshi illuminates a broader tension in prediction market design between decentralization and market integrity. Kalshi operates as a CFTC regulated exchange with centralized order matching, surveillance systems, and the ability to cancel trades that result from manipulation. Polymarket operates on Polygon with smart contract settlement that is transparent but largely automated. The transparency means that manipulation is visible to anyone who examines the blockchain, which is how the Stanford researchers identified the 821 accounts. But visibility is not the same as prevention. A centralized exchange can intervene in real time when it detects suspicious activity. A decentralized protocol must design its settlement rules to be manipulation resistant from the start, because retroactive intervention contradicts the trustless execution model that gives blockchain based markets their appeal.

The Polymarket manipulation exposed a broader design tension in prediction markets that settle on financial prices. These markets sit at the intersection of two trading systems: the prediction platform where bets are placed and the spot market where the referenced price is determined. When the two systems are connected but not coordinated, the cheaper market becomes a tool for profiting from the more expensive one.

In this case, moving bitcoin’s price on Binance for a few seconds cost less than the Polymarket payout it generated. The arbitrage was negative in the spot market and positive in the prediction market, creating a combined trade that was profitable as long as the settlement mechanism allowed it.

This is not a problem unique to Polymarket or even to prediction markets. It is a variant of the same cross venue manipulation that regulators have spent decades combating in traditional finance. The SEC’s Regulation SHO, the CFTC’s anti manipulation rules, and the EU’s Market Abuse Regulation all address scenarios where trading in one market is used to influence outcomes in another. The difference is that those frameworks assume centralized, identity verified markets with shared surveillance feeds. The prediction market version plays out across pseudonymous DeFi platforms and centralized exchanges in different jurisdictions.

The TWAP fix addresses the most obvious attack vector by making brief price spikes less effective. But it does not eliminate the underlying vulnerability. A well capitalized manipulator who can sustain a price move for 30 or 60 seconds rather than five can still influence settlement under a TWAP system. The cost is higher, but the attack is not impossible. The question is whether the increased cost makes the manipulation unprofitable, and that depends on the depth of the liquidity in the referenced market and the size of the positions available on the prediction platform.

The economics of the manipulation also raise questions about market depth. The reason five second price pushes were possible on Binance is that bitcoin’s order book, despite being the deepest in crypto, still has moments of relative thinness. During periods of lower activity, particularly around the clock during Asian or European off hours, the cost of moving bitcoin’s price by a fraction of a percent drops significantly. The manipulators timed their activity to coincide with these low liquidity windows, compounding the settlement vulnerability with a liquidity vulnerability. A TWAP reduces one problem but does not address the other.

As regulatory frameworks for prediction markets continue to develop, the settlement mechanism question will become more prominent. Platforms that want to offer contracts on financial prices will need to either use regulated price feeds, implement robust TWAP mechanisms, or accept that their markets will remain vulnerable to the same class of manipulation that Polymarket just addressed.

What to watch Manipulation patterns after the TWAP transition. The 30 second and 60 second TWAP windows raise the cost of manipulation but do not eliminate it. Watch for evidence of sustained price pushes that last longer than the averaging window, which would indicate that manipulators are adapting to the new settlement rules.

Polymarket volume changes on short dated crypto markets. If volume declines significantly after the transition, it may indicate that a portion of the trading activity was driven by manipulators rather than genuine prediction market demand. A volume drop would validate the concern that the platform’s growth was partly artificial.

Regulatory response from the CFTC. The study provides a public, peer reviewed record of manipulation on a platform that overlaps with CFTC jurisdiction. Watch for formal inquiries, enforcement actions, or rulemaking proposals that address cross venue manipulation between prediction markets and spot exchanges.

Chainlink Data Streams performance. The TWAP mechanism depends on Chainlink for price data delivery. Any latency issues, outages, or oracle manipulation attempts would expose a new attack surface. The reliability of the data feed is now a critical dependency for Polymarket’s market integrity.

Kalshi and Polymarket competition for institutional capital. The manipulation episode and subsequent fix narrow the structural gap between the two platforms. Watch for whether Polymarket’s $1 billion fundraising effort is affected by the integrity concerns or whether the fix is treated as sufficient by prospective investors.

Copycat manipulation on other DeFi prediction platforms. The settlement vulnerability that Polymarket’s TWAP fix addresses exists on any platform that uses instant price snapshots. Smaller prediction market protocols with less liquidity and less sophisticated monitoring are potentially even more vulnerable. Watch for reports of similar manipulation patterns on competing platforms that have not yet adopted TWAP settlement.

Academic follow up research on TWAP effectiveness. The Stanford and Singapore Management University researchers documented the pre-fix manipulation in detail. A follow up study measuring whether manipulation persists or adapts under the TWAP regime would provide the first empirical test of whether the fix works in practice, not just in theory. The research community’s engagement with this question will shape regulatory confidence in TWAP as a sufficient safeguard.

Frequently asked questions What happened on Polymarket with the five second exploit? Traders accumulated positions on Polymarket’s five minute bitcoin contracts and then placed large orders on Binance in the final seconds before settlement to move bitcoin’s price across the contract’s strike threshold. The contract would resolve in the manipulator’s favor, and the price would revert immediately after settlement. Researchers identified 821 accounts that made $8.2 million using this pattern.

How did researchers discover the manipulation? Researchers from Stanford University and Singapore Management University analyzed roughly two months of five minute bitcoin contracts on Polymarket. They found statistically significant correlations between unusually large Binance orders in the seconds before settlement and rapid price reversals after settlement. The study was published on arXiv.

Who lost money from the Polymarket exploit? Excluding market makers, 93 percent of the losses in settlement windows classified as likely manipulated fell on retail traders. These were users who placed bets on five minute bitcoin contracts and lost when last second price movements changed the contract outcome.

What is a TWAP and how does it prevent manipulation? A time weighted average price, or TWAP, averages the price over a window of time rather than using a single instant snapshot. Polymarket now uses a 30 second average for five minute markets and a 60 second average for 15 minute and four hour markets. This makes it more expensive to manipulate settlement because the attacker must sustain the price distortion for the entire averaging window rather than just a single moment.

Does Kalshi have the same problem? Kalshi uses a regulated CF Benchmarks price index with a 60 second moving average and requires identity verification for all traders. A Kalshi spokesperson told CoinDesk that these safeguards make brief price manipulation u0022significantly harder and more expensive.u0022 However, a Kalshi user disputed this, claiming to have witnessed similar issues on the platform.

Is the TWAP fix enough to prevent future manipulation? The TWAP raises the cost of manipulation but does not eliminate the underlying vulnerability. A well capitalized trader who can sustain a price movement for the full averaging window can still influence settlement. The fix is a significant improvement over instant snapshots but not a complete solution.

Why did Polymarket take three months to fix the problem? Polymarket has not publicly explained the delay. Possible factors include the need to audit and test smart contract changes, reluctance to change rules on live markets with open positions, and the complexity of integrating Chainlink Data Streams as a price oracle. Onchain analysts raised concerns publicly starting in May 2026.

Can this type of manipulation happen on other prediction market platforms? Yes. The vulnerability is structural to any event contract that settles on a real time financial price using an instant snapshot. Any platform, whether DeFi native or regulated, that uses single point price resolution is theoretically vulnerable. The difference is the cost of the attack and the surveillance infrastructure available to detect it. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.u003cemu003eDisclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets carry significant risk. Always conduct independent research before making investment decisions. Information is current as of August 8, 2026.u003c/emu003e

Trump Media and Technology Group terminated its planned Cronos treasury venture with Crypto.com and Yorkville on August 7. The retreat signals that the corporate crypto treasury thesis, built on the premise that holding tokens is a balance sheet strategy, is running into the same saturation problem it was supposed to solve.

Summary

Trump Media and Technology Group, Crypto.com, and Yorkville Acquisition Corp mutually terminated the CRO Strategy treasury venture on August 7, 2026, ending a deal announced in August 2025 that was billed as the first and largest publicly traded CRO treasury firm with an initial $6.42 billion war chest. Interim CEO Kevin McGurn told Axios that saturation among corporate crypto treasury companies drove the decision, not regulatory pressure, and that Trump Media will instead concentrate on Truth Social, data licensing revenue, and a pending merger with fusion energy company TAE. The original deal involved Trump Media purchasing approximately $105 million in CRO tokens (684.4 million tokens at roughly $0.153 each) while Crypto.com purchased $50 million in Trump Media shares, creating a cross-investment structure that tied both companies to CRO price performance. The retreat follows a $406 million quarterly loss driven by crypto asset markdowns, raising questions about whether token treasury strategies can survive extended periods of price stagnation or modest drawdowns in the assets they are designed to accumulate. CRO traded near $0.0513 on August 7 with a market capitalization of roughly $2.4 billion, ranking 38th overall, a fraction of the valuation environment that existed when the deal was structured and announced. On August 7, 2026, Trump Media interim CEO Kevin McGurn told Axios that the company had terminated the CRO Strategy venture, the services agreement, and the digital asset product suite that accompanied the original deal. The companies also abandoned a related prediction market integration. Yorkville Acquisition Corp, the blank check vehicle created to take the treasury venture public, agreed to the termination. McGurn cited saturation. The treasury sector, he said, had become crowded.

The deal between Trump Media and Crypto.com was announced with the kind of numbers that attract headlines. A $6.42 billion treasury play. A branded entity called Trump Media Group CRO Strategy. A SPAC vehicle to take it public. The premise was simple: acquire CRO tokens at scale, hold them on a public balance sheet, and let market appreciation create shareholder value. The strategy echoed what MicroStrategy had done with Bitcoin, but applied to a token that was orders of magnitude smaller in market capitalization, less liquid, and tied to a single exchange ecosystem. The termination, coming less than a year after the announcement, is not just a deal falling apart. It is the first major public admission that the corporate crypto treasury model may have structural limits that its promoters did not advertise.

What the CRO Strategy deal was supposed to build The original announcement in August 2025 outlined a multi-layered financial structure. Trump Media would purchase approximately $105 million in CRO tokens, acquiring 684.4 million tokens at a price of roughly $0.153 per token. Crypto.com would purchase $50 million in Trump Media shares, creating a reciprocal ownership link between the media company and the exchange. The two parties would then form Trump Media Group CRO Strategy, a dedicated entity designed to function as a publicly traded digital asset treasury.

Yorkville Acquisition Corp, a blank check company, would serve as the public listing vehicle. The SEC filing described the venture as the first and largest publicly traded CRO treasury firm, a designation that was accurate only because no one else had attempted the same structure with that specific token.

The deal also included a services agreement covering digital asset product development and a prediction market integration called Truth Predict, which would embed betting features inside Truth Social using Crypto.com Derivatives North America as the infrastructure provider.

The combined structure tied Trump Media to CRO price performance in multiple ways: through direct token holdings, through the treasury entity, through the SPAC listing, and through the product integrations that assumed continued engagement with the Cronos blockchain ecosystem. The multi-layered exposure was presented as strategic depth at the time of the announcement. In retrospect, it created a situation where CRO price weakness propagated through every component of the deal simultaneously, amplifying the downside in a way that a simpler structure would not have.

The valuation environment that produced the deal was also unusual. At the time of the announcement, corporate crypto treasuries were attracting premium multiples from investors who treated token accumulation as a growth strategy. Trump Media’s management appears to have structured the CRO Strategy venture to capture that premium. When the premium disappeared and the valuation environment shifted, the economic rationale for the deal evaporated alongside it.

Why the parties walked away McGurn framed the termination around focus and saturation rather than failure. “We wanted to get focused,” Axios reported him saying. He characterized the crypto treasury sector as overcrowded, arguing that the competitive dynamics had shifted since the deal was announced.

The saturation claim has some factual basis. Between the second half of 2025 and mid 2026, more than 30 public companies announced crypto treasury strategies of various sizes. Most were modeled on the MicroStrategy template: issue equity or convertible debt, buy Bitcoin, and report the holdings as a core balance sheet item. The Trump Media venture stood apart because it targeted CRO rather than Bitcoin, but the underlying logic was the same.

What McGurn did not say is arguably more revealing than what he did. He did not claim the deal was restructured or paused. He confirmed mutual termination, meaning all three parties agreed that the venture no longer served their interests. The services agreement was also terminated. The prediction market integration was downgraded from a full product to a marketing arrangement.

McGurn added that staking CRO had become less central for Crypto.com itself, making a split logical for both sides. That detail matters. If the exchange that issues a token is de-emphasizing it, the case for a third party to build a treasury around it weakens considerably.

https://x.com/cryptodotnews/status/2085973280490713238

The $406 million loss that changed the math The termination did not occur in a vacuum. Trump Media reported a $406 million quarterly loss earlier in 2026, driven primarily by markdowns on its digital asset holdings. The loss was not a realized trading loss in the traditional sense. It reflected the accounting treatment of crypto assets under fair value rules, where price declines flow directly through the income statement.

For a company with limited operating revenue, a nine figure markdown on token holdings is not a rounding error. It is a thesis test. The crypto treasury model assumes that holding tokens creates long term value for shareholders. But the same model forces the company to report price declines as losses, creating quarterly volatility that public market investors tend to punish.

MicroStrategy, the original corporate Bitcoin treasury, has navigated this problem by leaning into it. The company rebranded as Strategy, made Bitcoin accumulation its primary corporate identity, and attracted a shareholder base that understood and accepted the volatility. Trump Media was not positioned to make the same bet. Its core business is a social media platform. Its shareholders purchased the stock for reasons that included but were not limited to the crypto treasury thesis. When the token holdings produced a loss that exceeded the company’s operating revenue by orders of magnitude, the strategic case for continuing became harder to make.

The regulatory environment added complexity. While McGurn explicitly denied that regulatory pressure drove the termination, the broader landscape has shifted. The GENIUS Act and related legislative efforts have introduced new compliance requirements for companies holding digital assets at scale. Whether those requirements directly affected the CRO Strategy venture or simply increased the cost of maintaining it is an open question that the termination announcement did not address.

The accounting treatment itself deserves closer examination. Under ASC 820, crypto assets held at fair value require quarterly mark to market adjustments. When token prices rise, the company reports unrealized gains that flow through its income statement, inflating earnings in ways that may attract shareholders who mistake accounting gains for operating performance. When prices fall, the reverse occurs, and the company must explain why its core business lost hundreds of millions of dollars in a quarter where nothing operationally changed. The asymmetry between the two scenarios creates a ratchet effect: the company captures enthusiasm during price increases but faces existential questions during declines. For a company like Trump Media, whose operating revenue from Truth Social was in the low tens of millions annually, a $406 million markdown made the treasury strategy the dominant item on the income statement, overshadowing every other aspect of the business.

Truth Predict and the prediction market retreat The CRO Strategy termination was not the only product that got scaled back. Truth Predict, the prediction market feature that Trump Media unveiled in October 2025, was also restructured.

The original plan embedded betting features inside Truth Social, powered by Crypto.com Derivatives North America. Users would trade prediction market contracts without leaving the social media platform. The integration assumed that Truth Social’s user base represented a captive audience for event contracts on politics, sports, and financial outcomes.

Under the new arrangement, the companies will pursue a marketing partnership rather than a full product integration. Crypto.com will promote its prediction products to Truth Social users, but Trump Media will not operate the back end infrastructure. McGurn argued that the space was already crowded with prediction market operators and that running infrastructure offered little return compared to simply distributing someone else’s product.

The reasoning reveals a broader shift in how Trump Media sees itself. The company is moving away from operating crypto infrastructure and toward licensing its brand and audience as distribution assets. That pivot is visible in its API business, which now serves roughly 10 customers (up from about five), most of whom are high frequency trading firms that feed Truth Social data into algorithmic strategies. McGurn said the company is also courting large language model developers and prediction market platforms as API customers.

The transition from infrastructure operator to data licensor is a meaningful strategic shift. It reduces Trump Media’s exposure to the operational risks of running crypto products while creating revenue streams that do not depend on token price performance. Whether the data licensing business can generate enough revenue to replace the value that was supposed to come from the treasury venture remains to be seen.

The prediction market landscape that existed when Truth Predict was conceived looked different from the one that emerged by mid 2026. At the time of announcement, Polymarket was the dominant player and the only U.S. focused platform with meaningful liquidity. By August 2026, Kalshi had expanded into event contracts for political and financial outcomes, Robinhood had added prediction market features to its mobile app, and several crypto native platforms had launched competing offerings. The window for Truth Social to capture a meaningful share of the prediction market audience had narrowed considerably, and the cost of operating back end infrastructure for a feature that would compete with well funded competitors no longer justified the investment when a simpler marketing arrangement could provide the same user exposure at a fraction of the cost.

The API pivot also reframes Truth Social’s value proposition. Under the treasury model, Truth Social was a distribution channel for crypto products. Under the data licensing model, it is a source of sentiment signals that have value to financial firms. The platform’s concentrated user base, which skews toward politically engaged American adults, generates text and engagement data that reflects a demographic segment that is underrepresented in other social media sentiment feeds. High frequency traders and LLM developers are willing to pay for access to that signal precisely because it is different from what Twitter, Reddit, or Stocktwits provides. The commercial value of the platform may ultimately have less to do with how many users it retains than with how unique the data those users generate is.

https://x.com/cryptodotnews/status/2084629425602035810

What happens to Yorkville and the SPAC structure Yorkville Acquisition Corp agreed to the termination alongside the other parties. The blank check vehicle was created specifically to take the CRO treasury venture public. Without that venture, the SPAC’s original purpose no longer exists.

However, one piece of the Yorkville structure survives. Yorkville America’s America First ETFs, branded as Truth Social Funds, will continue operating. These funds existed as a separate product line from the SPAC and were not dependent on the CRO Strategy venture for their investment thesis.

The survival of the ETF products while the SPAC terminates illustrates the fragmented nature of the original deal. What was presented as a unified strategic partnership between Trump Media, Crypto.com, and Yorkville was in practice a collection of loosely connected agreements. The treasury venture, the services agreement, the prediction market integration, and the ETF products could be separated because they were never truly integrated at the operational level.

For the broader SPAC market, the termination adds another data point to an already difficult environment. Blank check companies that target crypto related ventures have faced elevated scrutiny from the SEC, and the completion rate for crypto focused SPACs has declined steadily since 2024. The Yorkville termination does not set a legal precedent, but it reinforces the pattern of crypto SPAC deals that announce with fanfare and unwind quietly.

The economics of the SPAC structure also contributed to the deal’s fragility. Blank check companies carry a deadline for completing their acquisition or merger, typically 18 to 24 months from IPO. If the deal is not completed within that window, the SPAC must return capital to shareholders. This deadline pressure means SPAC targets are selected and structured under time constraints that do not always align with the pace at which crypto markets evolve. When the CRO Strategy venture was designed, the crypto treasury thesis was still generating investor enthusiasm. By the time the SPAC needed to close, the market had moved on.

https://x.com/cryptodotnews/status/2083856080128421933

The corporate crypto treasury model under stress The Trump Media termination arrives at a moment when the corporate crypto treasury thesis is being tested across the industry. The model, popularized by MicroStrategy’s multi-year Bitcoin accumulation campaign, rests on three assumptions. First, that the asset being accumulated will appreciate over time. Second, that public market investors will assign a premium to companies that hold the asset. Third, that the cost of capital used to acquire the asset (equity dilution, convertible debt, operating cash) will be lower than the asset’s long term return.

When those assumptions hold, the strategy works. MicroStrategy’s stock price outperformed Bitcoin itself during periods when all three conditions were met. But the model breaks when any of the three conditions fail. If the asset declines or stagnates, the balance sheet deteriorates. If investors stop assigning a premium, the stock trades at a discount to the value of its holdings. If the cost of capital rises, each new acquisition dilutes existing shareholders more than the asset appreciation can offset.

The Trump Media case exposed a fourth vulnerability specific to non-Bitcoin treasuries. CRO is not Bitcoin. It does not have the same market depth, the same institutional custody infrastructure, or the same regulatory clarity. A treasury strategy built around a mid-cap token tied to a single exchange ecosystem carries concentration risk that Bitcoin treasuries do not. When the issuing exchange itself begins de-emphasizing the token, the treasury holder’s position becomes structurally isolated.

The concentration risk extended beyond token price. CRO is the native token of the Cronos blockchain, which is operated by Crypto.com. Unlike Bitcoin, which has no single issuer or controlling entity, CRO’s value and utility are tied to the decisions of one company. If Crypto.com shifts its product strategy away from the Cronos chain, reduces staking incentives, or faces its own regulatory challenges, the token’s value proposition changes in ways that the treasury holder cannot influence. This dependency on a single counterparty’s strategic choices is a risk category that does not exist in Bitcoin treasury strategies, and it helps explain why the CRO Strategy venture was more fragile than its promoters acknowledged.

The question now is whether the Trump Media termination is an outlier or a leading indicator. At least a dozen other public companies have announced crypto treasury strategies since mid 2025. Most hold Bitcoin, which provides more liquidity and a deeper buyer base. But the smaller companies that adopted the model with limited operating revenue and concentrated token positions face the same pressures that led Trump Media to walk away: quarterly markdowns, shareholder skepticism, and the realization that holding tokens does not generate operating revenue on its own.

There is a structural irony in McGurn’s saturation argument. The treasury model was supposed to give companies a differentiated balance sheet strategy. When one or two companies hold crypto, it is a differentiator. When 30 companies adopt the same playbook, it becomes a crowd trade. The more firms that pile into the strategy, the less novel it becomes to investors and the more correlated the stock prices of those companies become to the underlying token price. At that point, an investor who wants crypto exposure can simply buy the token directly rather than paying a management overhead premium to hold it through a public company. The model works best when few firms use it and breaks down precisely when it succeeds in attracting imitators.

What to watch CRO price and volume over 30 days. The token traded at $0.0513 on termination day, down roughly 66 percent from the $0.153 purchase price in the original deal. A continued decline would indicate that the treasury venture was providing structural demand that no longer exists.

Quarterly earnings from other crypto treasury companies. If more firms report significant markdowns on token holdings, the pattern of terminations or strategy shifts could accelerate. Watch for language changes in earnings calls, particularly around “strategic review” or “rebalancing” of digital asset positions.

Crypto.com’s Cronos ecosystem activity. McGurn’s comment that staking CRO has become less central for Crypto.com raises questions about the exchange’s own commitment to the token. Watch for changes in staking rewards, validator counts, or DeFi activity on the Cronos chain.

SPAC completion rates for crypto focused deals. The Yorkville termination adds to a growing list of crypto SPACs that failed to complete their intended transactions. A further decline in completion rates would signal broader market skepticism about the SPAC-to-crypto pipeline.

Trump Media’s data licensing revenue in subsequent quarters. The pivot to API sales and LLM partnerships is the replacement thesis. If Truth Social API revenue scales meaningfully, it validates the decision to abandon the treasury model. If it does not, the company will need yet another strategic direction.

The TAE Technologies merger timeline. Trump Media’s pending merger with fusion energy company TAE Technologies represents the next strategic bet after crypto. The valuation assigned to that merger, the SEC review timeline, and shareholder reaction will determine whether the company can execute a pivot away from digital assets without losing its investor base.

Crypto treasury company stock price correlations. If companies that adopted the treasury model begin trading with higher correlation to each other and to bitcoin, it would validate McGurn’s saturation argument. A cluster of small cap treasury companies moving in lockstep suggests that investors treat them as interchangeable bitcoin proxies rather than differentiated businesses, which removes the strategic rationale for the model.

Frequently asked questions u003cstrongu003eWhat was the Trump Media CRO Strategy deal?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eTrump Media Group CRO Strategy was a planned joint venture between Trump Media and Technology Group, Crypto.com, and Yorkville Acquisition Corp. The venture would have created the first publicly traded company built around a treasury of CRO tokens, with Trump Media purchasing approximately $105 million in CRO and Crypto.com purchasing $50 million in Trump Media shares. Yorkville would have served as the SPAC vehicle to take the venture public.u003c/pu003e

u003cstrongu003eWhy did Trump Media terminate the deal?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eInterim CEO Kevin McGurn cited saturation in the corporate crypto treasury sector. He said the competitive landscape had shifted since the deal was announced in August 2025, and that Trump Media wanted to focus on Truth Social, data licensing, and a pending merger with fusion energy company TAE rather than operating crypto infrastructure.u003c/pu003e

u003cstrongu003eHow much did Trump Media lose on its crypto holdings?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eTrump Media reported a $406 million quarterly loss driven by markdowns on digital asset holdings. This was an accounting loss under fair value rules rather than a realized trading loss, but it demonstrated the balance sheet volatility that token treasury strategies create for public companies.u003c/pu003e

u003cstrongu003eWhat happens to CRO after the deal termination?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eCRO traded near $0.0513 on August 7, 2026, with a market capitalization of roughly $2.4 billion. The token was down approximately 66 percent from the $0.153 purchase price in the original deal. The termination removes a source of structural demand, but CRO remains the native token of the Cronos blockchain and continues to be used across the u003ca href=u0022https://crypto.news/kraken-xstocks-tokenized-equity-voting-rights/u0022 target=u0022_blanku0022u003eCrypto.com ecosystemu003c/au003e.u003c/pu003e

u003cstrongu003eWhat is Truth Predict and is it still operating?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eTruth Predict was a prediction market feature planned for Truth Social, powered by Crypto.com Derivatives North America. The full product integration was downgraded to a marketing arrangement. Crypto.com will promote its prediction products to Truth Social users, but Trump Media will not operate the infrastructure.u003c/pu003e

u003cstrongu003eHow does this compare to MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin treasury strategy?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eMicroStrategy (now Strategy) built its treasury around Bitcoin, which has deeper liquidity, broader institutional custody, and clearer regulatory treatment than CRO. MicroStrategy also made Bitcoin accumulation its primary corporate identity, attracting a shareholder base that accepted the volatility. Trump Media’s core business is a social media platform, making the treasury strategy a secondary bet that was harder to sustain when token prices declined.u003c/pu003e

u003cstrongu003eWhat is Yorkville Acquisition Corp and does it still exist?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eYorkville Acquisition Corp was a blank check (SPAC) company created to take the CRO Strategy venture public. The SPAC agreed to the mutual termination. However, Yorkville America’s America First ETFs, branded as Truth Social Funds, will continue operating as a separate product line.u003c/pu003e

u003cstrongu003eDoes the termination affect Trump Media’s stock price?u003c/strongu003e u003cpu003eTrump Media trades under the ticker MCGA. The stock was down 0.10 percent on August 7. The longer term impact will depend on whether investors view the termination as a positive (reduced crypto exposure risk) or a negative (loss of a growth catalyst). The company’s pivot to data licensing and the TAE merger will shape the next phase of its valuation narrative. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.u003c/pu003eu003cpu003eu003cemu003eDisclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets carry significant risk. Always conduct independent research before making investment decisions. Information is current as of August 8, 2026.u003c/emu003eu003c/pu003e

https://senate.arkansas.gov/senate-history-education/history-of-the-chamber/

The U.S. Senate has advanced the CLARITY Act, a significant cryptocurrency regulation bill, closer to a full vote, a move that could shape the future regulatory framework for digital assets. Majority Leader John Thune’s decision to set up a procedural vote points towards imminent consideration on the Senate floor, although the bill still requires sufficient support to overcome a potential filibuster. The legislation, which establishes federal guidelines for classifying digital assets as securities or commodities, comes after approval from the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees earlier this year.

Market participants appear to interpret this legislative progress as a potential catalyst for Bitcoin’s future price movement. The likelihood of Bitcoin reaching $200,000 by the end of 2026 has seen a slight uptick, with certain sub-markets reflecting increased optimism. The movement suggests that passing the CLARITY Act may provide regulatory clarity that could be supportive of higher Bitcoin valuations.

Advertisement

The active sub-markets for Bitcoin’s price reflect mixed sentiments, with some seeing a notable increase in odds for significant price milestones. As the Senate moves forward with this bill, market observers are closely watching for further developments that could influence these trends.

Key Takeaways Senate action on the CLARITY Act appears to suggest potential regulatory clarity for digital assets. Market pricing implies a slight increase in the likelihood of Bitcoin reaching $200,000 by the end of 2026. Sub-market activity indicates mixed but slightly optimistic sentiment regarding Bitcoin’s future price trajectory. What to Watch Watch for the outcome of the Senate vote on the CLARITY Act, as its passage could further influence Bitcoin’s price outlook. Key indicators will include whether the bill secures enough votes to overcome a filibuster and any subsequent market response. Additionally, developments in regulatory announcements or major institutional adoption could impact market sentiment further.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

What Price Will Bitcoin Hit Before 2027

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 2.1% — — View market → December 31 2.1% — — View market → December 31 2.9% — — View market → December 31 3.9% — — View market → December 31 4.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 8.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 21.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.9% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.4% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.1% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.4% — — View market → January 1 2027 4.2% — — View market → January 1 2027 5.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 59% — — View market → January 1 2027 8.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 1.8% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.2% — — View market → January 1 2027 36.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 13.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 7.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.6% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 1.8% — — View market → January 1 2027 1.2% — — View market → January 1 2027 0.9% — — View market → January 1 2027 11.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 23.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 34.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 52.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 72.5% — — View market → When Will Bitcoin Hit 150k

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31, 2026 3.6% — — View market →

US spot Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) pulled in roughly $1 billion of net inflows over the most recent week, following the Coldcard hack.

The figure marks the strongest weekly performance since April and the third-best result since October of the prior year, reports Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas.

“The Bitcoin ETFs just clocked their best week in flows (about $1b) since April and the 3rd best week since the good ole days were ruined by the Silent IPO last Oct. IBIT, FBTC and few others saw inflows every single day since the Coldcard hack, making it hard not to see causation in the correlation. Would be ironic, but somehow on brand, if the hack of BTC in cold storage (seemingly worst possible situation) marked the beginning of next run.”

Source: Eric Blachunas/X Balchunas also explained that Bitcoin witnessed a silent IPO (initial public offering) phase after BTC ETFs were launched as long-term holders took the opportunity to exit at scale.

“OGs who made it through 5-6 hella drawdowns and are now multi-millionaires in their 30s and 40s and need $ money for stuff. They’re cashing out a little à la VC investors. The ETF was Bitcoin’s IPO.”

Earlier this month, attackers exploited a long-standing firmware flaw in Coldcard hardware wallets made by Coinkite to drain approximately 1,816 Bitcoin worth $116 million from more than 5,200 addresses beginning July 30th. Blockchain analysis from Galaxy Research confirmed the scale of the theft across four waves of activity.

Generated Image: Midjourney

Table of contents

Institutional capital isn’t waiting for regulatory perfection. For five trading sessions in a row, U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds have absorbed fresh inflows, with Thursday’s total reaching $98.85 million, according to data from SoSoValue. The streak, the longest since mid-July, signals that professional allocators are quietly adding BTC exposure even as Washington debates the future of digital asset legislation.

Spot Ether ETFs didn’t miss the move. They pulled in $49.60 million on the same day, extending their own inflow run to four trading days. The parallel buying suggests the momentum is not isolated to Bitcoin but reflects a broader institutional tilt toward regulated crypto products. While the dollar amounts are modest compared to the blockbuster inflows seen earlier this year, the consistency carries weight at a moment when many have been questioning whether ETF demand had stalled.

A Quiet but Steady Institutional Pulse Daily ETF flow data has become a real-time sentiment gauge for institutional crypto positioning. After a choppy July marred by outflows and macroeconomic jitters, the consecutive inflows indicate that some large players are rebuilding positions. Traders often treat persistent ETF buying as a proxy for conviction, especially when it spans both BTC and ETH products in parallel.

The timing is notable. The Ethereum ecosystem, for instance, remains the most active blockchain by developer count, underpinning the narrative that ETH’s utility supports long-term demand. Meanwhile, networks like Sui are seeing their own institutional traction: an 18% price surge this year was driven in part by institutional staking and a major fintech partnership, as covered in a recent price analysis. These signals suggest that crypto’s institutional chapter is not limited to ETF vehicles alone, but flows into the spot funds remain the cleanest daily pulse check.

Regulatory Uncertainty Still Casts a Shadow Yet the inflows are not happening in a vacuum. Four days before a Senate vote, a landmark crypto bill is facing an eleventh-hour challenge from the banking industry, as noted in a detailed report on the legislation’s fate. The outcome could reshape how custodians, exchanges, and ETF issuers operate in the U.S. market. It’s exactly the kind of policy drama that has historically prompted institutional investors to pause. So far, ETF flows haven’t blinked.

That detachment could mean two things. Either institutional buyers are betting the bill will pass largely intact, or they are simply pricing in a regulatory trajectory that won’t derail the ETF wrapper itself. The latter seems more plausible given that spot Bitcoin ETFs already survived a prolonged SEC battle and have since become a fixture in many portfolios. Ether ETF approval, though more recent, cemented the product class.

What the Flows Signal, and What They Don’t The five-day streak is a positive data point, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Trading volumes in the spot ETFs have been somewhat subdued relative to the first quarter, and the inflows are still far from the billion-dollar days that defined the initial launch frenzy. It’s a steady accumulation phase, not a speculative surge.

The $98.85 million figure, while respectable, is also small enough to be driven by a handful of large allocators rather than broad retail participation. That makes the streak fragile. A single negative macro print or an unexpected regulatory setback could flip flows back to outflows within a day. Still, the pattern of inflows into both Bitcoin and Ether products suggests that institutional conviction is deeper than short-term price action might imply.

As August progresses, market watchers will be looking to see whether the streak can extend through a full week, a threshold that could shift framing from “tactical rebound” to “renewed accumulation.” The macro backdrop—interest rate expectations, dollar strength, and equity market sentiment—remains the wild card. But for now, the inflow data offers a quiet counter-narrative to the regulatory noise: money is still moving in.

AUTHOR

Brenda is a writer with three years of experience specializing in cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. She graduated from the University of Mombasa with a degree in Psychology. She has worked at Cryptopolitan and Blockchain Reporter.

Meanwhile, the spot Ethereum ETFs extended their consecutive weekly streak to five in a row.

After a shaky July in terms of ETF performance, the Bitcoin funds started August with a bang, attracting more than $800 million in the first full week of the month.

This coincided with the underlying asset’s price revival, as BTC jumped from a monthly low at $62,200 on Monday to over $65,000 on Friday.

Best Week Since Mid-April July began with big hopes as investors pulled out more than $2.4 billion out of the spot Bitcoin ETFs in May and another $4.5 billion in June. Although there were many good days throughout the seventh month of the year, it ultimately ended with a more modest net inflow of $172.43 million. Thus, it lost the July inflow war to Ethereum.

The funds attracted nearly that amount on August 3 alone, pulling in $170 million. Another $211.49 million followed on Tuesday, $244.42 million on Wednesday, $128.69 million on Thursday, and $98.85 million on Friday. Thus, the perfect all-green week was complete, and the end number stands at $853.54 million, which is actually more than all four previous weeks combined.

Moreover, it’s the best single-week performance since mid-April, when the funds were on a roll, gaining nearly $1 billion at one point. It’s also the third-best of the year, as the record still belongs to the week that ended on January 16, when the ETFs attracted $1.42 billion.

Bitcoin ETF Flows. Source: SoSoValue The past week has been quite positive for BTC’s price performance as well. Perhaps fueled by the ETF inflows, the asset rose from $62,200 on Monday to $65,400 on Friday after the weaker-than-expected US jobs data.

ETH ETFs Extend Streak Unlike the spot Bitcoin ETFs, the Ethereum counterparts didn’t have a full red week in July, ending the month with $365 million in net inflows. Their first in August has been quite impressive as well, attracting almost $245 million.

You may also like: Italy’s Biggest Bank Cuts IBIT Exposure by 94% While Buying More Staked Ethereum BTC vs ETH vs XRP: Which ETFs Attracted the Most Money on Monday? Crypto ETF Recap: Ethereum Still Outpaces Bitcoin, but Cracks Are Emerging The start of the week wasn’t as promising as investors pulled out $11.42 million. However, they changed their tune during the other four trading days, inserting $53.75 million on Tuesday, $60.86 million on Wednesday, $92.15 million on Thursday, and $49.60 million on Friday. Thus, the cumulative net inflows have increased from $11.21 billion last week to $11.46 billion.

Spot Ethereum ETF Flows. Source: SoSoValue ETH’s price has also climbed by around 3% weekly, currently trading well above $1,920 after it dipped toward $1,800 on Monday.

Tags:

11h05 ▪ 5 min read ▪ by Luc Jose A.

Summarize this article with:

Institutional capital continues to flow into cryptos despite volatility that keeps retail investors on the defensive. On Thursday, ETFs backed by bitcoin and Ether recorded more than $220 million in net flows, confirming the intact appetite of traditional finance for these assets. Once again, BlackRock concentrates the bulk of subscriptions and strengthens its role as the main driver of this momentum in the crypto ETF market.

In brief More than $220 million jointly injected into Bitcoin and Ether ETFs during Thursday’s session. A fourth consecutive day of net inflows (+$128.69 million), bringing the four-session total to $755 million. The IBIT fund crushes the competition on Bitcoin with +$128.33 million, while ETHA largely dominates Ether (+$81.14 million). Despite falling prices, the number of shares outstanding remains stable, reflecting a long-term accumulation strategy rather than immediate speculation. Bitcoin ETF : a fourth consecutive day of gains driven by BlackRock The Bitcoin ETFs recorded a net inflow of $128.69 million across six distinct vehicles, extending the current positive streak to four consecutive sessions for a total of $755 million. Once again, the capital allocation among the various funds shows a marked disparity :

BlackRock (IBIT) : a dominating presence with +$128.33 million captured alone ; Morgan Stanley (MSBT) : an additional inflow of +$14.94 million ; Fidelity (FBTC) : a positive flow of +$11.20 million ; Grayscale : an inflow of +$7.48 million on GBTC and +$6.83 million on the Bitcoin Mini Trust ; Bitwise (BITB) : a modest subscription of +$1.75 million ; VanEck (HODL) & Valkyrie (BRRR) : capital outflows of -$32.77 million for VanEck and -$9.07 million for Valkyrie. Despite these conflicting reallocations among managers, overall activity remained particularly strong in the spot derivatives secondary market. The total daily trading volume for all Bitcoin ETFs reached $1.36 billion on Thursday, while the combined net assets under management closed at $78.77 billion.

Thus, the massive concentration of volumes towards IBIT confirms BlackRock’s dominant position as the primary access channel for institutional investors. These figures reflect the persistence of a solid working capital demand among major players, maintaining a regular liquidity floor despite sometimes hesitant short-term price fluctuations.

The Ether surge and selective altcoin momentum On the side of the market’s second-largest asset, the trajectory was even more explicit with a total net subscription of $92.15 million spread across five funds, with no Ether ETF recording any capital outflow during the session. BlackRock’s ETHA product also dominated by collecting $81.14 million. The remaining amounts were subscribed through Grayscale’s Ether Mini Trust fund at $4.55 million, its historic ETHE fund for $3.07 million, BlackRock’s ETHB vehicle for $1.96 million, and Fidelity’s FETH for $1.42 million. With a traded volume of $435.46 million and net assets reaching $10.64 billion for Ether ETFs, this segment confirms a significant resurgence.

By contrast, the landscape was much more mixed regarding other cryptos. XRP-backed ETFs returned to positive territory thanks to an injection of $3.45 million, mostly driven by Bitwise’s fund at $2.89 million and Franklin Templeton’s (XRPZ) at about $562,000, bringing the sector’s net assets to $964.21 million.

The HYPE ETFs continued their recovery trajectory by attracting $2.84 million via Bitwise’s BHYP product, raising the daily volume to $5.10 million and net assets to $265.04 million. Conversely, Solana ETFs took an opposite course, with Fidelity’s FSOL fund registering a net outflow of $859,450, leaving total combined net assets at $857.24 million.

Lawrence Lepard’s insight on holder maturity Beyond daily cash flows, the ownership structure of these vehicles offers a fundamental reading grid on institutional investor attitudes toward price fluctuations. Commenting on the firmness of subscribers amid recent volatility, Austrian economist and investment manager Lawrence Lepard highlighted the remarkable stability of shares held: “although the value of Bitcoin ETFs has dropped significantly from its peak, the total number of shares outstanding has decreased by a much smaller proportion, indicating very limited net sales from holders”.

This observation reveals a marked divergence between spot market volatility and the long-term commitment of ETF holders. As asset management giants centralize most incoming flows, asset data indicate that a significant fraction of institutional investors view these vehicles as strategic allocation instruments rather than mere short-term speculation tools.

While this financial foundation provides valuable structural support to the ecosystem, it also raises questions about capital concentration in the hands of a limited number of financial conglomerates. Upcoming regulatory developments and evolving demand in altcoin-specific derivatives products will determine whether this selective appetite extends to the broader market or continues to primarily benefit the sector leaders.

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Luc Jose A.

Diplômé de Sciences Po Toulouse et titulaire d'une certification consultant blockchain délivrée par Alyra, j'ai rejoint l'aventure Cointribune en 2019. Convaincu du potentiel de la blockchain pour transformer de nombreux secteurs de l'économie, j'ai pris l'engagement de sensibiliser et d'informer le grand public sur cet écosystème en constante évolution. Mon objectif est de permettre à chacun de mieux comprendre la blockchain et de saisir les opportunités qu'elle offre. Je m'efforce chaque jour de fournir une analyse objective de l'actualité, de décrypter les tendances du marché, de relayer les dernières innovations technologiques et de mettre en perspective les enjeux économiques et sociétaux de cette révolution en marche.

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

Retail investors are exiting Bitcoin at their fastest pace since December as whales keep accumulating near current prices.

Bitcoin whales and sharks are continuing to increase their holdings as the cryptocurrency trades in the $63,000 to $65,000 range, according to the latest data from Santiment.

The accumulation trend has strengthened since its previous report earlier this week, which highlighted a surge in network activity driven by the impact of the Coldcard hardware wallet security incident.

Retail Dumps Holdings At the time, Santiment reported that active Bitcoin addresses had climbed to a three-month high of 712,000 over the previous seven days, while transactions worth more than $100,000 reached a five-month high of 61,800. The firm said affected users rushed to move their funds and reorganize their wallets after the security breach, which ended up triggering a sharp increase in on-chain activity.

In its latest update, Santiment flagged a notable shift. While large holders have continued adding BTC to their wallets, micro holders are reducing their exposure at the fastest pace since December 2024.  The Coldcard hack remains a major factor, as both the accumulation by whales and the selling by smaller investors began around the same period.

The uncertainty surrounding the CLARITY Act also contributed to the trend. Bitcoin’s ongoing period of sideways price action has discouraged retail participants, adding to the selling pressure from smaller wallets. It is this divergence between large and small holders that is becoming more pronounced, Santiment explained.

With key stakeholders steadily accumulating while retail investors continue to exit, the analytics platform said the odds of BTC climbing above $70,000 are increasing. This, in turn, makes that outcome more likely than a drop below the $60,000 level.

The Coldcard fallout was also evident in data from CoinMetrics, which recorded a temporary increase in BTC held on exchanges.

You may also like: Bitcoin Barely Budges as Weak US Jobs Data Cuts Fed Hike Odds to 44% Bitcoin Miners Are Selling Again: Here’s How Much BTC Was Reportedly Offloaded Arthur Hayes: AI Bubble Burst Could Trigger Bitcoin Rally ETFs Stay in Positive Territory On the institutional side, US-based spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded four straight days of inflows. On 6th August, these funds attracted nearly $129 million. BlackRock’s IBIT led the numbers with $123 million in inflows, followed by Fidelity’s ETF with $11.2 million. Outflows came from VanEck’s HODL, which shed $32.7 million, and Valkyrie’s BRRR, which lost $9.07 million on the day. The remaining funds either posted smaller additions or ended the session unchanged.

The latest stretch of gains has pushed the monthly figures to almost $755 million.

Tags:

A wave of sophisticated thefts has shaken the cryptocurrency community, exposing a critical flaw affecting the core security of widely used web and mobile wallets. Attackers leveraged a longstanding vulnerability in the CryptoJS JavaScript library to brute-force secret seed phrases, compromising user funds with alarming ease.

Flaw in CryptoJS exposes hundreds of walletsThe vulnerability, identified as “Ill Bloom,” has been linked to the theft of assets from over 2,100 wallet addresses on major blockchain networks including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, Rootstock, and Polygon. Losses attributed to this exploit have now surpassed $5.7 million.

Normally, a standard 12-word seed phrase is designed to be virtually unbreakable, requiring computational timescales beyond the age of the universe to crack. However, CryptoJS library versions 3.x, specifically those starting with 3.1.2 except for 3.2.0 and 3.2.1, had a critical defect in their random number generation functions.

This bug caused the affected versions to produce only weak pseudo-randomness, drastically reducing the number of possible seed phrase combinations and making brute-force attacks feasible even on ordinary home computers.

Compounding the problem, CryptoJS was quietly embedded within hundreds of software packages. Wallet developers widely integrated it without awareness, inadvertently exposing users across many applications.

More than 2,100 wallet addresses across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, Rootstock, and Polygon have fallen victim to Ill Bloom, with total losses above $5.7 million.

The first large-scale incident linked to Ill Bloom occurred on May 27, 2026, when attackers compromised 431 wallets in one day, siphoning off $3.14 million. Bitcoin investors suffered the greatest impact, losing $2.57 million. Ethereum, Rootstock, Tron, and Polygon users also faced significant losses, with values ranging from $23,000 to $286,000 across these networks.

Impacted wallets and user safeguardsBy August, applications confirmed as affected included RWallet (also known as RRWallet), Bexo Wallet, NanChat, Bitcoin Libre, and Milo Wallet. Some projects, notably Milo and RWallet, have ceased operations, leaving users with no dedicated support channels.

Developers of Bitcoin Libre responded by patching the bug in earlier releases. NanChat has issued a new security fix for its users, while an update for Bexo Wallet was still under review in app stores at the time of reporting.

Security researchers warn that updating wallet applications alone is not enough to safeguard user assets. Seed phrases created on versions affected by Ill Bloom remain fundamentally vulnerable, as their entropy was compromised from the start.

Specialists recommend that users review all public addresses potentially exposed, and if risk is detected, immediately transfer funds to freshly generated wallets. They urge the community to avoid storing substantial sums in browsers or mobile wallets whose keys were created with unsafe libraries.

For investors aiming to minimize risks and closely monitor their digital assets, leveraging advanced portfolio tools is vital. CryptoAppsy, for example, eliminates account setup complexity and brings together investments, real-time pricing, and multi-currency management on a single platform. By using features such as smart price alerts, coin-specific news filtering, instant tracking of new altcoins, and macroeconomic data like Fed interest rates, users can remain vigilant and ready to react to changes in market conditions.

Experts emphasize that if a wallet’s seed phrase originated from the defective CryptoJS versions, only migrating to a new wallet that generates fresh keys can restore full security.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

Bhutan Breaks a 30-Day Silence With Fresh Bitcoin TransferThe Royal Government of Bhutan has returned to the market, transferring 434.87 $BTC worth approximately $27.93 million to exchange-linked addresses, according to on-chain data flagged by Lookonchain. The move ends a 30-day period of inactivity from the kingdom's tracked wallets and signals that Bhutan's steady monetization of its sovereign Bitcoin reserves remains ongoing.

The transfer fits a well-established pattern. Transfers to trading firms appear to reflect a planned treasury drawdown and liquidity management strategy rather than panic selling, with every sale effectively pure profit given Bhutan's near-zero mining costs. Bhutan has typically broken sales into smaller batches rather than executing large single transactions.

A Sovereign Reserve in Steady DeclineThe state-owned investment arm Druk Holding and Investments (DHI) accumulated Bitcoin through mining operations powered by the country's abundant hydroelectric resources, but holdings have fallen sharply from a peak of roughly 13,000 BTC. At its peak in late 2024, the country's holdings were estimated at nearly 13,000 BTC. Since then, more than 70% of that balance has been moved out through repeated transfers.

Bhutan has sold more than $200 million worth of Bitcoin since the start of 2026. Bhutan's realized profit from Bitcoin is estimated at more than $750 million, and because the coins were mined using domestic hydropower, the cost basis may be far lower than open-market purchases.

The April 2024 block reward halving doubled the cost of producing each coin, and Bhutan's mining output experienced a significant drop compared to 2023, a period when the country mined an estimated 8,200 BTC. It has now been over a year since Bhutan registered a mining inflow exceeding $100,000 to its identified addresses. Without fresh production replacing sold coins, the reserve continues to shrink with each transfer.

The government previously pledged up to 10,000 BTC for its Gelephu Mindfulness City project, but current reserve levels have dropped to a point where achieving that target appears increasingly difficult. At the current pace, analysts estimate that Bhutan's remaining Bitcoin could be exhausted by around October 2026, assuming the government continues selling at recent rates and does not restart major mining operations.

Sources:
CoinDesk: Bhutan moves another 500 Bitcoin to exchanges as 2026 outflows top $150 million
CoinPaper: When Will the Royal Government of Bhutan Stop Selling Bitcoin?
Cryptopolitan: Bhutan sells another 100 BTC as sovereign reserve heads toward zero

President Donald Trump offered a take on Bitcoin and the dollar that would have sounded like science fiction four years ago: the two aren’t in competition. During a White House press conference on June 27, 2025, Trump said that the rising acceptance of Bitcoin for transactions “takes a lot of pressure off the dollar” and positively impacts the US economy.

What Trump actually said Trump’s comments came during a press conference tied to a Supreme Court announcement. He argued that broader cryptocurrency adoption can create jobs and contribute to economic resilience during downturns. He also framed US leadership in crypto as a competitive necessity, warning that allowing China to gain dominance in digital assets would be a strategic mistake.

Trump made a similar statement in November 2025 at the America Business Forum in Miami, where he reiterated his warning against letting foreign competitors lead in digital asset innovation.

Advertisement

The policy backdrop In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, utilizing forfeited Bitcoin already held by the Treasury Department.

Beyond the reserve, the administration has been pushing broader digital-asset legislation, including stablecoin frameworks and bills like the GENIUS Act. The goal, as Trump has repeatedly framed it, is to establish the US as a “crypto superpower.”

The dollar argument, unpacked Trump’s claim that Bitcoin relieves pressure on the dollar inverts the narrative that has dominated crypto discourse for over a decade. The traditional Bitcoin pitch positions it as a hedge against dollar debasement: if the Fed prints too much money, Bitcoin’s fixed supply makes it a lifeboat. Trump is arguing something subtly different — that if global transactions increasingly settle in Bitcoin, the dollar faces less inflationary pressure from its role as the world’s reserve currency.

This echoes a concept economists have debated for decades, sometimes called the Triffin dilemma. Because the dollar serves as the global reserve currency, the US must run persistent trade deficits to supply enough dollars to the world. If Bitcoin absorbs some of that transactional demand, the argument goes, the dollar gets breathing room.

What this means for markets The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve creates a structural floor of demand. The government isn’t just talking about Bitcoin — it’s holding it, intentionally, as a reserve asset. By casting crypto leadership as a race against China, Trump has also given bipartisan cover to legislators who might otherwise be skittish about supporting digital-asset bills.

The executive order establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve creates institutional inertia that’s harder to unwind than a press conference quote. Once Bitcoin sits formally on the government’s balance sheet, removing it becomes a political act that requires its own justification.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Aug 7, 2026, 4:50 a.m.

2 min read

Bitcoin wallet dormant since 2011 moves $3.2 million toward FalconX-linked address(Shutterstock)Summary

A long-dormant bitcoin wallet that received 49.97 BTC in 2011, when the cryptocurrency traded around $10, moved nearly 50 BTC worth about $3.2 million on Thursday.The coins were sent to a SegWit address that has previously funneled bitcoin to institutional brokerage FalconX and received funds from Nexo and Prime Trust–linked wallets, though the newly moved BTC has not yet left that address.The transfer comes amid heightened security concerns following a major exploit of Coldcard hardware wallets, which has led long-term holders to reexamine old storage setups, but there is no evidence connecting this 2011 wallet to the flaw.A bitcoin wallet that had been dormant since 2011 moved nearly 50 BTC worth about $3.2 million on Thursday, shifting the coins to an address with a history of sending bitcoin to institutional crypto brokerage FalconX.

The wallet received the coins on July 16, 2011, when bitcoin traded around $10, and had not spent them since, according to Galaxy Research. The 49.97 BTC position is now worth roughly $3.2 million after surviving more than a decade of bitcoin booms, crashes and exchange failures.

The transaction, included in block 961331 at 20:14 UTC on Aug. 6, combined four inputs from the dormant address totaling 49.97 BTC with two smaller inputs from other addresses. Exactly 50 BTC was sent to a SegWit address, while a second output received about 0.00116 BTC after fees.

SegWit is a newer Bitcoin address format that makes transactions more space-efficient and generally cheaper to send. Addresses beginning with bc1 use it.

The destination is not a fresh wallet, however. Arkham data show the address has been active for several years and previously sent 6.336 BTC and 16.131 BTC to addresses the analytics platform labels as FalconX deposits.

It has also received funds from wallets Arkham labels as a Nexo hot wallet and Prime Trust custody.

The newly arrived 50 BTC remained in the address as of Friday morning. That means there is no on-chain evidence that the dormant coins themselves have been sent to FalconX, another exchange or sold.

A 2011 wallet's coins landed in an address that has sold through a prime broker before. (Shaurya Malwa/CoinDesk)Dormant wallets from bitcoin's earliest years tend to draw attention when they move because their owners accumulated coins when the asset was worth a fraction of today's price.

While movement alone gives little indication of what the holder plans to do next, and transfers can reflect anything from wallet upgrades and custody changes to preparations for a sale.

The movements come on the back of one of the worst cold-wallet exploits to hit Bitcoin in years, a reminder that coins can sit safely for more than a decade and still become vulnerable when the software protecting their keys fails.

Coinkite, maker of the Coldcard hardware wallet, urged users on Tuesday to move funds after disclosing a flaw in firmware dating to 2021 that could expose keys generated by affected devices. Attackers have swept as much as $114 million from vulnerable wallets since July 30, according to the company, in four waves of thefts.

There is no evidence linking the 2011 wallet to the Coldcard issue, and the address predates the device by years. But the disclosure has sent long-term holders back to check old storage setups, adding another reason for dormant bitcoin to suddenly move on-chain.

12345678910

The Evolution of the Crypto CEX Landscape: A Case Study on Binance

The Evolution of the Crypto CEX Landscape: A Case Study on Binance

Binance remains crypto’s leading exchange, expanding from spot and derivatives into RWAs, payments, savings, yield, and broader financial services.

Jun 29, 2026

Binance remains crypto’s leading exchange, expanding from spot and derivatives into RWAs, payments, savings, yield, and broader financial services.

Why it matters:

Binance remains crypto’s leading exchange, expanding from spot and derivatives into RWAs, payments, savings, yield, and broader financial services.

https://www.lonelyplanet.com/usa/washington-dc/white-house-area-foggy-bottom/attractions/white-house/a/poi-sig/385365/1329648

The White House has announced plans to eliminate what it deems unnecessary regulations for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, according to a social media report. This move follows a May 2026 executive order that instructed federal agencies to review and potentially revise rules deemed as obstacles to digital asset activities. The administration’s approach reflects a broader policy shift towards integrating cryptocurrencies into the federal financial framework, as evidenced by the establishment of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile. This regulatory shift comes amid ongoing legislative efforts by Congress to clarify crypto market structures and stablecoin regulations.

Advertisement

Key Takeaways The White House’s initiative appears to align with efforts to foster a more supportive environment for digital assets in the U.S. Market pricing suggests that the regulatory announcement could potentially boost optimism regarding Bitcoin’s price trajectory. The current market odds for Bitcoin reaching $200,000 by the end of 2026 remain low, but the policy shift could influence future probabilities. What to Watch Observers should monitor how quickly federal agencies respond to the White House’s directive to identify and remove regulations. Developments in Congress concerning crypto market structure and stablecoin rules could also impact market sentiment. Market participants will be attentive to any major institutional adoption announcements or regulatory adjustments that could affect Bitcoin’s price projections.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 2.2% — — View market → December 31 2.1% — — View market → December 31 2.5% — — View market → December 31 3.5% — — View market → December 31 4.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 7.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 22.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 4.1% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.2% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.1% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.4% — — View market → January 1 2027 4.2% — — View market → January 1 2027 5.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 54.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 9.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 1.7% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.2% — — View market → January 1 2027 34.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 15.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 7.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.6% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 1.8% — — View market → January 1 2027 1.2% — — View market → January 1 2027 0.9% — — View market → January 1 2027 11.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 22.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 33.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 51.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 71.5% — — View market →