Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Bitcoin was sold as digital gold, an uncorrelated hedge that would hold up when markets broke. In 2026 it fell roughly 50% alongside the Nasdaq while gold hit record highs. So what is Bitcoin now, and did the hedge thesis ever survive contact with Wall Street?

Summary

Bitcoin has spent 2026 moving with the Nasdaq rather than against it, with rolling correlations to U.S. tech indices reaching as high as 0.80 early in the year while its link to gold fell toward zero. The change traces to the spot ETF era: once institutions could hold Bitcoin inside the same portfolios as tech stocks, the same capital flows began driving both, tying Bitcoin to equity risk appetite. Analysts describe the current setup as the worst of both worlds, with Bitcoin taking the downside when stocks fall but not the full upside when they rally, behaving as a high-beta tail of macro risk instead of a standalone store of value. The counter-case is that Bitcoin is not a clean tech proxy either, since it fell on crypto-specific shocks even when tech rose, and that long-term holders kept accumulating, pointing toward an independent asset class instead of a tech clone. Whether the correlation is structural or a feature of the current tight-liquidity regime is the open question, and it decides whether the digital gold thesis is dead or merely dormant. Bitcoin was supposed to be the asset that zigged when everything else zagged. For years it was sold as digital gold, an uncorrelated hedge that would protect a portfolio when stocks fell and uncertainty rose. In 2026, it has done close to the opposite. Bitcoin is down roughly 50% from its October 2025 record near $126,200, and it fell in near lockstep with technology stocks while gold climbed to record highs above $5,000 an ounce.

The asset marketed as a crisis hedge behaved like a leveraged bet on the same risk appetite that drives the Nasdaq. This piece works through the evidence that Bitcoin now trades like a tech stock, why that happened, and the serious counter-argument that the story is more complicated than a simple correlation chart suggests. The answer matters because it changes how investors should size Bitcoin, how they should compare it with gold, and whether the ETF era strengthened the asset or quietly rewired it into the same macro trade it was supposed to diversify away from.

The evidence: Bitcoin moves with the Nasdaq now The correlation data is the starting point, and it is stark. Rolling 30-day correlations between Bitcoin and the Nasdaq 100 reached about 0.80 early in 2026, the highest level in close to four years, and Bitcoin’s longer-run five-year correlation with the tech-heavy index sits near 0.54. Standard Chartered analysts have pegged the Bitcoin-Nasdaq correlation around 0.5 with peaks near 0.8, while short-term readings against U.S. tech indices have ranged between roughly 0.55 and 0.68 through the year. However you measure it, Bitcoin and the Nasdaq have been moving together.

The relationship with gold has gone the other way. As Bitcoin’s tie to tech strengthened, its correlation with gold fell toward zero, at points reaching just 0.2. And the price paths made the divergence impossible to ignore. While Bitcoin dropped through 2026, gold surged to record highs above $5,000 and briefly toward $5,600 an ounce, outperforming Bitcoin by a wide margin over the same stretch.

The clearest test came under real stress. When conflict in the Middle East pushed oil higher and rattled markets, gold did what a safe haven does and climbed, while Bitcoin fell alongside risk assets. A hedge is supposed to prove itself precisely in those moments, and Bitcoin did not. The pattern that defined 2026 is simple to state: when the tech trade got hit, Bitcoin got hit, and when investors fled to safety, they chose gold.

Why the digital gold thesis mattered To understand what has been lost, it helps to recall what the digital gold pitch actually claimed. Bitcoin’s founding appeal to institutions was not only its potential for gains but its supposed independence from everything else. It had a fixed supply capped at 21 million coins, no central issuer, and no cash flows tied to the economy, which in theory made it a store of value that would not move with stocks, bonds, or the business cycle. In its early years, Bitcoin was not just uncorrelated with equities; it was uncorrelated with nearly every major asset class, which made it look like the ultimate portfolio diversifier.

That property was the entire institutional case. A diversifier that zigs when the rest of a portfolio zags reduces overall risk, and that is worth paying for. Wall Street bought into the idea that Bitcoin could serve as a hedge against monetary debasement, market volatility, and economic uncertainty, a role gold has played for centuries. The digital gold narrative underpinned much of the adoption story, from corporate treasuries to the campaign for spot ETFs, because it promised something distinct from a simple speculative growth bet.

The trouble is that an asset’s identity depends not only on its design but on who owns it and how it is traded. Bitcoin’s code did not change in 2026. What changed is the profile of the people holding it and the machinery through which they buy and sell. That shift, more than anything about the protocol, is what turned the hedge into a high-beta risk asset.

What changed: the ETF made Bitcoin a portfolio asset The pivotal event was the arrival of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024, and the irony is sharp. The ETFs were celebrated as the moment Bitcoin was legitimized, folded into the regulated financial system at last. That same integration is what tied it to the equity market. Research published in late 2025 found robust evidence that ETF approval structurally altered Bitcoin’s role, marking a shift from an independent, idiosyncratic asset toward a conventional risk asset whose correlation with the S&P 500 rose sharply after the launch.

The mechanism is straightforward once you follow the money. Before ETFs, much of Bitcoin sat with crypto-native holders who traded it on its own logic. After ETFs, large institutions could hold Bitcoin exposure inside the same portfolios as their technology stocks, managed by the same risk desks using the same tools. When those desks adjust risk, they buy or sell Bitcoin and tech at the same time, for the same reasons, which welds the two together.

The marginal dollar in Bitcoin became, increasingly, the same dollar chasing artificial intelligence and growth equities, so when that dollar turned cautious, it sold both at once. This is the deeper story behind capital rotating into AI stocks that has drained crypto momentum all year. It is not only that money left Bitcoin for semiconductors; it is that the money still in Bitcoin now behaves like the money in tech, responding to the same Federal Reserve signals, the same liquidity conditions, and the same growth expectations. Bitcoin did not choose to become a tech stock. Its new owners made it one.

The worst of both worlds: downside without the upside If Bitcoin simply tracked the Nasdaq one for one, that would be a clean story. The reality analysts have flagged is worse for holders. Trading firm Wintermute has argued that while Bitcoin’s directional correlation with the Nasdaq stayed high, the quality of that correlation deteriorated into what it called a bearish skew. In plain terms, Bitcoin has kept the downside beta, falling hard when equities fall, while losing much of the upside participation, failing to rally proportionally when equities recover.

Wintermute’s Jasper De Maere tied this to a shift in investor attention. As mindshare and risk-on capital crowded into mega-cap tech, Bitcoin remained correlated when global sentiment turned negative but stopped benefiting fully when optimism returned. He described Bitcoin as reacting like a high-beta tail of macro risk rather than a standalone narrative, keeping the downside beta while shedding the upside premium. The Kobeissi Letter put the same idea more bluntly, noting that Bitcoin was increasingly behaving like a leveraged technology stock.

That combination, all of the downside and only part of the upside, is the least attractive profile an asset can have. It means Bitcoin has been amplifying the pain of equity selloffs without delivering the diversification that justified holding it, and without matching the gains of the tech names it now mirrors. For a portfolio manager, an asset that adds volatility without adding either diversification or reliable upside is hard to defend, which is part of why some funds have re-labeled Bitcoin from a long-term hedge to a tactical growth position sized like any other speculative bet.

The counter-case: Bitcoin is decoupling, just not how bulls hoped Here the story turns, because the simple tech-proxy narrative has a serious flaw. If Bitcoin were purely a leveraged Nasdaq, it would have risen when tech rose. Instead, for stretches since the October 2025 peak, Bitcoin fell while the Nasdaq strengthened, a divergence that some analysts said had rarely been so wide. Tech stocks climbed on strong earnings while Bitcoin dropped more than 30% from its high, driven by forces that had nothing to do with corporate profits.

Those forces were crypto-specific. The October 10 flash crash triggered a cascade of leveraged liquidations that hit Bitcoin while barely touching equities. Spot ETF outflows accelerated, pulling out the marginal buyer. The reflexive feedback loop around Bitcoin treasury companies like Strategy, most visibly Strategy, threatened to reverse from a buyer of last resort into a source of supply. And post-halving mining economics added their own pressure through miner selling pressure. None of that is in a Nasdaq chart.

So the honest reading is that Bitcoin is not a clean tech proxy: it takes the downside when tech falls, but it also falls on its own crypto-native shocks when tech rises. That is a worse outcome than pure correlation, but it also means Bitcoin is not simply a technology stock in disguise. The distinction matters for anyone trying to model the asset. A pure tech proxy would at least be predictable, rising and falling with the Nasdaq. What Bitcoin actually did in 2026 was absorb equity-market downside through the ETF-era ownership channel while simultaneously generating its own downside through leverage unwinds, ETF redemptions, treasury-company stress, and miner selling. It behaved less like gold, less like a clean tech stock, and more like a uniquely fragile hybrid during a bad year.

The maturation argument: a third asset class There is a more optimistic frame that some analysts and long-term holders favor, which is that Bitcoin is becoming its own asset class instead of a copy of gold or tech. On this view, the correlation to equities is a phase driven by who happens to hold the marginal coin today, not a permanent identity. Bitcoin still has properties neither gold nor a tech stock shares: a hard-capped supply that cannot be expanded by decision, no cash flows or earnings to miss, and no management team or governance structure that can fail. Those features do not disappear because a correlation chart spikes.

The behavior of long-term holders supports the maturation read. During the same 2026 window when the ETF complex bled, the supply held by long-term holders moved in the opposite direction, with those flows running far larger in magnitude than ETF flows and skewing toward net accumulation. In other words, the traders treating Bitcoin as a high-beta risk asset were selling through ETFs, while conviction holders who treat it as a long-term store of value were buying. Two different populations, two different theses, playing out in the same asset at the same time.

Which group defines Bitcoin’s identity depends on which one is setting the marginal price, and that can change. Standard Chartered, for its part, has kept multiyear price targets well above current levels even while acknowledging the rotation into AI, framing the moment as a question of timing and competition for capital rather than a verdict on what Bitcoin fundamentally is. The maturation argument does not deny that Bitcoin trades like a risk asset right now. It argues that the current correlation is a snapshot of a particular ownership mix and liquidity regime, not the final word on an asset that is still only in its second decade.

Is this structural or cyclical? The whole debate reduces to one question: is Bitcoin’s correlation with tech a permanent feature of the ETF era, or a temporary product of the current environment? The case for structural is that the ownership change is not reversing. ETFs are here to stay, institutions will keep managing Bitcoin alongside equities, and as long as they do, the flows that link the two assets will persist. If that is right, the digital gold thesis is effectively dead for as long as this ownership base dominates, and Bitcoin is a growth allocation that happens to be more volatile than most.

The case for cyclical rests on how correlations behave over time. Cross-asset correlations tend to spike during tight-liquidity, risk-off regimes and to loosen when liquidity returns and assets trade more on their own fundamentals. Bitcoin’s correlation with the Nasdaq has swung dramatically before, from deeply negative to strongly positive within weeks, which is not the signature of a fixed relationship. A shift in Federal Reserve policy, a change in the liquidity backdrop, or a rotation of capital away from the crowded AI trade could all loosen the tie and give Bitcoin room to trade on its own narrative again.

Some analysts even argue the correlation has already begun to break, though so far in the unhelpful direction of falling while tech rose. What would restore the digital gold thesis is a period where Bitcoin holds up while equities fall, proving the hedge in the only way that counts. That has not happened in 2026, which is why the thesis is on the ropes. But a single bad year in which a leverage-driven crypto drawdown collided with an AI-fueled equity rally is not a controlled experiment, and reading a permanent identity change off it may be as premature as the original digital gold claim was.

What it means for how to hold Bitcoin For anyone actually holding Bitcoin, the practical takeaway is to match the thesis to the timeframe. Over the horizon that matters in 2026, Bitcoin has behaved as a high-beta risk asset, so treating it as a crisis hedge or a portfolio insulator has not worked and is not supported by the data. An allocation sized as if Bitcoin will hold up when stocks crash is mis-sized, because this year it fell harder than the stocks it was meant to hedge. The more defensible approach in the current regime is to treat Bitcoin as a volatile growth position, size it to risk tolerance, and watch the Nasdaq and AI-stock sentiment as closely as the crypto charts, because that is where much of the near-term direction is being set.

Over a longer horizon, the store-of-value case does not depend on short-term correlation. The fixed supply, the absence of governance and cash-flow risk, and the accumulation behavior of long-term holders are the pillars of that argument, and they survive a year of trading like a tech stock. The honest conclusion is that Bitcoin is currently being priced as a leveraged expression of risk appetite, not as digital gold, and that this reflects who owns it in the ETF era more than any change in what it is. Whether it grows into the independent, hedge-like asset its supporters imagine, or stays a high-beta satellite of the tech trade, will be settled by the next regime, not this one.

For now, the market has given its answer, and it is not gold. The strongest near-term read is not ideological; it is practical. In a world of a hawkish Fed and tight liquidity, Bitcoin behaves like a risk asset, and risk-off market sentiment matters as much as on-chain conviction. The digital gold thesis is not dead by definition, but in 2026 it has not been the trade.

Frequently asked questions Is Bitcoin still considered digital gold? Less and less in practice. Through 2026, Bitcoin behaved like a high-beta risk asset instead of a safe haven, falling alongside technology stocks while gold climbed to record highs. Its correlation with the Nasdaq reached as high as 0.80 while its link to gold fell toward zero. The digital gold label describes Bitcoin’s design and long-term thesis, but its 2026 trading behavior did not match it.

Why does Bitcoin move with tech stocks now? The main driver is the spot ETF era that began in January 2024. Once institutions could hold Bitcoin inside the same portfolios as technology stocks, managed by the same risk desks, the same capital flows started moving both. When those desks adjust risk exposure, they buy or sell Bitcoin and tech together, which ties Bitcoin to equity market sentiment and Federal Reserve policy the same way growth stocks are.

How correlated is Bitcoin with the Nasdaq? Correlation varies with the time window, but it has been high in 2026. Rolling 30-day correlations with the Nasdaq 100 reached about 0.80 early in the year, the highest in nearly four years, and the five-year correlation sits near 0.54. Short-term readings against U.S. tech indices have ranged roughly between 0.55 and 0.68. Correlations shift over time and have swung from negative to strongly positive within weeks.

Did the Bitcoin ETFs cause this? They appear to be the central cause. Research from late 2025 found that spot ETF approval structurally raised Bitcoin’s correlation with the S&P 500, marking a shift from an independent asset to a conventional risk asset. The ETFs legitimized Bitcoin by integrating it into traditional finance, and that same integration tied its price to equity flows and institutional risk management.

What is the bearish skew analysts mention? It refers to Bitcoin keeping the downside of its tech correlation while losing much of the upside. Trading firm Wintermute described Bitcoin as falling hard when equities fall but failing to rally proportionally when they recover, behaving as a high-beta tail of macro risk. That combination, full downside and partial upside, is a poor profile because it adds volatility without reliable gains or diversification.

Is Bitcoin just a leveraged tech stock then? Not cleanly. If Bitcoin were purely a leveraged Nasdaq, it would have risen when tech rose, but for stretches in 2026 it fell while tech strengthened, driven by crypto-specific shocks: the October flash crash, ETF outflows, treasury-company stress, and miner selling. So Bitcoin took equity downside while also generating its own downside, which is a fragile hybrid instead of a simple tech proxy.

Could Bitcoin become a hedge again? It is possible, and it hinges on whether the correlation is structural or cyclical. Cross-asset correlations tend to spike in tight-liquidity, risk-off regimes and loosen when liquidity returns. A shift in Federal Reserve policy or a rotation away from the crowded AI trade could let Bitcoin trade on its own narrative again. Restoring the hedge thesis would require Bitcoin to hold up while equities fall, which has not happened in 2026.

How should investors treat Bitcoin given this? Match the thesis to the timeframe. In the current regime, Bitcoin trades as a volatile growth asset, so sizing it as a crisis hedge is not supported by the data, and investors may watch the Nasdaq and AI sentiment as closely as crypto charts. Over a longer horizon, the store-of-value case rests on fixed supply, no governance risk, and long-term holder accumulation, which do not depend on short-term correlation.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile, and correlations between assets change over time and may not persist. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Always do your own research and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before making investment decisions. Information is accurate as of July 2, 2026, and may change.

Jul 2, 2026, 2:49 p.m.

1 min read

Summary

OFAC sanctioned 134 crypto addresses linked to ISIS-K (131 Tron, 3 Monero) on Wednesday, and Tether subsequently froze the funds in all 131 Tron wallets.ISIS-K used its media wing to solicit donations via Tron, Monero, and Bitcoin, highlighting stablecoin issuers' growing role in sanctions, Chainalysis said.The Treasury also sanctioned a Brazil-linked network tied to the criminal gang PCC, which laundered over $30 million in illicit funds using crypto.The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added 134 crypto wallet addresses to its ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) sanctions entry on Wednesday, including 131 Tron addresses and 3 Monero addresses.

The TRON wallets received more than $1.4 million since 2023 and sent more than $880,000, according to Chainalysis. Tether froze balances on all 131 Tron addresses.

ISIS-K, the Islamic State affiliate active across Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Central Asia, has used its media arm al-Azaim Media Foundation to solicit crypto donations through websites and messaging platforms, Chainalysis said.

Chainalysis said it identified historical donation addresses tied to the group on the Tron, Monero and Bitcoin networks.

The freeze reinforces the role of centralized stablecoin issuers in sanctions enforcement. Tether froze more than $182 million in USDT across five Tron wallets in January under its sanctions compliance policy.

OFAC also sanctioned a Brazil-linked network tied to Primeiro Comando da Capital, or PCC, which Treasury described as Latin America's largest criminal gang.

The network laundered more than $30 million in U.S.-generated illicit proceeds and used crypto to move funds back to Brazil, according to the Treasury.

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk's full AI Policy.

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.

In this patch of your weekly Dispatch:Will BTC buyers return?Support in the chartsThe week’s key numbersMarket cast

BTC: Another test of support Bitcoin's weekly chart is showing genuine technical strain. Price has broken below the 200-period SMA — a key long-term trend indicator, and is now hovering near the lower Bollinger Band, a volatility indicator, signaling the move lower has stretched further than usual. The RSI, a momentum oscillator, is approaching the 30 threshold, while the Stochastic, another momentum oscillator, is already in oversold territory – both flagging that selling pressure is becoming extended. The MACD histogram, a trend and momentum indicator, sits just below the zero line, keeping the broader trend tilted bearish for now.

The daily chart echoes that tone. Price is trading below most key moving averages and sitting close to the lower Bollinger Band, with the RSI and Stochastic oscillators both edging toward oversold readings. The one steadier note is the MACD histogram, which is holding just above the zero line — a small sign that near-term momentum hasn't fully broken down even as the broader structure stays cautious.

Key levels to watch: On the downside, immediate support sits around $59,000, with the next significant level near $55,000. To the upside, the first resistance comes in around $61,000, followed by $64,000.

The big idea

The new MiCA eraOn July 1, 2024, MiCA came into force across the European Economic Area. It established a regulatory perimeter for digital asset custody, capital adequacy, and consumer protection. Within 24 hours, the market absorbed what this meant: the EEA would optimize for institutional accountability and consumer protection in digital asset services. Capital routes accordingly.

But MiCA is not unique in making this choice. Every major regulatory framework makes one. Basel prices bank capital adequacy. GDPR prices personal data protection. MiCA prices consumer protection and institutional accountability in custody. Singapore's MAS prices institutional sophistication and wealth management integration. Dubai's VARA prices operational speed and market sovereignty. Hong Kong's SFC prices settlement infrastructure and cross-border integration. Each framework is a different answer to the question: what should this market optimize for? The distinction matters because it determines which capital stays and which leaves. 

The priorities

Consider what each framework requires platforms to absorb: MiCA mandates qualified custody, segregated client assets, minimum capital reserves, and enforceable grievance procedures. These are non-negotiable and costly. A platform in the EEA cannot operate without them. The cost is built into the business model. In exchange, the framework guarantees that institutional capital – pension funds, family offices, wealth managers—can be allocated to authorized platforms with the same due diligence they apply in traditional finance. Retail clients have enforceable rights. The regulator is accessible.

This pricing structure attracts specific capital: generational wealth transfers, institutional allocations, and long-term holders who value custody certainty. 

What frameworks price

The capital split post-July 1 is not a flaw in MiCA. EEA retail and institutional capital that prioritizes custody certainty, regulatory accessibility, and enforceable rights concentrates under authorized MiCA platforms. This is not capital disappearing from crypto. It is capital being sorted by market design.

In traditional finance, this happened post-2008. Prime brokerage consolidated among a smaller number of highly-regulated, well-capitalized players. Higher-risk strategies, proprietary trading, and marginal capital routed to shadow banking and offshore structures. Systemic risk did not disappear—it relocated. The system became two-tiered: a regulated core and an unregulated periphery, each with its own capital sources and risk profiles.

MiCA creates the same structure.

What this reveals about market structure

The architecture is revealing because it answers a question the industry has avoided for over a decade: what does a mature digital asset market actually need? Digital assets began as a rejection of institutional gatekeeping. The original premise was that decentralized networks could replace custodians, that users could be their own banks, that regulation was unnecessary friction. A decade later, the market's answer is more complicated.

Institutional capital entering digital assets does not want to be its own bank. Pension funds do not want custody risk on their balance sheet. Family offices do not want to operate their own cold storage. Sovereign wealth funds do not want regulatory ambiguity. These institutions have options. If digital assets cannot deliver the same custody certainty, capital protection, and regulatory transparency they get in traditional finance, they do not allocate.

MiCA's pricing structure acknowledges this. It says: if you want institutional capital, you absorb the cost of custody infrastructure, capital adequacy, and regulatory compliance. The next 18 months will show which hypotheses the market validates.

The EEA consolidation effect

For the EEA specifically, July 1 forces a choice. Platforms either pay the cost of MiCA compliance or exit the market. There is no middle ground.

This creates consolidation. Smaller platforms cannot absorb the compliance cost. Marginal operators disappear. Capital concentrates under players with the scale and capital to meet minimum requirements and still compete on execution, fees, and product quality.

This is not a problem for the regulated core. Consolidation is stability. Fewer, larger, better-capitalized platforms means lower systemic failure risk and clearer customer protection. The cost is reduced competition and potentially higher fees.

The question is not whether MiCA is "good" regulation. It is whether the cost of compliance is worth the benefit of accessing EEA institutional capital. For platforms whose business model depends on that capital, the answer is yes. 

The real question

MiCA reveals that regulatory frameworks do not price trust. They price market design. 

Capital will route according to which optimization matches its needs. Institutional capital will split between frameworks that can deliver custody certainty, and frameworks that can deliver operational speed. Retail capital will split between regulated certainty and speculative access. Speculative capital will concentrate in non-custodial spaces where regulatory overhead is zero.

None of these flows disappears. They sort. And the next competitive cycle will be determined not by which framework is "best," but by which markets built the infrastructure to actually deliver on the priorities they priced.

Eleonor Genova, Head of Communications, Nexo

The week's most interesting data story

Time for BTC buyers to step in?This week's chart shows where recent buyers got in, and why that's capping Bitcoin's upside for now. The heatmap maps short-term holder supply density across price levels — brighter bands mark where more coins were acquired. The densest cluster sits between $66,800 and $70,700, a pocket of recently bought coins now underwater. Holders near breakeven tend to sell into any bounce just to exit even, making that zone the likely ceiling for a near-term recovery. It's not permanent, though: a sustained reclaim above $66,800 would ease that pressure and open the path toward the broader Short-Term Holder Cost Basis at $71,400, the next level to watch.

The numbers

The week’s most interesting numbers¥162/$ — The yen hit its weakest level since 1986, even as Bitcoin's correlation with it hit -0.90, the tightest since 2022 — a setup that could now favor Bitcoin if the yen rebounds.

$570 — Benchmark reiterated its $570 price target on Strategy after the company unveiled a framework to buy back shares and sell up to $1.25 billion of its 847,363 BTC if needed.

5.70 million ETH — Bitmine added 27,084 ETH last week, reaching 94% of its target of owning 5% of Ethereum's supply, and joined the Russell 1000 index.

72% — XRP's daily active addresses jumped to nearly 39,500 in two weeks, while open interest hit its lowest since July 2025 — a cleaner setup for the next move.

Hot topic

What the community is discussingIs this the great Bitcoin consolidation?

Last week’s market correction explained.

Is an altcoin summer coming?

Dispatch is a weekly publication by Nexo, designed to help you navigate and take action in the evolving world of digital assets. To share your Dispatch suggestions and comments, email us at [email protected].

Reddit Inc. (NYSE:RDDT) stock is trading lower on Thursday, primarily due to profit-taking and a minor cooling period following a 12.5% single-day surge during the previous session.

The decline follows a sharp upward move on Wednesday, which was driven by investor optimism regarding the company’s artificial intelligence data-licensing leverage.

• Reddit shares are retreating from recent levels. Why is RDDT stock falling?

Cooling From AI Data OptimismThursday’s downward movement represents short-term traders locking in these recent gains.

Rising Short Interest DynamicsRecent market data indicate a rise in short interest for the platform. Short interest increased during the last reporting period, climbing from 13.40 million shares to 16.47 million shares. This short positioning represents 11.7% of the company’s publicly available float.

Based on the recent average daily trading volume of 4.74 million shares, short sellers would require 3.47 days to close out their short positions without triggering a sharp upward movement in the stock price.

Context on Recent Corporate GrowthCritical Levels To Watch for RDDT StockEven after the drop, the stock is still trading 9.8% above its 20-day SMA ($173.52) and 15.7% above its 50-day SMA ($164.62). It’s also only 3.2% above the 200-day SMA ($184.51).

The moving-average structure is mixed: the 20-day SMA is above the 50-day SMA (bullish), but the stock is still living with the "Death Cross" from March (50-day SMA below the 200-day SMA), which can keep longer-term investors cautious on rallies.

Key Resistance: $213 Key Support: $158.50 RDDT Stock Price Activity: Reddit shares were down 3.32% at $191.19 at the time of publication on Thursday, according to Benzinga Pro data.

Photo: Henry Franklin/Shutterstock

This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.

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.

A month has gone by since the last earnings report for Signet (SIG - Free Report) . Shares have lost about 0.8% in that time frame, outperforming the S&P 500.

Will the recent negative trend continue leading up to its next earnings release, or is Signet due for a breakout? Before we dive into how investors and analysts have reacted as of late, let's take a quick look at the latest earnings report in order to get a better handle on the important drivers.

SIG Beats Q1 Earnings Estimates on Comps Growth, Raises FY27 ViewSignet posted first-quarter fiscal 2027 results, wherein the bottom line beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate, while the top line marginally missed. Sales increased year over year, supported by positive same-store sales growth and strength across the Bridal and Fashion categories. Encouraged by strong fiscal first-quarter execution and positive trends entering the second quarter, management raised its fiscal 2027 adjusted EPS outlook and increased the midpoint of its sales and profitability guidance.

More on Signet’s Q1 ResultsSIG reported adjusted earnings of $1.56 per share in the first quarter of fiscal 2027, surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.32. The bottom line increased 32.2% from adjusted earnings of $1.18 in the year-ago period, benefiting from higher adjusted operating income, a lower diluted share count and higher interest income.

This jewelry retailer generated total sales of $1,553.6 million, slightly missing the consensus estimate of $1,558 million. However, the top line increased 0.8% year over year. Same-store sales grew 1.8%, while merchandise average unit retail rose approximately 5% from the prior-year quarter, driven by growth in the Bridal and Fashion categories.

Insight Into SIG’s Margins & ExpensesGross profit in the first quarter of fiscal 2027 totaled $556.5 million, down 7.1% from $598.8 million in the year-ago quarter. The gross margin contracted 310 basis points year over year to 35.8%, primarily reflecting inventory write-downs related to the transition of the James Allen brand. Adjusted gross profit was $589.2 million, down 1.6% year over year. We note that, adjusted gross margin of 37.9%, down 90 basis points year over year.

Selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses were $509.6 million, down 3.1% from $526 million in the prior-year quarter. As a percentage of sales, SG&A expenses improved 130 basis points year over year to 32.8%, benefiting from cost-reduction initiatives implemented in fiscal 2026 and leverage from higher sales.

SIG reported adjusted operating income of $78.6 million, up 11.8% from $70.3 million in the year-ago quarter. The adjusted operating margin expanded 50 basis points year over year to 5.1%.

Adjusted EBITDA amounted to $120.8 million, increasing 6.2% from $113.8 million in the prior-year quarter. The adjusted EBITDA margin improved approximately 40 basis points year over year to 7.8% in the quarter under review.

Update on Signet’s Segmental PerformanceSales in the North America segment increased 0.9% year over year to $1.46 billion in the first quarter of fiscal 2027. Same-store sales grew 1.6%. The segment’s adjusted operating income increased to $101.4 million from $97.1 million in the prior-year quarter, with the adjusted operating margin expanding to 6.9% from 6.7%.

Sales in the International segment increased 9.2% year over year to $87.5 million. Same-store sales rose 5.6%, while sales increased 4.8% on a constant-currency basis. The segment reported an adjusted operating loss of $6.6 million compared with a loss of $7 million in the year-ago quarter.

Update on SIG's StoresAs of May 2, 2026, Signet operated 2,559 stores across its portfolio, representing a net reduction of 23 stores from the end of fiscal 2026. The North America segment operated 2,308 stores after 21 closures during the quarter, while the International segment operated 251 stores following two closures. Total selling space declined 0.4% sequentially to approximately 4 million square feet.

Signet’s Financial Snapshot: Cash, Debt & Equity OverviewSIG ended the first quarter of fiscal 2027 with cash and cash equivalents of $602.8 million compared with $264.1 million in the year-ago period. Inventory totaled approximately $2 billion, remaining essentially flat year over year. Meanwhile, total liquidity reached $1.7 billion, an increase of more than $300 million from the prior-year period. Shareholders’ equity stood at $1.90 billion at the quarter-end.

During the quarter, net cash used in operating activities was $144.7 million, an improvement from the cash use of $175.3 million in the prior-year period. Capital expenditure totaled $24.5 million during the quarter as the company continued investing in strategic growth initiatives and store-optimization efforts.

Signet remained active in returning capital to shareholders. The company repurchased 0.9 million shares for $83 million during the quarter and additional 0.4 million shares for roughly $30 million after the quarter-end. Management also announced plans to initiate a $50-million accelerated share repurchase program, which would leave approximately $355 million available under the existing authorization upon completion.

The company’s board declared a quarterly cash dividend of 35 cents per share, payable Aug. 21, 2026, to shareholders of record as of July 24, 2026. Signet noted that its strong cash generation, inventory discipline and balance-sheet strength continue to support growth investments and shareholder returns.

SIG’s Q2 GuidanceFor the second quarter of fiscal 2027, Signet expects total sales of $1.50-$1.53 billion. Same-store sales are projected to increase 0.5-2.5% year over year. Adjusted operating income is expected between $79 million and $93 million, while adjusted EBITDA is projected to be $125-$139 million.

What to Expect From Signet in FY27?Following its strong fiscal first-quarter performance, SIG raised portions of its fiscal 2027 outlook. The company expects total sales of $6.7-$6.9 billion compared with the prior mentioned $6.6-$6.9 billion. Same-store sales are projected to range from a decline of 0.75% to growth of 2.5%, an improvement from the previously stated 1.25% decline to 2.5% growth. Management expects a $60-$80 million reduction in revenues related to the transition of the James Allen brand, though with minimal impact on adjusted operating income.

The company anticipates adjusted operating income of $480-$560 million, up from the previously mentioned $470-$560 million. Adjusted EBITDA is projected to be $665-$745 million compared with the prior guidance of $655-$745 million. Signet also raised its adjusted EPS outlook to $9.20-$11.00 from the earlier mentioned $8.80-$10.74.

The fiscal 2027 guidance assumes a dynamic tariff, commodity and consumer environment, planned capital expenditure of $150-$180 million, and a low-single-digit reduction in net square footage. Notably, the adjusted EPS guidance excludes any potential share repurchases beyond the planned $50-million accelerated share repurchase program.

How Have Estimates Been Moving Since Then?Since the earnings release, investors have witnessed a upward trend in fresh estimates.

VGM ScoresAt this time, Signet has a nice Growth Score of B, though it is lagging a bit on the Momentum Score front with a C. However, the stock was allocated a grade of A on the value side, putting it in the top quintile for value investors.

Overall, the stock has an aggregate VGM Score of A. If you aren't focused on one strategy, this score is the one you should be interested in.

OutlookEstimates have been trending upward for the stock, and the magnitude of this revision indicates a downward shift. It comes with little surprise Signet has a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). We expect an above average return from the stock in the next few months.

Rubrik (NYSE: RBRK), the Security and AI Operations Company, has been named a Leader and positioned furthest in Vision in the [url="]2026 Gartner Magic Quadran

Decentralized finance (DeFi) platform Aave has deployed its V3 lending protocol on Monad, expanding the layer-1 blockchain’s lending ecosystem with support for 12 assets at launch. 

On Thursday, Aave announced that the initial market supports USDT0, USDC, Aave’s GHO stablecoin, USDe, mUSD, AUSD, WETH, cbBTC, wstETH, weETH, syrupUSDC and sUSDe. It is also Aave's first deployment with Chainlink Smart Value Recapture enabled from day one, allowing part of the value generated from liquidations to be redirected back to the protocol.

The deployment expands Aave’s multichain lending network while giving Monad users and developers access to an established borrowing market, Aave’s GHO stablecoin and liquidity incentives intended to support early adoption. 

Monad is compatible with Ethereum’s application environment, allowing existing Solidity contracts and Ethereum tooling to be used with minimal changes, according to Aave’s governance proposal.

Monad's total value locked as of Thursday. Source: DefiLlama

Aave deployment tests Monad’s liquidity ambitions Aave’s governance documents show that the Monad Foundation committed $15 million in incentives during the first 12 months after activation. The foundation also agreed to acquire and retain 10 million GHO for over six months, while Aave DAO committed another 500,000 GHO in incentives to support adoption on Monad.

These incentives could help establish initial liquidity. However, user activity will need to persist after incentives decline. According to a risk assessment by LlamaRisk, Monad’s mainnet launched on Nov. 24, 2025, and had about $359.5 million in total value locked as of June 8. It said early network usage had compressed after a strong start and that liquidity remained concentrated in established protocols.

LlamaRisk supported the deployment with conservative initial parameters, citing Monad’s short operating history.

The launch also comes as institutions increasingly explore bringing tokenized assets into DeFi lending markets. In June, Standard Chartered said that tokenized assets entering DeFi could drive deposits into Aave, whose deposit base reached about $75 billion at its October 2025 peak. 

In April, Centrifuge revealed plans to bring tokenized Treasurys, private credit and AAA-rated collateralized loan obligations to Monad for use in lending, collateral and secondary-market activity. 

Although Centrifuge has not announced that its assets will be integrated into Aave, the deployment gives Monad an established lending venue that could support tokenized assets as its ecosystem develops.

Magazine: China’s 107 Bitcoin memory thief, Bithumb CEO booked: Asia Express

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.

Following approval through Aave governance, the Aave Protocol is now live on Monad. The deployment makes Aave's lending and borrowing markets — supplying assets to earn yield, opening overcollateralized borrow positions, and access to GHO, the Aave Protocol's native decentralized stablecoin — available to users and builders on Monad.

Monad is designed for institutional DeFi: the protocols that matter, running where performance actually clears, and extending the use cases unlocked by composability. Aave is a great example of this. Aave [v3.7] brings a battle-tested lending and borrowing market to Monad. The protocol is a lending standard that institutions trust and bringing it to Monad means that the Monad ecosystem now runs on the same liquidity primitives as Ethereum.

Aave runs faster on Monad. Sub-second finality means liquidations finalize in roughly 800ms, rate updates propagate at chain speed, and composability with other Monad protocols runs without latency overhead. The deployment builds on a growing set of institutional-grade deployments on Monad: credit vaults, privacy solutions, neobank infrastructure, tokenized RWAs, and much more.

For Aave, the initial Monad market launches with support for USDT0, USDC, GHO, USDe, mUSD, AUSD, WETH, cbBTC, wstETH, weETH, syrupUSDC, and sUSDe, enabling users to supply assets, borrow against collateral, and access decentralized liquidity from day one. After the initial launch of Aave Protocol v3.7, the next phase of growth is expected to evolve with the introduction of Pendle PT assets and Fastlane's LST.

Together, Monad's high-performance architecture and Aave's liquidity create a strong foundation for the next generation of onchain financial applications and the future of the EVM.

"The next generation of blockchain applications depends on fast execution and deep, reliable liquidity. Deploying on Monad extends Aave's lending markets and GHO to a new high-performance ecosystem advancing the EVM, giving more users access to decentralized finance." — Stani Kulechov, Founder of Aave Labs

About MonadMonad is a high-performance, institutional-grade Layer 1 blockchain purpose-built to power the financial layer of the internet. Fully EVM-compatible, Monad delivers 10,000 TPS, 400ms block times, 800ms finality, and near-zero fees — without requiring specialised hardware. The network runs on consumer-grade machines, supporting accessible participation and decentralized network operation: over 200 independently operated validators across 30+ countries and 55+ cities secure the chain today.

About AaveAave is the world's leading and most trusted decentralized lending protocol, powering one of the largest onchain financial networks with more than $1 trillion in all-time volume. Aave enables users to supply, borrow, and earn yield on digital assets through transparent blockchain-based smart contracts, without intermediaries and with 24/7 access. Aave serves as a global lending, borrowing, and savings network that brings open, onchain finance to users around the world. For more information, visit aave.com.

NEAR Protocol Deploys Upgrade 2.13 on TestnetNEAR Protocol ($NEAR) has deployed upgrade 2.13 on testnet, introducing two significant technical changes: post-quantum safe access keys and dynamic resharding. The release marks a concrete step in NEAR's push to future-proof its cryptographic infrastructure ahead of mainnet deployment.

At the core of the security update is the adoption of FIPS 204, also known as ML-DSA (Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm). The Near One team chose FIPS-204, a lattice-based digital signature algorithm formally standardized by NIST in August 2024 as part of the agency's first batch of post-quantum cryptography standards. ML-DSA was formerly known as CRYSTALS-Dilithium and is designed to be secure against attacks from a cryptographically relevant quantum computer.

NEAR's rotatable access keys are designed to let users shift to quantum-safe signing without changing their account addresses. The upgrade also includes compact key storage and improved epoch sync, reducing overhead for node operators and validators.

Dynamic Resharding Removes Need for Governance VotesDynamic resharding means the network can automatically add or remove shards based on demand, rather than operating with a fixed shard count. This removes the need for governance upgrades each time the network needs to scale, allowing $NEAR's infrastructure to respond to load in real time.

The move positions NEAR as an early Layer-1 adopter of post-quantum cryptography, a security-focused protocol update likely to bolster adoption and confidence in the NEAR ecosystem. Mainnet deployment will follow after security audits and coordination with the NEAR community.

The broader context is one of growing urgency. Anton Astafiev, CTO at Near One, warned that the blockchain industry can no longer treat the quantum threat as a distant problem. The upgrade addresses the emerging threat quantum computers pose to current cryptographic standards such as Ed25519 and secp256k1, allowing users to rotate their keys to a quantum-resistant standard in a single transaction.

Sources:
Crypto Times: NEAR Plans Post-Quantum Safe Signing for Q2 2026 Testnet
NIST: First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards
CoinDesk: Near Protocol to Automate Its Own Growth

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Consumers today have more options than ever before. They can check goods and services at their convenience, whether flights, food, or even software and games.

With this freedom, many companies have now paid attention to customer loyalty. For investors, loyalty helps them see if a business can keep growing after a good quarter or a strong marketing push.

What Is Loyalty Economics?

Loyalty economics looks at how valuable it is for companies to keep their customers over a long time.

Many businesses spend to get noticed, running advertising campaigns, offering discounts, and trying to stand out. If their customers keep buying without needing constant deals, businesses can focus on improving their products and services instead of winning back lost customers.

This is where customer lifetime value sits. It highlights that building long-term relationships with customers are more valuable than a single sale.

And this difference is important to investors. If a company can keep their customers, they're more likely to have more stable revenue and more freedom when using their resources.

Loyalty Beyond Discounts

Loyalty programs basically revolve around spending money, collecting points, and claiming rewards.

Today's programs often take a different approach.

Airlines now offer perks like priority boarding. Retailers suggest products based on what customers previously bought. And coffee shops make it easy to reorder through their apps.

And convenience is as important as price when it comes to loyalty.

Many customers would stick to a business if they find it convenient, like fintech apps that have all the needed services, or a grocery that's always stocked and filled with new items.

While small, these advantages can turn into strong habits as time goes on.

Why Retention Matters to Investors

While growing revenue attracts investor attention, retention helps them understand that a business' growth can last.

Investors look at metrics like retention rates, subscription renewals, repeat purchases, and spending from current customers. These factors tell them if the growth stems from long-term relationships with customers, or just aggressive marketing strategies.

Retention also helps in forecasting. When businesses get most of their revenue from existing customers, they can predict future numbers better. This stability is especially valuable during tough times, when finding new customers is harder and more expensive.

So, two businesses reporting similar revenue growth may still tell different stories. One may rely on getting new customers, while the other benefits from loyal customers who keep on coming back.

The Psychology Behind Loyalty

People are motivated by progress. They'll take one more flight to unlock elite status or purchase more to move to the next reward tier. Goals usually feel more valuable when they seem close.

This idea explains why many loyalty programs use progress indicators, like membership levels and milestone rewards. These features give them a clear reason to stay involved.

And businesses don't need to offer big rewards to benefit from this. Often, all they need to do is to show the customer's progress to encourage continuous participation.

What Online Gaming Can Teach Businesses About Retention

Online gaming is a good example of loyalty in action. The crowded market enables players to compare platforms, promotions, and features. They'll also compare cashbacks, personalized deals, and VIP programs to identify which platforms to engage in.

However, experienced players in online casinos don't rely solely on the main offer. They'll look into how these cashback bonuses are given, their wagering requirements and T&Cs, and long-term value. For them, the best deals and rewards help build ongoing relationships with the player, not just one-time sign-ups.

So, a good welcome offer may attract interest, but the long-term success of an online gaming platform depends on whether customers keep finding value after they join.

When Loyalty Programs Fall Short

While it works for many, not every program works well. Complicated rules can turn people away. Weak rewards may not change customer behavior. And some programs only bring back customers during discount offers.

Instead of looking at large membership numbers, investors will usually ask: Does the program strengthen the relationship between customer and brand?

And if their answer is no, then it reveals very little about the program's true effectiveness.

What Strong Loyalty Programs Share

Successful loyalty programs often have four things in common:

Personalization: Rewards and recommendations that match customers' interest. Recognition: Customers appreciate benefits recognizing their loyalty and engagement with a brand. Simplicity: Easy-to-understand rules attract customers to join, even when they don't read the full T&Cs. Trust: Consistent experiences earn customers' trust, building more loyalty than occasional promotions. These four things help businesses build loyalty programs that helps them grow sustainably.

The Bigger Picture

Customer loyalty now isn't just about making purchases. Many businesses reward referrals, feedback, reviews, and community involvement, building stronger connections that create value for customers and companies.

Investors still see loyalty as a sign of growth. When customers keep choosing the same brand in a crowded market, it shows investors something that financial statements can't always reveal.

While loyalty economics won't answer every question, it helps stakeholders spot companies with strong customer relationships that support long-term growth.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or gambling advice. 18+ Please gamble responsibly.

Key Takeaways CoreWeave launched ARIA to analyze experiment data and automate AI research workflows. CRWV said ARIA creates live reports and visualizations that update with new experiment data. CoreWeave expanded its agentic AI platform across training, inference, observability and research. CoreWeave, Inc. (CRWV - Free Report) recently announced the launch of CoreWeave ARIA (AI Research & Iteration Agent), an AI research agent integrated into Weights & Biases (W&B) that analyzes experiment data, uncovers insights and supports continuous improvement of AI models and agents. Developed using W&B Weave, CoreWeave’s agent development platform, ARIA is introduced alongside the general availability of W&B Weave’s agent development capabilities. The agent can analyze thousands of experiments and tens of thousands of metrics in minutes, helping researchers generate reports, create sweep configurations from natural language and automate routine research tasks.

Designed to simplify AI research workflows, ARIA reduces the manual effort involved in configuring dashboards, building analysis notebooks and extracting insights from large volumes of experiment data. Built on CoreWeave’s experience supporting AI training at scale, including nearly 1 billion tracked runs and trillions of metrics in Weights & Biases, ARIA is intended to accelerate the research cycle by assisting with hypothesis generation, experiment execution, result evaluation and recommendations for next steps.

ARIA creates live W&B workspaces, reports and visualizations, including heat maps, parallel coordinate plots and bar charts that update automatically as new experiment data is added. It also loads the complete project context at the start of every interaction, enabling analysis across projects and team experiments to identify patterns that would be difficult to detect manually. The agent is also available through the W&B mobile app, allowing researchers to monitor experiments and review findings from anywhere.

ARIA expands CoreWeave’s unified agentic AI platform by integrating research capabilities with training, inference and observability through W&B Weave. The company also highlighted the strength of its AI infrastructure, citing record-setting MLPerf training and inference results, Platinum rankings in SemiAnalysis ClusterMAX 1.0 and 2.0, and the top ranking for inference speed and price-performance for Moonshot AI’s Kimi K2.6 and K2.7 Code in independent Artificial Analysis benchmarks.

AI adoption is accelerating rapidly, expanding its target market, customer base and platform opportunities. Demand continues to strengthen as existing clients expand and new enterprise verticals adopt AI more broadly. CoreWeave has expanded its platform to support training, inference and agentic AI workloads.

Taking a Look at CoreWeave’s CompetitorsNebius Group N.V. (NBIS - Free Report) is benefiting from accelerating demand for AI infrastructure as it advances its vision of becoming an AI-native hyperscaler. The company increased its contracted power capacity from more than 2 gigawatts to over 3.5 gigawatts in three months and is targeting at least 4 gigawatts this year. A new Pennsylvania site with 1.2 gigawatts of capacity further supports its expansion strategy. NBIS is also strengthening its vertically integrated AI cloud platform with services across the AI lifecycle, while acquisitions of Tavily, Eigen and Clarifai, along with an expanded NVIDIA partnership, enhance its inference and agentic AI capabilities.

Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN - Free Report) continues strengthening its AI leadership through AWS, expanding AI infrastructure, custom chips and generative AI services. Its chips business, including Graviton, Trainium and Nitro, surpassed a $20 billion annual revenue run rate with triple-digit growth. AWS secured major AI infrastructure commitments from OpenAI and Anthropic while deploying more than 2.1 million AI chips and expanding NVIDIA GPU availability. Amazon Bedrock achieved 170% quarter-over-quarter growth in customer spending, added advanced AI models and introduced managed agents. The company also expanded AI-powered enterprise applications, accelerated developer adoption of Kiro and launched Amazon Bio Discovery to advance AI-driven drug discovery and scientific research.

CRWV Price Performance, Valuation and EstimatesShares of CoreWeave have gained 11.5% in the past six months against the Internet Software industry’s fall of 8%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

In terms of Price/Book, CRWV’s shares are trading at 7.98X, higher than the Internet Software Services industry’s 4.7X.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for CRWV’s earnings for the current year has been revised downward over the past 60 days.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

CRWV currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Wednesday gave the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud specialists a preview of their biggest structural risk: the customer that becomes a competitor. Bloomberg reported that Meta Platforms is developing a cloud business that would sell AI computing power -- including, possibly, raw computing capacity of the kind specialist providers rent out today. Shares of CoreWeave (CRWV 5.36%) plunged 13.9% to $85.68, and Nebius Group (NBIS 9.32%) sank 17% to $229.18.

The reaction wasn't just about new competition. Meta is one of the biggest customers both companies have -- CoreWeave has disclosed a $21 billion commitment from Meta, while Nebius landed an agreement with Meta worth up to $27 billion. A Meta that builds enough capacity to sell the excess is a Meta that may eventually rent less of it.

With CoreWeave now down about 48% from its 52-week high of $166.22 and Nebius down about 24% from its high of $299.86, which beaten-down stock is the better rebound bet? The answer comes down to what a dollar invested in each buys you in growth, contracted revenue, and balance-sheet risk.

Image source: Getty Images.

CoreWeave: enormous backlog, enormous debt Of the two companies, CoreWeave is the scale leader. First-quarter revenue rose 112% year over year to $2.08 billion, and the company's revenue backlog reached $99.4 billion -- including that Meta commitment -- with more than 3.5 gigawatts of contracted power. Management also reaffirmed its full-year revenue guidance of $12 billion to $13 billion.

"AI natives and enterprise customers are choosing CoreWeave because we sit between the models and the silicon," said CEO Michael Intrator in the company's first-quarter earnings release.

Today's Change

(

-5.36

%) $

-4.59

Current Price

$

81.09

The trouble is what it costs to build ahead of that backlog. CoreWeave's first-quarter net loss widened to $740 million from $315 million a year earlier, and its total debt reached $24.9 billion after it spent $7.7 billion on property and equipment in the quarter alone. Interest expense doubled year over year to $536 million -- nearly half of the company's $1.16 billion in adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). And that adjusted EBITDA margin compressed to 56% from 62% a year earlier.

At about $46 billion in market value, the stock trades at roughly 3.7 times this year's expected revenue -- cheap-sounding, until you remember the equity sits beneath nearly $25 billion of debt and widening losses.

Nebius: faster growth, cleaner books Nebius is far smaller but growing far faster. First-quarter group revenue rose 684% year over year to $399 million, and annualized run rate revenue jumped to $1.9 billion from $1.25 billion just one quarter earlier. Management is guiding for $3 billion to $3.4 billion of revenue in 2026 and a run rate of $7 billion to $9 billion by year-end.

Profitability is arriving alongside the growth. The AI cloud business's adjusted EBITDA margin nearly doubled sequentially to 45%, and the group generated $2.3 billion of positive operating cash flow in the quarter, helped by upfront customer payments. Nebius ended March with $9.3 billion in cash after raising $6.3 billion during the quarter, including a $2 billion investment from Nvidia. Its adjusted net loss was a comparatively modest $100.3 million.

Today's Change

(

-9.32

%) $

-21.37

Current Price

$

207.81

The catch is the price. At about $58 billion in market value, Nebius trades at roughly 18 times the midpoint of this year's revenue guidance -- almost five times CoreWeave's forward sales multiple. Buyers are paying for the trajectory, not the present.

Both companies face the same two structural risks Wednesday exposed: heavy dependence on a handful of tech giants and the possibility that those giants' own build-outs eventually soften AI computing prices. Neither stock is a conservative investment, and I'd keep either position small.

But if I had to pick one of these two stocks to buy, it would be Nebius. CoreWeave's cheaper valuation comes with $25 billion of debt and interest costs consuming nearly half its adjusted EBITDA. Further, its margins are moving in the wrong direction. Yes, Nebius costs more per dollar of near-term revenue, but it pairs faster growth with expanding margins, positive operating cash flow, and enough cash to keep building without leaning nearly as hard on debt.

Shrugging aside an analyst's bearish new opinion on Circle Internet Group (CRCL +5.47%), investors are bidding the company's shares higher today. A popular growth investor made several investments in Circle, an issuer and operator of stablecoins, yesterday, and that seems to be sufficient motivation for investors to click the buy button themselves today.

As of 10:31 a.m ET, Circle shares are up 7.3%, retreating from an earlier 11.8% rise.

Image source: Getty Images.

July rolled in, and Ark Invest interest in Circle heated up After the market closed yesterday, Ark Invest, led by Cathie Wood, reported that several of its exchange-traded funds (ETFs) had acquired Circle shares during the day.

Today's Change

(

5.47

%) $

3.39

Current Price

$

65.34

Targeting a wide range of disruptive companies, the Ark Innovation ETF bought 210,343 shares of Circle, now accounting for 2.9% of the fund's weighting. Similarly, the ARK Next Generation Internet ETF bought 53,846 Circle shares, giving the stock a 2.9% weighting in the fund, which invests in companies that operate mostly in the cloud. Lastly, Ark Invest bought 23,420 Circle shares -- resulting in a 4.1% weighting in the Ark Blockchain and Fintech Innovation ETF, which invests in various blockchain and fintech companies.

Goldman Sachs analyst James Yaro lowered the firm's price target on Circle Internet to $96 from $111

Should investors round up capital to invest in Circle stock now? While Ark Invest's enthusiasm for Circle stock is noteworthy, potential investors should also recognize that some analysts are less optimistic about its prospects. Above all, investors should remember the perils of blindly following one investor's lead. Cathie Wood is bullish on the future of cryptocurrency, but investing in it (or in companies that operate it, like Circle) is speculative and will not meet the lower risk tolerance thresholds of conservative investors.

Scott Levine has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Goldman Sachs Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

[url="]Planet Labs Germany[/url], a leading provider of daily data and insights about change on Earth, and European space company [url="]Isar Aerospace[/url] t

Key Takeaways BigBear.ai added industrial AI contracts and expanded its digital twin and simulation platform.BBAI strengthened its AI portfolio through the Ask Sage and CargoSeer acquisitions.Growing backlog, higher margins and reaffirmed 2026 guidance reflect continued execution. BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. (BBAI - Free Report) is steadily evolving from a pure-play AI software provider into a broader industrial technology company. While its core strength remains mission-ready artificial intelligence for defense and security, recent initiatives suggest the company is building a more diversified business by applying AI to manufacturing, logistics and critical infrastructure.

During the first quarter of 2026, BigBear.ai secured new contracts for its Shipyard AI platform with Canada's Chantier Davie and U.S.-based Bollinger Shipyards. The company also highlighted growing demand for its ProModel simulation platform, which enables digital twins for manufacturing, warehousing, healthcare and defense operations. These industrial applications move the company beyond traditional AI analytics into operational optimization, where customers use predictive modeling to improve productivity and resource planning.

The expansion is further supported by acquisitions. Ask Sage strengthens BigBear.ai's generative AI capabilities, while CargoSeer extends its reach into cargo inspection and supply-chain intelligence. CargoSeer recently introduced AI tools to detect invoice fraud and match shipping documents with cargo contents, broadening the company's addressable market beyond government agencies. Ask Sage has also launched a commercial version, opening its secure AI platform to enterprises in defense, security and critical infrastructure.

Financially, the strategy is beginning to gain traction. First-quarter backlog climbed 14% to $281.9 million, supported by more than $60 million of national security awards, while gross margin expanded to 34% as higher-margin AI platforms contributed a larger share of revenues. Management also reaffirmed its 2026 revenue guidance of $135-$165 million, indicating confidence in continued execution.

Although BigBear.ai still relies heavily on government spending, the growing portfolio of industrial AI, digital twins and supply-chain solutions positions it to diversify revenue sources and expand well beyond traditional AI software over the long term.

Industrial AI Rivals to Watch: Palantir and C3.aiBigBear.ai's push into industrial AI and mission-critical solutions places it in competition with Palantir Technologies (PLTR - Free Report) and C3.ai (AI - Free Report) , both of which are expanding AI adoption across government and commercial markets. Palantir has built a strong presence in defense, manufacturing and supply-chain optimization through its AI Platform, enabling customers to deploy AI-driven decision-making across complex operations. Its deep relationships with government agencies and growing commercial customer base make Palantir a formidable rival in industrial and national security applications.

C3.ai is another key competitor, offering enterprise AI applications for manufacturing, energy, defense and logistics. Its predictive maintenance, supply-chain optimization and digital transformation solutions help industrial customers improve operational efficiency and reduce costs. While BigBear.ai differentiates itself with mission-focused AI, secure generative AI platforms and digital twin capabilities, Palantir's scale and C3.ai's broad enterprise reach underscore the competitive landscape as demand for industrial AI solutions continues to expand.

BBAI’s Price Performance, Valuation & EPS Estimate TrendShares of BBAI have dropped 38.1% over the past six months, underperforming the Zacks Computers - IT Services industry, as shown below.

BBAI’s 6-Month Price Performance
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

BBAI stock is currently trading at a discount compared with the industry peers, with a forward 12-month price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 11.31, as evidenced by the chart below.

BBAI’s P/S Ratio (Forward 12-Month) vs. Industry
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for BBAI’s 2026 loss per share has narrowed in the past 60 days, as shown below. The estimated figure indicates a narrower loss from the year-ago level of 82 cents per share.

EPS Trend of BBAI
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

BBAI’s Zacks RankBigBear.ai currently carries a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell).

You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Not many stocks in the market can boast the kind of 10-day stretch SanDisk Corporation NASDAQ: SNDK has had. Between June 22 and June 24, shares of the memory and storage giant dropped a full 20% from an intraday high to an intraday low, only to snap back with a 24% single-session pop the very next day.

Sandisk Today

$1,760.59 -271.63 (-13.37%)

As of 12:55 PM Eastern

This is a fair market value price provided by Massive. Learn more.

52-Week Range$40.10▼

$2,354.39P/E Ratio61.28

Price Target$1,684.24

Just a few days later, the stock dropped another 18% over two sessions, before bouncing back 19% between June 29 and June 30. And then yesterday, shares slumped another 10%, leaving them trading around $2,032.

Get Sandisk alerts:

For most stocks, that kind of price action would be a serious cause for concern. For SanDisk, though, the pattern is arguably telling investors something rather different. Every time the shares have sold off hard in recent weeks, buyers have appeared almost immediately with enough force to push the stock back up. That kind of behavior doesn't happen by accident and is actually a very bullish dynamic to see right now.

What’s Driving the Recent Volatility in SanDisk Stock?Before getting into why the setup is more encouraging than it looks, it's worth understanding what's actually been driving the selling pressure. The honest answer is that not much of it has been specifically about SanDisk. Instead, the drops have been driven largely by broader weakness across the tech and AI space, where bigger fears have been building.

The benchmark NASDAQ index itself fell around 5% between June 22 and June 24, and is still down more than 2.5% from the June 22 close. The primary concerns have been mounting fears about the enormous amount of debt-funded AI infrastructure spending, alongside worries that the Federal Reserve may keep rates higher for longer than the market had hoped.

Neither of those is a SanDisk-specific issue, but a stock that's had the kind of run SanDisk has enjoyed over the past 12 months, where it’s enjoyed gains of almost 4,300%, is always going to be one of the more exposed names when the broader mood turns.

The Bounces Say More Than the DropsThe setup becomes intriguing here. Although SanDisk experienced several sharp declines over the past two weeks, each was quickly followed by a remarkably strong rebound. Notably, there was a 24% surge in a single session from June 24 to June 25, and a 19% bounce between June 29 and June 30.

That kind of price action doesn't happen in stocks that the market doesn't want to own. It happens in stocks, where there's a wall of buyers waiting on the sidelines for exactly the pullbacks sellers create. In other words, the drops are being interpreted by long-term buyers as an opportunity, not a warning, and the sheer force of the bounces is proof that the underlying demand for the stock is not just intact, but arguably stronger than ever.

Compare that to what usually happens when a stock lacks that kind of conviction, such as Qualcomm Inc NASDAQ: QCOM. Sharp declines get met with tepid bounces, and each new low tends to invite fresh selling rather than fresh buying. That's the opposite of what's happening with SanDisk right now.

Bank of America Just Told Us Why SanDisk Buyers Keep Showing UpSandisk Stock Forecast Today12-Month Stock Price Forecast:
$1,684.24
-13.90% Downside

Moderate Buy
Based on 25 Analyst Ratings

Current Price$1,956.15High Forecast$3,250.00Average Forecast$1,684.24Low Forecast$235.00Sandisk Stock Forecast Details

Perhaps the clearest confirmation of the underlying story came from Wall Street this week. Even as SanDisk shares remained volatile, analysts continued to look through the recent swings and focus on the longer-term NAND supply-demand setup. Bank of America raised its price target on the stock to $2,500 and reiterated its Buy rating, citing expectations that the NAND supply-demand imbalance will persist through calendar 2027 and that pricing will remain strong for longer.

That view fits with the broader analyst backdrop. SanDisk currently carries a Moderate Buy consensus rating, suggesting Wall Street remains constructive even after the stock’s enormous run and recent volatility.

The reasoning is compelling. The supply crunch driving SanDisk’s extraordinary run this year has not disappeared. If anything, analysts see signs that tight NAND conditions could last longer than earlier bull cases had assumed.

That helps explain why every drop has been met with quick and forceful buying. The buyers stepping in may not simply be chasing short-term bounces. Some appear to be positioning for a supply-demand story that could continue well into next year.

The Bigger Picture: SanDisk Bulls Still Look in ControlTo be sure, SanDisk isn't a stock for the faint-hearted, and yesterday's 10% drop is a reminder that the volatility is very real. There's always the risk that the broader tech sell-off could gain steam, and stocks priced for as much success as SanDisk is right now do stand to get hit hardest if and when the mood eventually sours.

But until then, while volatility might look scary on the surface, the market’s recent reaction confirms that the bulls remain firmly in control.

Should You Invest $1,000 in Sandisk Right Now?Before you consider Sandisk, you'll want to hear this.

MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and Sandisk wasn't on the list.

While Sandisk currently has a Moderate Buy rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.

View The Five Stocks Here

The space race is growing fast, and you don’t have to have gotten in early on SpaceX to profit. This report shows seven space stocks you can buy today that may grow as rockets, satellites, defense, space internet, and new space technology become more important.

Get This Free Report

Solana just got a formal way for its community to weigh in on the network’s future. The Solana Foundation has launched Solana Governance Proposals, or SGPs, an on-chain governance system that lets validators and SOL delegators cast stake-weighted votes on big-picture decisions for the protocol.

Think of it as Solana’s version of a shareholder vote, except instead of shares, your voting power comes from the amount of SOL you’ve staked. And unlike a typical corporate proxy vote, delegators can actually override their validator’s position on any given proposal. The Foundation is calling this “staker sovereignty.”

How the governance system works The barrier to even propose something is steep. Validators need a minimum of 100,000 SOL, roughly $7.7 million at current prices, just to register an SGP.

Once a proposal is registered, it needs to clear two major hurdles before it can pass. First, at least 15% of active cluster stake must support the proposal before a formal vote even begins. Second, passage requires a two-thirds supermajority of voting stake.

Advertisement

All voting happens on-chain, recorded using Merkle proofs. In English: the cryptographic receipts are baked directly into the blockchain, making the results transparent and tamper-resistant.

The key innovation here is the delegator override mechanism. If you’ve staked your SOL with a validator and that validator votes one way on a proposal, you can use your own stake weight to vote the opposite direction. Your validator picks door A, you pick door B, and your portion of the stake counts toward door B.

The Foundation has set up dedicated infrastructure for the system. A governance dashboard lives at governance.solana.com, while documentation is available at docs.governance.solana.com.

SGPs vs. SIMDs: different tools for different jobs Solana already has a governance process for technical changes called Solana Improvement Documents, or SIMDs. These handle the nuts-and-bolts engineering decisions: protocol upgrades, feature implementations, and technical specifications.

SGPs are designed to operate alongside SIMDs, not replace them. Where SIMDs deal with the “how” of building Solana, SGPs tackle the “what” and “why.” Strategic direction, high-level policy questions, and significant protocol decisions fall under the SGP umbrella. Solana aims to maintain core developer oversight over day-to-day engineering adjustments while the SGP framework handles higher-level community input.

What this means for SOL holders and investors The 100,000 SOL threshold for proposal registration means this isn’t grassroots democracy. It’s governance by major stakeholders, with a mechanism for smaller delegators to have their say during the voting phase.

The 15% stake threshold for triggering a vote is high enough to filter out frivolous proposals but low enough that a coalition of mid-sized validators could theoretically push something to a vote without needing backing from the largest players.

The two-thirds supermajority requirement for passage is a deliberately high bar that makes it difficult for narrow majorities to push through controversial changes.

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

$SOL Breaks Through $80 After Bouncing Off $60 SupportSolana's native token $SOL has pushed past the $80 psychological resistance level, completing a 32% recovery from its recent local low near $60. The move marks a significant shift in short-term momentum for a token that spent much of the second quarter of 2026 under sustained selling pressure.

The $60 level had emerged as a firm floor for the asset. As Analytics Insight noted, each time $SOL approached that zone, buyers stepped in to halt further decline, a pattern that typically reflects confidence among longer-term holders. According to CoinPedia, $SOL staged a rebound from a sharp sell-off that dragged price to around $62, with the recovery helping stabilize the token above $70 before the latest leg higher.

The breakout above $80 follows what @BSCNews describes as a definitive RSI reversal on the daily timeframe, a signal widely watched by technical traders as an indication that bearish momentum has run its course. Yahoo Finance reports that the Relative Strength Index climbed toward 60 heading into July, indicating building momentum from buyers, with a daily close above $80 seen as strengthening the recovery case.

What Comes Next for Solana?Breaking $80 opens the technical path toward higher targets, though analysts urge caution. CoinPedia highlights that rising open interest in the derivatives market signals fresh capital inflows, strengthening the case for an extended rally toward the $95 to $100 resistance zone. Analytics Insight adds that a breakout above $80 could open the path toward $90 and $100, supported by growing Solana ETF inflows that have surpassed $1.1 billion.

On-chain activity also supports the bullish case. Solana's DeFi protocols have posted strong fee growth in recent weeks, with DEX platforms including Orca and PumpSwap recording significant month-on-month increases, suggesting genuine network usage rather than purely speculative price action.

That said, the broader picture remains mixed. The @Solana ecosystem endured a multi-week period of price suppression, and longer-term moving averages continue to trend downward. Whether the $80 breakout holds or becomes another failed attempt at reclaiming that level will likely depend on sustained buying volume and broader crypto market conditions over the coming sessions.

Sources:
Analytics Insight: Solana Price Analysis - Can SOL Reclaim $80 After Holding the $60 Support Level?
CoinPedia: Solana SOL Price Rebounds as Open Interest Rebuilds
Yahoo Finance: What to Expect From Solana (SOL) in July 2026

In recent weeks, Standard Chartered, which has been focusing on the DeFi space beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum, has been examining Uniswap, Morpho, and Aave.

At this point, British banking giant Standard Chartered, which previously expected a 40x increase in value for Uniswap, a 50x increase for Aave, and a 33x increase for Morpho, has now announced its target for Bitcoin.

Geoff Kendrick, head of digital asset research at Standard Chartered, who attended the Digital Asset Investment Analysis Forum 2026 in Yeouido, South Korea, announced his year-end target for Bitcoin.

Kendrick stated that inflows into US spot ETFs and from institutional investors would increase, and predicted that Bitcoin would reach $100,000 by the end of the year and $500,000 in 2030.

Kendrick stated that Bitcoin will rise to $100,000 by the end of this year. However, in the short term, $75,000 and $85,000 could act as significant resistance levels. If Bitcoin breaks above these levels, it could reach $100,000 by the end of the year.

Kendrick noted that some analysts expect Bitcoin to fall to $20,000 to $30,000 in the fourth quarter, but that this probability is close to zero.

Kendrick stated that Bitcoin is nearing its bottom and that now is the time to accumulate through gradual buying rather than panic selling.

The analyst noted that spot Bitcoin ETF holders largely held onto their positions despite the recent price drop, arguing that this increases the likelihood of a different market cycle than in past downturns.

Kendrick concludes by stating that stablecoins, Ethereum, Solana, and decentralized finance (DeFi) will be key growth catalysts, predicting that Ethereum will reach $4,000 and Solana will reach $135 by the end of the year.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

Solana finds itself at a pivotal moment from a technical analysis perspective. Two separate chart studies suggest that SOL could be entering a base-building phase, potentially setting the stage for a significant price move. One scenario draws on the Wyckoff accumulation structure, while the other focuses on the recovery of a historic support region that played a crucial role in previous cycles.

Wyckoff rebound attempt at the major support zoneOn the daily chart, SOL’s price shows a pattern of prolonged sideways movement following a period of sharp selloffs. This price action closely mirrors the bottoming phase illustrated in the classic Wyckoff accumulation schematic. Particularly notable is the recent brief dip below a support level, followed by a rapid attempt to recover.

In Wyckoff theory, these fleeting breaks below support are referred to as “springs.” Such movements typically trap sellers, after which buyers re-enter the market with conviction. On the chart, this key spring zone is marked in the $65 to $70 range.

At present, SOL is making efforts to push away from this area. If buyers continue to defend this support level, the next significant resistance band is found between $95 and $105. Establishing a solid foothold above this region could reinforce the case for accumulation and signal a shift in momentum.

The technical picture has yet to be confirmed. For the upside breakout in SOL’s price to be validated, it must recapture the top of the resistance band and sustain this move with robust buying volume.

However, the risk of a failed rebound remains. Should the price slip again below the support area and fail to reclaim it, the Wyckoff-based accumulation outlook could weaken, leaving the market to consolidate at lower levels for a longer period.

Historic support region back in playBroader timeframe analysis—specifically the two-day chart—shows Solana nearing a critical level that could ignite renewed bullish momentum. Analyst Javon Marks, known for his independent chart insights, notes that recapturing this historically significant area, which has acted as support in several prior market cycles, could clear the path for a much stronger rally.

The $75 to $80 range stands out as horizontal support. This region’s significance stems from previous inflection points in 2022, 2024, and 2026 (projected). Because of this, market participants are closely monitoring price action in this zone to gauge the health of the overall structure.

Technical ZoneLevelSignificanceLower support$65 to $70Wyckoff spring zoneNearby support$75 to $80Historical recapture areaResistance band$95 to $105Upside confirmation zoneInitial target$233.8Next major technical targetUpper target$456Level watched on strong breakoutA recovery of this former support can, according to technical analysis, signal a renewed advantage for buyers. The current chart scenario indicates that Solana is attempting to establish a base at a historically important level, potentially clearing the way for a more decisive upward move in the near future.

Javon Marks estimates that if SOL can convincingly reclaim this region, it could open up roughly 200 percent in potential upside, with $233.8 standing out as the first major technical target.

Still, this bullish scenario is not confirmed. For a more sustained upward trend, the price must not only surmount the support zone but hold above it. Failing to do so would cast doubt on the recovery attempt, possibly requiring the market to base for longer before a durable rally can begin.

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.

CyberNewswire Posted On July 2, 2026

410 Views

Warsaw, Poland, July 2nd, 2026, CyberNewswire

The team behind Tsunammi.io breaks down how MEV extraction happens in the first block of a Solana token launch — and what operators can do before it costs them their chart.

Tsunammi, the Solana token market infrastructure platform, has published a technical research guide on sniper bot extraction in Solana token launches. The guide covers how bots detect new tokens across multiple launch venues, what the damage looks like on-chain, and what project teams can do to protect their launch before the token goes live.

The full article is available on Medium.

How Sniper Bots Detect a Solana Token Launch

Sniper bots do not monitor social channels or wait for announcements. They run persistently against Solana validator transaction streams and watch for specific on-chain program instructions. The exact trigger depends on the launch venue. On PumpFun, it is the create or create_v2 instruction. In every case, the bot uses the program’s Anchor IDL to decode the instruction and extract token parameters in real time.

The result is zero-delay detection. There is no window between a token becoming tradeable on-chain and a well-configured bot being aware of it. By the time a project’s community sees the contract address posted in a Telegram group, bots have already parsed the mint, calculated the entry price, and submitted buy transactions to the validator.

Multiple working implementations of this approach are publicly available on GitHub. The infrastructure is not exotic — it runs on a standard RPC connection with a transaction listener and a few hundred lines of TypeScript. Any technically capable actor can run a sniper bot against any Solana launch venue.

What Happens Without Anti-Snipe Protection

The sequence on an unprotected launch is consistent across venues. Sniper bots enter in block zero at the lowest available price. Organic buyers arrive in blocks 5–20 at a price already elevated by bot positions. Bots exit into that organic wave. The chart shows a steep pump followed by a dump, organic holders are left underwater, and the pattern reads as a rug to outside observers. Volume dies.

This is the default outcome on the majority of unprotected Solana token launches. The structural exposure remains the same regardless of where the token is launched. The bots are always running, and without a deliberate first-block strategy the project team will never be the first buyer on their own token. The question is not whether snipers will find the launch. They will. The question is whether the team has taken block zero before them.

Bundle Execution: Closing the Gap to Zero

A transaction bundle packages multiple transactions into a single atomic unit — all execute together, or none do. For a token launch this means including pool creation, liquidity addition, and the team’s initial buy in the same bundle. No external transaction can land between them.

For a PumpFun launch, the bundle contains token creation and the first buy. The outcome is the same: the team occupies block zero by design, not by luck.

One practical detail: bundles compete for block inclusion via a validator tip. Underbidding on tip at a busy launch window is one of the more common reasons first-block strategies fail in practice. The tip needs to be calibrated to the expected competition at launch time.

Tsunammi’s launch tooling is built on bundle execution. Operators configure bundle parameters — liquidity amount, initial buy size, wallet distribution — and the platform handles execution.

Multi-Wallet Distribution and Liquidity Depth

Two additional factors determine how well a launch holds after block zero.

Wallet distribution. Concentrating early allocation in a single address is a visible on-chain signal. Traders who check holder distribution before deciding whether to hold see one wallet controlling a large percentage of supply and treat it as an exit risk. Distributing the initial allocation across multiple wallets makes the holder map look more organic and makes the chart more resilient when external snipers exit — their sells hit a spread market rather than a thin one.

Liquidity depth. First-block protection does not eliminate all sniper activity. Fast bots will still enter in the first few blocks. What determines the chart impact is pool depth. A $50,000 sell into a $150,000 pool moves price far less than the same sell into a $12,000 pool. Teams need to define their depth target before launch and have capital ready. Adding depth after the chart has already taken damage rarely recovers the situation.

Anti-Snipe Launch Checklist

Bundle configured with token/pool creation, liquidity addition, and initial buy as one atomic package Validator tip calibrated for expected block competition at launch time Initial allocation distributed across multiple wallet addresses Liquidity depth target defined and capital allocated before launch Real-time monitoring active for the first 10 minutes of trading Full configuration tested on devnet before mainnet execution This checklist applies to Solana token launches where token creation and liquidity provision happen on-chain.

About Tsunammi

Tsunammi is a Solana token market infrastructure platform for operators who need execution control over launch and post-launch phases. The platform covers first-block launch execution via transaction bundles; multi-wallet initial distribution; liquidity depth management; and real-time market monitoring. Built for teams that treat token market operations as an engineering problem, not a luck problem. Users can see more at tsunammi.io.

Contact CEO
Roman Sobko
Tsunammi
[email protected]

Trending Now

Table of contents

Last Updated: July 2, 2026

Bitcoin has pushed decisively above $62,000, trading at $61,924.81 and touching an intraday high of $62,053.00 — extending a sharp two-day rally that began after Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh eased inflation concerns earlier this week. The move caps a dramatic turnaround from June 30, when BTC bottomed near $57,800 during the worst monthly stretch of the current correction cycle. Beyond the price action, the CLARITY Act’s path through the Senate remains the story to watch heading into July, alongside continued momentum in Solana’s ecosystem and ongoing questions about whether June’s record spot ETF outflows will reverse.

Today’s Top Stories Bitcoin Breaks Above $62,000, Extending Sharp Two-Day Rally Bitcoin is trading at $61,924.81, up 5.18% over 24 hours after touching a fresh high of $62,053.00 earlier today. The rally builds directly on Wednesday’s reversal above $60,000, which followed comments from Fed Chair Warsh reiterating the central bank’s commitment to its 2% inflation target. BTC has now recovered more than $4,000 from Tuesday’s low near $57,800, marking one of the sharpest multi-day reversals of the current cycle. For the full technical breakdown, see our Bitcoin News Today page.

CLARITY Act Faces Tightening Timeline Ahead of Senate Return The White House had targeted July 4 as a symbolic deadline for signing the CLARITY Act into law, but that window has effectively closed — the Senate adjourned June 25 and won’t return until July 13, leaving less than four weeks of floor time before the August recess. Senator Cynthia Lummis confirmed the bill will reach the Senate floor in July, with compromise text expected around July 4 for public review. The bill still needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, requiring at least seven Democratic crossovers. Polymarket has trimmed 2026 passage odds to 48%, with Galaxy Research putting the odds at roughly a coin flip.

Solana Continues to Lead the Market Recovery Solana remains one of the standout performers of the current rally, boosted by rising tokenized stock trading activity and the launch of World, a new on-chain prediction market built on the network. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko also confirmed at Consensus Miami that the network’s Alpenglow consensus upgrade could ship as early as Q3 2026, aiming to cut transaction finality from roughly 12.8 seconds to 150 milliseconds. For the latest SOL price action, see our Solana Price page.

XRP Network Activity Surges Even as Price Lags XRP’s active addresses jumped 72% over the past two weeks even as price action remained subdued heading into this week’s rally, according to on-chain data. Leverage across the network has also been flushed to its lowest level since July 2025, suggesting a cleaner technical setup beneath the surface. Ripple has also proposed a new tokenized-asset lending standard as the network continues expanding its institutional use cases. (Source: blockchainreporter.net)

Ethereum Foundation Undergoes Major Leadership Transition Ethereum’s support ecosystem is undergoing its biggest leadership transition in years, following the launch of EthLabs and ongoing efforts by the Ethereum Foundation to address community criticism over transparency and its role within the broader ecosystem. Ethereum Institutional also launched this week, drawing support from across the Ethereum community. For the full technical breakdown, see our Ethereum News Today page.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs Posted Worst Month Ever in June US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded their largest-ever monthly outflow in June, shedding roughly $4.5 billion over nine consecutive days of redemptions — surpassing the previous worst month by 29%. BlackRock’s IBIT alone shed $239.3 million in a single day, with Fidelity’s FBTC losing $120.8 million on the same session. Whether this week’s sharp price recovery is enough to reverse that outflow trend in July remains an open question.

Citi Cuts Bitcoin and Ether Price Targets on Stalled ETF Flows Citi slashed its 12-month price targets for both Bitcoin and Ether last week, citing stalled US crypto legislation and weakening investor demand after scrapping its prior ETF inflow forecasts. The revision reflects growing caution among traditional finance analysts following June’s steep correction, though this week’s sharp rebound may prompt a reassessment.

Market Snapshot AssetPrice24hBitcoin (BTC)$61,924.81+5.18%Ethereum (ETH)$1,646.01+4.79%XRP$1.0907+5.16%Solana (SOL)$82.23+2.81%BNB$560.74+3.52%TRON (TRX)$0.3167+0.08% For full price data, support/resistance levels, and technical analysis, see Crypto Market Today.

What to Watch This Week Senate CLARITY Act floor debate — compromise text expected around July 4, floor vote likely in July before the August recess July 29 FOMC meeting — Fed Chair Warsh’s second meeting at the helm, following a PCE print that some analysts say supports a case for further rate hikes later in 2026 Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade — targeted for Q3 2026, aiming to dramatically cut transaction finality times July ETF flow data — whether June’s record outflows reverse following this week’s sharp price recovery Compare Crypto Prices Today Bitcoin Price Ethereum Price XRP Price Solana Price BNB Price TRON Price This page is updated regularly with the latest crypto news and market developments. Nothing on this page constitutes financial advice. Always conduct independent research before making investment decisions.

FAQ Why did Bitcoin break above $62,000? Bitcoin extended its sharp rally from Tuesday’s low near $57,800, building on Wednesday’s reversal above $60,000 that followed Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s comments easing inflation concerns. BTC touched an intraday high of $62,053 today.

What is the status of the CLARITY Act? The CLARITY Act is expected to reach the Senate floor in July, with compromise text anticipated around July 4. The bill needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and requires at least seven Democratic crossovers. Current passage odds sit at roughly 48-50% according to prediction markets and analysts.

Is XRP network activity increasing despite price weakness? Yes. XRP’s active addresses rose 72% over the past two weeks even as its price lagged, with on-chain leverage flushed to its lowest level since July 2025 — suggesting improving fundamentals beneath the surface.

Why is Solana outperforming other cryptocurrencies? Solana has benefited from rising tokenized stock trading activity, the launch of a new on-chain prediction market called World, and anticipation around its upcoming Alpenglow upgrade, which aims to significantly speed up transaction finality.

AUTHOR

Mysterious crypto writer with expertise in blockchain, offering deep insights that captivate and intrigue readers. With a unique ability to uncover hidden insights and trends, Samuel delivers in-depth analysis and thought-provoking content that keeps readers on the edge of their seats. His writing style is engaging and informative, blending technical knowledge with a sense of intrigue, making complex crypto topics accessible to both newcomers and seasoned industry professionals. Samuel’s work continues to capture the attention of the crypto community, solidifying his reputation as a trusted voice in the space.

In Solana news today, the Solana Foundation has launched Solana Governance Proposals (SGPs), a fully on-chain governance system that lets validators submit major protocol questions to a stake-weighted network vote, and for the first time, gives individual SOL stakers a direct override mechanism when their validator’s position doesn’t match their own.

The stakes are meaningful. Prior to SGPs, validators voted with all delegated stake, and token holders had no formal recourse. Now, that changes, and the design choice carries real implications for anyone holding SOL staking positions.

This news dropped as SOL USD surged +5.5 overnight, making it one of the top-performing major cap tokens on the market. It is currently trading for $82 with a daily trading volume of $3.6Bn.

$SOL just broke $80 after bouncing +32% from the recent low of $60.

The RSI is also showing a reversal.

ANSEM single handedly revived the trenches. https://t.co/ChPiWjxV37 pic.twitter.com/sADvFhZwAx

— Ash Crypto (@AshCrypto) July 2, 2026

Solana News: How SGP Voting Works Any validator with at least 100,000 SOL delegated to their vote account can take an SGP on-chain, according to the Solana Foundation’s official announcement. The proposal then needs support from at least 15% of total active staked SOL before it enters formal voting – a meaningful filter that stops low-support ideas from consuming network attention.

Once that threshold is crossed, the proposal moves through an 11-epoch lifecycle: seven epochs for discussion, one epoch for a Node Consensus Network (NCN), a cluster of 7–10 operators that takes a cryptographically verified stake snapshot, and three epochs for the final vote.

A proposal passes only if ‘For’ votes reach at least 66.67% of the combined For-plus-Against stake. There is no quorum requirement, so participation rate alone cannot kill a vote.

Voting weight is verified using Merkle proofs (cryptographic proofs that check a voter’s stake balance against the on-chain snapshot without requiring a central database) against the NCN snapshot. The Solana Foundation documentation states: “A ‘yes’ on an SGP is a mandate to proceed.”

Solana Launches Onchain Governance With Stake-Weighted Validator Voting

The Solana Foundation has launched Solana Governance Proposals, or SGP, a new onchain governance mechanism that allows validators to submit, sponsor and decide core ecosystem governance issues through… pic.twitter.com/JxfBmf9Qda

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) July 2, 2026

DISCOVER: Best Meme Coin ICOs to Invest in 2026

The Staker Override: The Retail Angle In other Solana news, the staker override is the mechanism that transforms Solana’s governance into what OCC Research describes as a “representative democracy with voter override.”

Validators remain the default representatives; they vote with all delegated stake if their delegators stay passive. But any SOL staker can cast their own vote directly, at which point their stake weight is deducted from the validator’s pool and applied to their chosen position.

Critically, stakers can override even after their validator has already voted, at any point during the three-epoch voting window. Unstaked SOL carries zero governance weight; only staked SOL participates.

That creates a clear incentive to remain staked and engaged, particularly as the network attracts institutional participants whose interests may not always align with those of retail holders.

EXCLUSIVE: Join 99Bitcoin’s $1000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit

SGPs vs. SIMDs: Two Tracks, One System

SGPs sit alongside Solana Improvement Documents (SIMDs), the existing track for detailed technical changes, rather than replacing them. SGPs handle directional questions: should the network pursue a specific economic or architectural path?

SIMDs explain how a chosen direction gets built. Most engineering changes proceed through SIMD review without a vote. But if roughly 15% of stake flags a SIMD as contentious, it can be escalated into a full SGP.

That escalation path matters because of Solana’s recent governance history. SIMD-0228, a major inflation schedule overhaul, drew approximately 74% validator turnout before ultimately failing – demonstrating how politically charged economic decisions can get.

SIMD-0096, which proposed changes to priority fee handling, sparked controversy over potential validator collusion and was exactly the kind of contentious proposal the SGP escalation mechanism is designed to manage.

The broader Solana news ecosystem gives these governance decisions real economic weight. Galaxy Digital has already proposed a voting model for Solana inflation, and the on-chain governance framework will now give such proposals a formal, verifiable path rather than an off-chain debate with unclear authority.

EXPLORE: Best Crypto Presales With Asymmetric Upside in the Current Market

#Altcoin News Today

Why you can trust 99Bitcoins

10+ Years

Established in 2013, 99Bitcoin’s team members have been crypto experts since Bitcoin’s Early days.

90hr+

Weekly Research

100k+

Monthly readers

50+

Expert contributors

2000+

Crypto Projects Reviewed

Follow 99Bitcoins on your Google News Feed

Get the latest updates, trends, and insights delivered straight to your fingertips. Subscribe now!

Subscribe now

Alex Ioannou

On-Chain Journalist

Alex is a seasoned cryptocurrency trader and market analyst with over seven years of active experience in the digital asset space. Since entering the markets in 2017, Alex has specialized in identifying emerging "meta" trends and high-volatility narratives. Notably, Alex... Read More

Free Bitcoin Crash Course Enjoyed by over 100,000 students. One email a day, 7 days in a row. Short and educational, guaranteed!

The Solana Foundation has unveiled a new, stake-weighted on-chain governance mechanism designed to formalize protocol decision-making across the network. With this system, validators will be able to propose network-wide changes directly on chain, marking a key shift in how key decisions are reached on Solana. The technical development process for individual proposals will run separately from this new governance initiative.

How the new framework will workAt the center of the new model is the Solana Governance Proposals structure, or SGP. SGPs will allow the core development teams to formally capture the community’s opinion on major issues where a technical roadmap is not yet set. Before any technical specification is drafted, the SGP process will record participants’ preferences, bringing greater transparency and consensus to the network’s direction.

The Foundation emphasizes that SGPs will not replace the longstanding Solana Improvement Documents (SIMD) process, which will remain as the main framework for comprehensive technical changes to the protocol. Instead, SGPs are intended to serve as a consensus-building step, establishing community alignment before development work begins.

The Solana Foundation explains that the SGP framework is specifically designed for decisions with potentially significant, long-term economic impact on the network, aiming to reach clear agreements between validators and token delegators prior to kicking off development.

15% threshold required for votingTo move an SGP proposal to the voting stage, it must receive support from validators controlling at least 15% of the network’s active stake. This threshold is intended to filter out proposals lacking sufficient backing, and to prevent the governance process from becoming congested with low-support issues.

According to the framework, only validators with at least 100,000 delegated SOL are eligible to initiate a governance proposal. Each proposal comprises a markdown-formatted specification file and an on-chain proposal account, anchored by a specific commit hash to precisely identify the version under consideration.

Mini glossary: A commit hash uniquely identifies a specific version of code or documentation in software development. This ensures proposals reference the exact document version put to a vote, preventing post-submission changes.

Once the 15% backing is confirmed, each proposal moves onto a stake-weighted on-chain vote, where only affirmative and negative votes are counted—abstentions are excluded. Approval requires a two-thirds majority within the designated voting period.

CriteriaRequirementTransition to votingMinimum 15% support of active stakeEligibility to proposeAt least 100,000 delegated SOLApproval thresholdTwo-thirds majorityDirect intervention rights for delegatorsThe new system assigns clearer roles within Solana’s governance structure and reduces the need for informal coordination on strategic decisions affecting the entire protocol. Meanwhile, technical design authority will continue to reside with the core developers through the SIMD process.

Delegators who assign their tokens to validators will now have a greater say on each individual proposal. If a delegator disagrees with their validator’s voting choice, they can override it on a per-proposal basis, granting stakers more direct control over how their tokens are used in governance decisions.

This framework separates community sentiment from technical implementation and enables delegators to override their validator’s vote on each proposal, as highlighted by the Foundation.

The rollout of SGP comes on the heels of recent infrastructure and security initiatives by Solana. In April, the Foundation launched the STRIDE program in partnership with Asymmetric Research to bolster security audits and incident management capabilities. The SGP framework now adds a governance dimension to the network’s ongoing development.

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.