Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

21h15 ▪ 5 min read ▪ by Luc Jose A.

Summarize this article with:

The technico-financial showdown that Strategy faces today against the macroeconomic realities of the market has just passed a critical threshold. This situation reveals the theoretical limits of an aggressive accumulation model that seemed infallible until now. While the company’s valuation decreases unprecedentedly compared to its real assets, the choices of its leaders could redefine the very structure of corporate finance linked to cryptos.

In Brief Michael Saylor announces a new Bitcoin purchase as Strategy goes through a more delicate period. The fall of the mNAV below the threshold of 1 challenges the financial model that supported the company’s accumulation strategy until now. The difficulties faced by the STRC preferred shares now complicate future capital raises. Facing rising financing costs, Strategy will have to choose between continuing its Bitcoin purchases or preserving its financial structure. Michael Saylor’s signal and the state of Strategy’s Bitcoin reserves Strategy’s chairman, Michael Saylor, once again captured the attention of the financial community by posting on the social network X an update of his company’s Bitcoin tracker, while Brad Garlinghouse has just criticized this model. This message, far from trivial, contained an explicit statement: “we will need more charts”.

In the language and background of this company, this type of enigmatic communication typically introduces an official announcement of a significant bitcoin acquisition presented to regulatory authorities.

The company’s current factual data are as follows :

The state of global reserves : the company’s balance sheet shows a colossal position of 847,363 BTC in treasury, consolidating its place as the undisputed leader among listed entities exposed to the flagship crypto ; The market context : this release occurs while the bitcoin price trades at $59,888, dangerously oscillating below the psychological barrier of $60,000 ; The last official operation : it dates back to June 22, with the purchase of an additional 520 BTC for approximately $35 million ; The cost price of the operation : this last acquisition was negotiated at an average price of $67,068 per coin, putting these recent investments under pressure. The recent drop in the bitcoin price thus puts these last deployed funds in the red, but management continues to display a desire for continuous accumulation, regardless of short-term fluctuations.

Strategy’s modified net asset value (mNAV) has fallen for the first time in this market cycle below the critical threshold of 1.0 to around 0.80. This essential financial measure indicates that the company’s stock now trades below the real value of the bitcoins it holds in reserve. Such a break invalidates the so-called “flywheel effect” mechanism previously used by the firm.  

The model consisted of issuing new shares whenever the stock traded at a premium to bitcoin in order to buy more tokens and increase the BTC per share ratio for investors, a strategy that becomes mathematically destructive of value when the mNAV falls below 1.0.

Strategy’s management had previously stated that issuing common shares below the 1.22x mNAV threshold would be dilutive and harmful to existing shareholders. To circumvent this constraint and continue to finance its operations, the company resorted to alternative structures, notably STRC preferred shares.

However, this financial product also deteriorates sharply, trading at a price well below its target value of 100 dollars. The overall decrease in bitcoin asset value below the company’s cumulative purchase cost severely affects market confidence and significantly increases the cost of raising additional capital.

The flaws in the capital structure and the outlook The fall of Strategy’s derivative financial instruments exposes the company to a new structural risk. The inability to raise equity without harming existing shareholders prevents access to traditional low-cost financing that contributed to the firm’s success.

Moreover, the heavy discount suffered by STRC preferred shares shows that the institutional market now demands a significantly higher risk premium to support Michael Saylor’s treasury policy. This distrust results in a geometric increase in debt costs, severely limiting the company’s room for maneuver to meet its yield commitments and finance future bitcoin purchase campaigns.

Going forward, this situation places Strategy before a delicate choice. Advocates of an aggressive approach argue on one side that the company must take advantage of the bitcoin dip to buy tokens at a low price, betting on a rapid market rebound. On the other hand, more cautious analysts warn of the risk of massive dilution and weakening of the company’s financial structure if it persists in purchasing assets with capital that is now too costly.

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

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Luc Jose A.

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

DISCLAIMER

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

The Crypto Market moved lower ahead of Monday, with Bitcoin again setting the tone for risk assets.

Total crypto market value slipped to $2.06 trillion as fear deepened among traders. Bitcoin price traded near $59,568 after ETF withdrawals and macro worries hit sentiment. 

Gold and silver also drew attention as investors weighed safety demand. Traders also tracked wider volatility in stocks, bonds, and crypto-linked shares before global markets opened for Monday trading.

Here’s Why the Crypto Market, Bitcoin, Stocks, and Gold Could Face Heavy Volatility The Crypto Market is heading into Monday with a weaker tone and fewer clear support signals. Bitcoin price remains the main driver of sentiment after falling more than the wider market. That move showed traders are still using Bitcoin as a quick gauge for risk.

Markets face renewed pressure ahead of Monday as macro and geopolitical risks deepen across major asset classes. Fresh concerns over possible Fed tightening, Treasury weakness, and Japan’s bond stress are weighing on global sentiment. 

🚨 WARNING: MONDAY WILL BE THE WORST DAY OF 2026!!

→ Fed just confirmed rate HIKES.
→ Iran violated the ceasefire, and the peace deal is
CANCELLED.
→ Japan is DUMPING U.S. Treasuries.
→ The AI bubble is starting to COLLAPSE.

If you hold any assets today, you MUST read this:… pic.twitter.com/TbFVBLgTQl

— 0xNobler (@CryptoNobler) June 27, 2026

Investors are also watching Iran tensions, unstable oil prices, and fading enthusiasm around AI stocks. Analysts warn tighter liquidity could intensify volatility in equities, bonds, metals, and Bitcoin if risk appetite weakens further next week.

The CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index stood at 16, which points to extreme fear. Such readings appear when traders cut exposure and wait for stronger signals. Thin liquidity can make price moves sharper during uncertain sessions.

Source: CMC The pressure is not limited to crypto. Investors are watching bond yields, oil prices, and geopolitical headlines. If energy prices rise again, inflation concerns could return quickly. That would keep rate expectations firm and pressure speculative assets.

Bitcoin ETF Outflows Deepen Fear as Traders Watch Key Support Levels Bitcoin’s latest weakness also reflects heavy selling through U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs. The funds saw $1.8 billion in net outflows last week. That was described as the second-largest weekly withdrawal on record.

ETF flows matter because they show how larger investors are positioned. When these products lose money, spot demand can weaken. That often affects Bitcoin first, then spreads into altcoins and crypto stocks.

Source: Sosovalue data The $59,000 area is the level traders are watching. A hold above that zone could help Bitcoin steady. A break below it may bring the recent $58,000 low back into focus.

Daily ETF flow data may decide the next short-term move. Fresh inflows could reduce fear and support a rebound. More outflows would likely keep pressure on the Crypto Market.

Stocks and Gold Brace for Monday Swings Amid Macro Market Stress Stocks, bonds, metals, and crypto may all react to the same macro signals on Monday. That makes the session important for traders across several markets. Bond stress and weaker liquidity have made investors more cautious.

Gold traded near $4,071.95 after gaining 0.98%. Spot gold also recently held close to $4,100 per ounce. That shows investors are still watching safe-haven demand.

Silver traded near $58.92 after rising 1.03%. Metals could stay active if inflation and energy fears return. However, gold and silver can also swing lower during forced selling.

Crypto-linked stocks showed mixed action before Monday. BMNR rose 1.80%, while MSTR fell 3.89%. COIN gained 4.76%, and CRCL climbed 6.99%.

Those moves suggest volatility is already spreading beyond Bitcoin. Monday’s direction may depend on ETF flows, bond yields, oil prices, and risk appetite.

For most of 2026, the CLARITY Act has been XRP’s one great catalyst, the bill that would write its commodity status into federal law. Now prediction markets put its 2026 passage at 42%, down from the low seventies, as a human-trafficking backlash, a banking-lobby fight, and a closing legislative window collide. Here is what the falling odds actually mean for XRP.

Summary

Prediction markets now price the CLARITY Act’s chances of becoming law in 2026 at around 42%, down sharply from highs near 73% earlier in the year. The bill would codify XRP’s classification as a digital commodity into federal statute, the catalyst analysts say could unlock billions in institutional ETF demand. The odds fell as an anti-trafficking coalition attacked a decentralized-finance provision, the banking lobby fought stablecoin rules, and the path to 60 Senate votes narrowed. The legislative window is closing fast: the White House targeted a July finish, the Senate Banking and Agriculture versions still need reconciling, and the August recess effectively ends the year’s chances. For XRP, passage could open a path toward analyst targets of several dollars, while failure or delay removes its one Ripple-specific catalyst and leaves it moving with Bitcoin. For most of 2026, XRP has had one great catalyst hanging over it, a single piece of legislation that holders have treated as the event capable of finally breaking the token out of its year-long range: the CLARITY Act, the crypto market-structure bill that would write XRP’s status as a digital commodity into federal law. For months the bill advanced, clearing the House, then a key Senate committee, and prediction markets priced its passage as increasingly likely, with odds climbing into the low seventies. That optimism has now reversed. As of late June, prediction-market data assigns roughly a 42% probability that the CLARITY Act becomes law in 2026, a sharp decline that reflects mounting trouble on several fronts at once.

A bill that looked, for a while, like it was on a glide path to the president’s desk now sits on a knife edge, and because XRP’s near-term thesis has been so tightly bound to it, the falling odds are a genuinely important development for anyone holding the token. The reason the odds matter so much is that the CLARITY Act is not just another crypto bill for XRP; it is the specific catalyst the market has been waiting on, the one event that could turn today’s favorable but fragile regulatory interpretation into durable statutory certainty. Spot XRP exchange-traded funds have launched and gathered over $1 billion, the token won legal clarity when its long battle with the securities regulator ended, and a later joint classification treated it as a digital commodity, but all of that rests on interpretive ground that a future administration could in principle reverse. The CLARITY Act would put XRP’s commodity status into actual law, removing the last layer of uncertainty that keeps large institutions on the sidelines, and analysts have projected that passage could unlock several billion dollars in additional ETF inflows.

This piece explains why the odds have fallen, the specific obstacles now in the bill’s path, the closing legislative window, and, most importantly, what each outcome, passage or failure, would actually mean for XRP’s price and prospects. The aim is to give holders a clear, grounded read on a catalyst that has become harder to handicap.

Why the odds fell The decline from the low seventies to the low forties did not come from a single event but from a convergence of problems that have collectively made passage look less certain. The most striking new obstacle is a backlash centered on a specific provision of the bill. According to a letter obtained by a Washington publication, the Alliance to End Human Trafficking, a Catholic-backed anti-trafficking organization, urged Senate leaders to revisit a decentralized-finance provision in the CLARITY Act, warning that it could weaken safeguards against illicit finance. The concern centers on Section 604 of the bill, which would codify the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

Under that provision, software developers who build decentralized blockchain applications would not be held responsible for crimes committed by users of those platforms and would not be treated as money transmitters. The anti-trafficking group warned that this language could open regulatory gaps that make it harder for authorities to detect and track financial activity tied to crimes such as human trafficking. This kind of opposition is politically potent in a way that technical crypto disputes are not, because it reframes the bill from a question of market structure into a question of whether Congress is weakening tools used to fight trafficking. That framing gives wavering lawmakers a powerful reason for caution.

It is not the only pressure. The banking lobby has been fighting provisions related to stablecoin yield and what it characterizes as insufficient bank-equivalent regulation for stablecoin issuers, with prominent banking figures vowing to challenge the bill on the floor, because the CLARITY Act’s framework directly threatens traditional finance’s competitive position in payments. Layered on top is the simple arithmetic of the Senate, where advancing major legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. With the governing party holding 53 seats, the bill needs at least seven crossover votes from the opposition, a structurally harder problem than the committee votes it has already cleared.

Each of these pressures, the trafficking backlash, the banking fight, and the vote math, has chipped away at the perceived likelihood of passage, and together they explain why the market has repriced the odds so sharply downward. That is also why the politics around the bill now matter as much as the market-structure text itself. The policy framework may be close, but the votes still have to survive a crowded field of objections before the bill reaches the president’s desk.

The provision at the center of the fight It is worth dwelling on Section 604, because it has become the lightning rod, and understanding it clarifies why the bill suddenly looks more vulnerable. The provision would codify into law a principle that the crypto industry considers foundational: that developers who write the code for decentralized applications should not be treated as money transmitters and should not be held criminally liable for what users do with their software, in the same way that the makers of a web browser or an email protocol are not liable for crimes committed using those tools. To the industry, this is a basic protection for open-source software development, without which building decentralized systems in the U.S. becomes legally perilous. It is one of the reasons crypto firms have pushed so hard for the bill.

To critics, the same provision looks like a loophole. The anti-trafficking coalition’s argument is that by shielding decentralized-finance developers from money-transmitter obligations, the language could remove a layer of monitoring and accountability that helps authorities trace illicit funds, including money tied to human trafficking and other serious crimes. The dispute is, at its core, a genuine and difficult policy tension between two legitimate goals: protecting software developers and open innovation on one side, and preserving law-enforcement tools against financial crime on the other. That tension is precisely what makes the provision such an effective pressure point, because it cannot be dismissed as mere industry lobbying or partisan obstruction; it pits real concerns against each other.

For the bill’s prospects, the significance is that Section 604 gives opponents a substantive, morally weighted objection to rally around, and gives undecided senators a defensible reason to demand changes or withhold support. That is exactly the kind of friction that can stall legislation when the calendar is tight and the vote margin is thin. The bill does not only need supporters who like digital-asset clarity; it needs senators who are comfortable defending the developer-shield language under pressure from law-enforcement and anti-trafficking groups. That is a harder political task than simply explaining why tokens need a market-structure framework.

The legislative window is closing Even setting aside the substantive fights, the CLARITY Act faces a brutal constraint that may matter more than any single objection: time. The legislative calendar for passing a controversial bill in 2026 is narrow and closing. The White House pushed for a finish around the July 4 holiday, a target that officials themselves conceded was tight, and the harder deadline is the August recess, after which campaigning for the autumn elections begins in earnest and the Senate’s floor schedule effectively closes to contested votes. Any realistic path to passage this year therefore runs through a small number of remaining legislative days, and every additional dispute consumes some of that dwindling supply.

Compounding the time pressure is a procedural step that the headline timeline often obscures: reconciliation between two Senate committees. The CLARITY Act’s framework splits jurisdiction over digital assets between the securities regulator and the commodities regulator, and because both the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee have claimed a stake, the Banking Committee’s version of the bill must be merged with the Agriculture Committee’s companion legislation before any floor vote can happen. That merger is not complete. The bill cleared the Banking Committee on a bipartisan vote in May and was placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar in early June, making it formally eligible for floor consideration, which is the closest it has ever been to becoming law.

But floor eligibility is not passage. To actually become law, the bill must still be reconciled across the two committees, survive a 60-vote floor vote, be reconciled again with the version the House passed, and then be signed by the president. Each of those steps takes time the calendar may not provide, and if the vote does not come before the recess, the political window that opened this opportunity may not reopen on the same terms. One senator who has championed the bill captured the stakes bluntly, saying they did not come this far to quit at the five-yard line, but the five-yard line in a closing window is exactly where bills die.

What passage would mean for XRP For XRP holders, the entire point of tracking the CLARITY Act is what its outcome would do to the token, so it is worth being specific about both scenarios, beginning with passage. If the bill becomes law and codifies XRP’s digital-commodity status into federal statute, the most important effect would be the removal of the last meaningful layer of regulatory uncertainty, which is the gatekeeper that has kept large institutions cautious. XRP already enjoys more regulatory clarity than almost any major token after its legal battle ended and the joint classification treated it as a commodity, but that clarity rests on interpretive releases rather than statute, and a statute is far more durable. With permanent legal footing, the institutional capital that has waited on the sidelines, pension funds, asset managers, and the like, would have the certainty it needs to allocate.

The clearest channel for that capital is the spot ETF complex. Analysts at a major bank have projected that passage and the resulting clarity could drive several billion dollars of additional inflows into XRP exchange-traded funds, on the order of three to six times what those funds have gathered since launching. Flows of that magnitude would represent a demand shock large enough to push XRP through the resistance levels that have capped it and toward higher targets, with mainstream analyst forecasts in a passage scenario clustering in the several-dollar range by year-end. The more bullish projections reach higher still if a second catalyst, such as Ripple securing a Federal Reserve master account, were to follow.

The important caveat is that some of this may already be partly priced in, because the market has watched the bill advance for months, so the real question is not whether clarity helps XRP but how much of the waiting money actually moves once passage is law versus how much already has. Still, the directional case is clear: passage would be a powerful, fundamentally positive catalyst for XRP, the event that could finally connect the token’s long-promised institutional thesis to actual demand. It would also sit alongside another XRP catalyst in the spotlight, where holders have been trying to separate company-level events from token-level value. In this case, unlike many Ripple corporate developments, the statutory classification would apply directly to the token.

What failure or delay would mean The other side of the ledger is just as consequential, and with the odds now below even, it deserves equal weight. If the CLARITY Act fails or stalls, whether by missing the legislative window, dying in the reconciliation process, or falling short of 60 votes on the floor, XRP would lose its one Ripple-specific catalyst, the single event distinguishing it from the rest of the market. In that scenario, XRP would likely revert to moving with Bitcoin rather than leading on its own regulatory story, surrendering the independent upside that the bill represented. The institutional flows that have supported XRP could reverse, the way weekly ETF inflows did earlier in the year when momentum faded, falling from over $200 million to a trickle within a month.

Without the statutory catalyst, Ripple’s institutional infrastructure would keep growing through stablecoins and fiat rails, but in a way that does not necessarily drive XRP token demand, leaving the familiar gap between corporate progress and token price intact. That is XRP’s other open question: whether Ripple’s wins translate into XRP demand, or whether stablecoins and company-level infrastructure capture most of the value. If the CLARITY Act fails, that question becomes even more important because the regulatory unlock would no longer be there to carry the near-term thesis. XRP would then need ETF flows, ledger usage, and broader crypto risk appetite to do the work instead.

The price implications of failure are meaningful. Analysts have suggested that in a no-bill scenario, XRP could slip back toward the lower end of its range, with some pointing to support around the $1.20 to $1.30 area and warning that a break of the key technical floor on a broader market sell-off could open a path toward materially lower levels with little support in between. A bank that projected large inflows on passage had already trimmed its XRP target on the assumption of a delayed bill rather than a failed one, illustrating how much of the token’s valuation has been riding on this single legislative outcome. That is why the price levels at stake matter: the legal catalyst and the technical chart are now feeding into each other.

The sharpest risk is not merely that the bill fails this year but that failure pushes it out of reach entirely, since a missed 2026 window could shelve the effort for years if the political configuration that enabled it does not recur. For XRP, that would mean losing not just a near-term catalyst but the central pillar of its independent investment case, throwing the token back onto Bitcoin’s coattails and onto the slow, uncertain process of turning network usage into token demand without the regulatory unlock.

The priced-in problem A subtler issue complicates both scenarios and deserves its own attention, because it shapes how XRP might actually react to news: the question of how much of the CLARITY Act’s effect is already in the price. Markets are forward-looking, and the bill’s advance has been the most-watched regulatory story in crypto for the better part of a year, which means XRP’s current price already embeds some probability of passage. This creates a genuine puzzle for holders. If passage is partly priced in, then the actual event, should it come, might produce a smaller pop than the headline suggests, as the market has already bought the rumor and could sell the news.

Conversely, if the market has grown skeptical and priced the bill closer to the current 42% odds, then a clear passage could still surprise to the upside by forcing a repricing toward certainty. This is why XRP has traded in a range even as the bill progressed: each catalyst has been priced as a possibility instead of a fact, because a proof-of-concept settlement is priced as a proof of concept until it becomes recurring volume, an ETF is priced on the flows it actually attracts instead of the flows it might, and a legislative catalyst is priced on the probability of passage, which for the CLARITY Act has stayed well short of certainty. A token sitting on a stack of maybes trades like a token sitting on a stack of maybes: range-bound, reactive, and quick to sell the news. That is the practical problem facing XRP now.

The practical implication for holders is that the falling odds are informative in two directions. They lower the probability the market assigns to the positive catalyst, which is bearish, but they also mean that less of the good news is now priced in, which paradoxically increases the potential upside surprise if the bill does pass against the odds. The cleanest way to read XRP right now is as a token whose price reflects a market that has grown genuinely uncertain about its central catalyst. That makes both the downside of failure and the upside of surprise passage larger than they would be if the outcome were close to settled.

What holders should watch For an XRP holder trying to navigate a catalyst that has become harder to handicap, the analysis points to a focused set of signals worth tracking over the coming weeks. The first and most important is simply whether a floor vote gets scheduled before the August recess, because the closing window is the binding constraint, and the absence of a scheduled vote as the recess approaches would be a strong signal that 2026 passage is slipping away. The progress of the committee reconciliation between the Banking and Agriculture versions is a related early indicator, since the floor vote cannot happen until that merger is done. The second signal is the trajectory of the opposition, particularly whether the Section 604 trafficking objection gains traction with undecided senators or whether sponsors find a way to address it, because that fight has the potential to either stall the bill or, if resolved, clear a path.

The third thing to watch is the prediction-market odds themselves, which have proven to be a useful real-time gauge of the bill’s perceived chances and which will move as developments unfold; a recovery back toward the sixties or seventies would signal renewed momentum, while a further slide would confirm the pessimism. Alongside the legislative signals, holders should keep an eye on the observable market data that will register the outcome regardless of the politics: ETF flows, which would surge on passage and stall on failure, and XRP’s behavior around its key technical levels, particularly whether it holds the support that the bear case threatens. The stablecoin fight also matters because it is one of the pressure points inside the bill, and the stablecoin rules in the bill are part of why banks and crypto firms are fighting so hard over the final text.

The honest synthesis is that the CLARITY Act has gone from a likely catalyst to a genuine coin flip, and with it XRP’s near-term path has become a binary bet on a contested vote in a closing window. Passage would be a powerful positive catalyst capable of unlocking institutional demand; failure would strip XRP of its defining catalyst and throw it back onto Bitcoin’s movements. At 42% and falling, the market is telling holders that the outcome it once treated as probable is now anything but. The next few weeks of the legislative calendar are likely to decide which way XRP breaks.

Frequently asked questions What is the CLARITY Act and why does it matter for XRP? The CLARITY Act is a crypto market-structure bill that would codify the classification of tokens like XRP as digital commodities into federal law. For XRP, this matters enormously because the token’s current commodity status rests on interpretive regulatory releases instead of statute, which a future administration could in principle reverse. Writing that status into actual law would remove the last major source of regulatory uncertainty that keeps large institutions cautious, and analysts have projected that passage could unlock several billion dollars in additional XRP ETF inflows. It has been XRP’s single most important catalyst throughout 2026, which is why its odds of passing move the token.

Why did the CLARITY Act’s odds fall to 42%? The odds fell from highs near 73% because of several problems converging at once. An anti-trafficking coalition attacked Section 604 of the bill, a provision shielding decentralized-finance developers from money-transmitter obligations, warning it could weaken tools against illicit finance. The banking lobby has fought provisions on stablecoin yield and regulation, while the Senate math is hard because advancing the bill requires 60 votes, meaning at least seven crossover votes from the opposition. Combined with a closing legislative calendar, these pressures made passage look far less certain, and prediction markets repriced the probability sharply downward to around 42%.

What happens to XRP if the CLARITY Act passes? Passage would remove the last layer of regulatory uncertainty by writing XRP’s commodity status into durable federal law, giving cautious institutions the certainty they need to allocate. The clearest effect would flow through spot ETFs, with analysts projecting several billion dollars of additional inflows, three to six times what the funds have gathered so far. That demand could push XRP through its resistance levels toward analyst targets in the several-dollar range by year-end, with higher projections if a second catalyst like a Federal Reserve master account followed. The main caveat is that some of this may already be priced in, so the size of the reaction depends on how much waiting money actually moves.

What happens to XRP if the bill fails? Failure or delay would strip XRP of its one Ripple-specific catalyst, likely sending it back to moving with Bitcoin instead of leading on its own regulatory story. Institutional ETF flows could reverse, as they did earlier in the year when momentum faded, and analysts have suggested XRP could slip toward support around $1.20 to $1.30, with a break of its key floor on a broader sell-off opening a path to materially lower levels. The sharpest risk is that a missed 2026 window could shelve the effort for years. That would cost XRP not just a near-term catalyst but the central pillar of its independent investment case.

When is the deadline for the CLARITY Act? The practical deadline is the Senate’s August recess, after which election-year campaigning effectively closes the floor schedule to contested votes. The White House had pushed for a finish around the July 4 holiday, a target officials conceded was tight. Before any floor vote, the Senate Banking Committee’s version must be reconciled with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s companion bill, a merger that is not yet complete, and after a floor vote the bill would still need to be reconciled with the House-passed version and signed by the president. If the vote does not happen before the recess, 2026 passage becomes very unlikely.

Is the CLARITY Act’s effect already priced into XRP? Partly, which complicates how the token may react. The bill’s advance has been the most-watched regulatory story in crypto for nearly a year, so XRP’s price already embeds some probability of passage, which is part of why the token has stayed range-bound: each catalyst gets priced as a possibility instead of a fact. If passage is partly priced in, the actual event could produce a smaller move than expected. But with odds now down at 42%, less of the good news is currently priced in, which paradoxically increases the potential upside surprise if the bill passes against the odds, while also reflecting greater downside risk if it fails.

This article is information, not investment advice. Legislative timelines, prediction-market odds, prices, and analyst projections reflect reporting available as of June 28, 2026, and can change quickly. The status and prospects of the CLARITY Act are uncertain and contested. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP or any security. Verify current developments from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

Altcoins

28 June 2026 | 15:41 The story in XRP is a split screen: the derivatives market just went through a violent, one-sided purge of leveraged bets, while network usage keeps climbing.

Key Takeaways XRP saw a one-sided long-liquidation flush, peaking at $6.7M on June 22. Open interest fell 11%, meaning purged positions aren’t being rebuilt. Active addresses rose almost 72% in two weeks even as price fell. XRP trades for $1.04 at the time of writing. The recent move was driven by a liquidation cascade: an 830% spike in long liquidations, which is a mechanical event rather than a sentiment reading. Margin thresholds were breached and positions were force-closed automatically. The roughly $3M in long liquidations dwarfing the short side confirms how one-sided it was, this was a purge of upside bets, not a balanced deleveraging. The climax came on June 22 with a $6.7M flush, the single largest burst of forced selling on the chart, landing exactly as price hit its lowest point near the $1.05 range.

What happened next matters as much as the flush itself. According to recent report, shared by CryptoQuant, open interest dropped from $1.18B to $1.04B, down 11%, while this played out. That’s the tell that separates a flush from a rotation: positions are being closed and not rebuilt. Traders aren’t re-entering, which leaves the market structurally lighter and less amplified than before.

The Funding Rate Hit Its Floor The funding rate adds the second layer. It reached its deepest negative reading of the entire March-to-June window right at the June 22 climax, a -463% shift against the quarterly baseline. Negative funding means shorts are the dominant paid position, longs are effectively being compensated just to hold their positions open.

This is where precision matters. At extremes, negative funding is mechanically unsustainable, because shorts eventually have to cover, which can create upward price pressure. But that’s a precondition for a squeeze, not a guarantee of one, and it should not be read as bullish on its own. It describes a compressed setup, a spring under tension, without saying anything about whether or when it releases.

The Split That Defines Who Actually Sold Here’s the most analytically important data point in the whole picture. While the futures market cascaded, Binance spot reserves fell just 0.35% on the week. Spot holders, in other words, didn’t panic-sell onto exchanges. That cleanly separates two very different actor types: leveraged speculators, who got wrecked, and spot holders, who barely moved.

The absence of spot capitulation during a violent futures flush is what tells you the nature of the selling. This was derivatives-manufactured, the forced unwinding of leveraged positions, rather than organic distribution by the people who actually hold XRP. That distinction changes how to read the entire episode: it was a leverage problem, not a conviction problem among holders.

Metric Status/Result Significance Long Liquidations $6.7M peak (June 22) Violent, one-sided flush of leveraged bets. Open Interest Down 11% Positions are closed, not rebuilt; market is lighter. Binance Spot Reserves Down 0.35% Spot holders didn’t panic; selling was derivatives-manufactured. Active Addresses +71.7% (2 weeks) Real engagement diverging from speculative price drops.  The Network Is Growing as Price Falls Now the counter-signal. Daily active addresses rose from about 23,000 on June 14 to nearly 39,500 by June 27, a 71.7% increase in two weeks, according to Ali Charts citing Santiment. Price fell over roughly the same window. Network usage expanding while price contracts is a genuine divergence, and historically these kinds of divergences don’t tend to persist indefinitely.

Network activity on $XRP has surged over the past two weeks.

Daily active addresses have climbed from 23,000 on June 14 to nearly 39,500 today, signaling growing on-chain participation. pic.twitter.com/lqX9oo3AsS

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) June 28, 2026

It’s important to be exact about what this does and doesn’t say. It doesn’t predict direction. What it indicates is that the chain is being used more, not abandoned, real engagement separating from speculative price behavior. Set against the derivatives picture, the contrast is stark: the futures market shows panic, while the network shows growth.

The Setup, and What Could Confirm a Direction Put the layers together and what you have is structural cleanup, not a directional call. The leverage has been flushed, open interest has compressed and isn’t rebuilding, funding sits at an extreme, spot holders stayed put, and on-chain activity is rising. That combination describes a market that’s been deleveraged and is being actively used, which could resolve in either direction.

The honest framing is that the network’s continued growth provides a floor narrative, evidence the chain isn’t being abandoned, rather than a price prediction. As for what to watch: the negative funding extreme is the squeeze precondition, but the signal that would actually confirm a direction is open interest. If OI starts rebuilding alongside rising price, that’s leverage returning on the long side; if it stays compressed, the market remains light and unconfirmed either way. The deleveraging is real and largely complete.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Consult a professional before making investment decisions.

Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

Recent days have seen both technical indicators and on chain data suggest that XRP could be poised for a recovery. As the price hovers near the critical 1.10 dollar resistance, the possibility of a rally stretching toward 1.30 dollars is back in the spotlight among investors.

Buy signals emerge on the daily chartMarket analyst Ali Martinez reports that two distinct bullish signals have appeared on XRP’s daily chart. According to Martinez, this development reflects a potential shift in momentum following a period of waning selling pressure, suggesting a possible turn to the upside.

Ali Martinez highlights that two strong buy signals have formed on XRP’s daily chart and notes that if the current momentum is maintained, the price could see room to move toward the 1.30 dollar level.

The first signal comes from the TD Sequential indicator, designed by Tom DeMark. The emergence of a “9” buy setup within this indicator is considered notable by investors who closely follow such formations to gauge when bearish trends may be losing strength.

Mini glossary: The TD Sequential is a technical indicator used to detect exhaustion points and potential reversals in price movements. The “9” setup is especially watched after extended declines to spot short term recovery opportunities.

In addition, the past three days’ candlestick structure has formed a Morning Star Doji pattern. Regarded as one of the reliable reversal formations in technical analysis, this pattern suggests that selling pressure is waning as buyers begin regaining balance. If trading volumes see a pronounced increase, the reversal signal could be confirmed even more strongly.

Resistance at 1.10 dollars and the 1.30 dollar targetFollowing its recent correction, XRP has also shaped a double bottom formation. This suggests that buyers have defended the same support region twice, making a bullish breakout a more probable scenario in the short run.

The nearest resistance lies at 1.10 dollars. Should XRP’s price establish itself above this level with conviction, the technical outlook for a reversal would become clearer and pave the way for a move toward 1.30 dollars.

Network data points to increased activityOn the on chain side, notable growth has also been recorded. The number of daily active addresses on XRP Ledger stood at about 23,000 on June 14, but this figure has since climbed toward 39,500 over the past two weeks. The XRP Ledger serves as the distributed infrastructure for all XRP transactions.

The rise in daily active addresses signals increased network participation and trading activity. Market participants closely monitor such data as it often points to strengthening demand and heightened investor interest.

According to CoinCodex data, XRP was trading at around 1.05 dollars at the time of reporting. Although this leaves the price just below the key resistance zone, the mix of positive technical signals and increased network activity suggests that bearish pressure may be subsiding for now.

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.

XRP is trading near $1.05 as buyers continue to defend the $1 level after a weak month. 

Summary

XRP trades near $1.05 after falling sharply over the past week and month. ETF inflows remain positive while Bitcoin and Ethereum funds continue showing heavy weekly outflows. Analysts watch $1 support, rising active addresses, and possible rebound signals toward the $1.30 zone. The token is down more than 7% over the past week and about 19% over the past 30 days, while its 24-hour range sits between $1.04 and $1.07.

The price action remains weak, but several market signals show that XRP has not lost all support. ETF inflows remain positive, daily active addresses are rising, and some analysts now point to early reversal patterns on the daily chart.

XRP trades near $1 after sharp monthly decline XRP holds a market rank of #6, with market capitalization near $65.4 billion. Its 24-hour trading volume stands above $1.1 billion, showing that activity remains strong even as price stays near recent lows.

The token remains far below its all-time high of $3.65 from July 2025. It has also fallen more than 50% over the past year and about 49% over the past 200 days, showing that the current weakness is part of a longer downtrend.

A recent XRP price prediction noted that XRP is trading near a 20-month low. The same report said $1 has become the key level to watch, with downside support near $0.85 and $0.70 if that area fails.

That makes the current setup simple. XRP needs to hold $1 to avoid a deeper technical breakdown. A strong move above $1.12 and then $1.27 would be needed before traders can argue that momentum is shifting back toward buyers.

ETF demand stays positive despite weak price XRP fund flows continue to stand out against Bitcoin and Ethereum. On June 26, XRP ranked first in single-day net inflows at about $15.63 million, while spot Bitcoin ETFs saw about $444.51 million in outflows and Ethereum funds lost about $12.85 million.

The weekly trend also remains positive. XRP spot ETFs have now posted seven straight green weeks, with roughly $144.69 million in net inflows over that stretch, according to SoSoValue data.

This is not the same pattern seen in Bitcoin and Ethereum. Over the same seven-week stretch, Bitcoin ETFs recorded about $7.73 billion in outflows, while Ethereum ETFs lost around $1.18 billion.

A previous fund flow report showed XRP products had already beaten Bitcoin and Ethereum for five straight weeks. Another CLARITY Act analysis said XRP ETFs had drawn roughly $1.44 billion in cumulative inflows through six weeks of buying, even as price remained weak.

That contrast is important for the current XRP price analysis. It suggests that fund demand has not been enough to lift the token yet, but it may be helping to slow deeper losses near $1.

On-chain activity and chart signals improve Analyst Ali Charts said XRP network activity has risen over the past two weeks. Daily active addresses climbed from about 23,000 on June 14 to nearly 39,500, pointing to higher on-chain participation.

Rising active addresses can show more users interacting with the network. It does not guarantee a price recovery, but it gives traders another data point at a time when price is testing a key support level.

Network activity on $XRP has surged over the past two weeks.

Daily active addresses have climbed from 23,000 on June 14 to nearly 39,500 today, signaling growing on-chain participation. pic.twitter.com/lqX9oo3AsS

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) June 28, 2026 Ali also pointed to two bullish reversal signals on the daily chart. He said the Tom DeMark Sequential indicator printed a “9” buy signal, which can sometimes appear before a short relief rebound lasting one to four daily candles.

He also said the past three daily sessions formed a Morning Star Doji pattern. That pattern is often used by technical traders to identify a local bottom after a downtrend.

XRP: TWO BULLISH SIGNALS

XRP is flashing two bullish reversal signals on the daily chart, pointing to a potential shift in momentum.

1. The Tom DeMark Sequential indicator has printed a buy signal via a "9" candlestick. This pattern historically anticipates a one-to-four daily… pic.twitter.com/q0qBDVCGXT

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) June 27, 2026 If buying volume rises from here, Ali said XRP could move toward $1.30. That level also lines up with earlier resistance areas from recent price action.

A prior XRP technical report said traders were watching $1.20 as a recovery level, with $1.24 and $1.30 as the next zones if buyers pushed through resistance.

Derivatives reset may shape the next move Acccording to CryptoOnchain, XRP derivatives have gone through a heavy deleveraging phase. Long liquidations jumped to nearly $3 million over the past week, up more than 800% from the prior month.

Open interest also fell from about $1.18 billion to roughly $1.04 billion. At the same time, funding rates turned deeply negative, showing that traders who were positioned for upside have been forced out.

XRP Leverage Flush, source: CryptoQuant analyst CryptoOnchain That type of reset can cut speculative excess from the market. It can also create conditions for a sharp move if short sellers become crowded and spot buyers remain steady.

The spot side looks calmer than futures. Binance reserves were nearly flat over the week, suggesting holders are not rushing to move XRP to exchanges for immediate sale.

The next signal will come from open interest and funding rates. If open interest starts to recover while price holds $1, traders may read it as a healthier reset. If XRP loses $1 with rising volume, the market may shift back toward $0.85 and $0.70 support.

Ripple’s wider ecosystem also remains in focus after RLUSD became available in Japan through SBI VC Trade. The stablecoin launch gives Ripple a new regulated channel in Asia, though XRP’s short-term direction still depends on price action, fund flows, and whether buyers can defend the $1 level.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

As of June 28, the XRP price hovers near $1.05, with technical indicators suggesting that the downtrend has not yet fully reversed. While there are some early signs that selling pressure may be easing in the short run, caution remains the dominant attitude in the broader market outlook.

Sustained pressure in the weekly outlookMarket analyst ChartNerdTA published a chart on June 28 showing that XRP has now fallen below an ascending support line it had preserved for several months. This breakdown followed the failure to reclaim the 20-week exponential moving average, which sits around the $1.57 mark on the weekly chart.

In addition, XRP remains well below its 50-week exponential moving average at $1.83, underscoring that downward pressure on the primary trend remains unresolved. The analyst highlights that the weekly Stochastic RSI has flashed a bearish crossover for the third time since XRP hit its all-time high in July 2025.

ChartNerdTA emphasizes that this is not the right time to enter trades, pointing out that price structure has yet to show clear signs of renewed strength.

In the analyst’s review back in May, the same ascending support line held firm for over three months. Its recent break has now invalidated that technical formation, and persistent weakness above the $1.50 region has become even more apparent with this shift.

On-chain data highlights $1.06 as key levelDespite a weakening technical picture, on-chain data points to several price zones where buyers have historically concentrated. Crypto analyst Ali Martinez, referencing Glassnode’s UTXO Realized Price Distribution (URPD) charts, identifies $1.06 as the most important near-term support.

Mini glossary: URPD is an on-chain distribution metric that shows how much of an asset has changed hands within specific price ranges. This indicator is used to identify key support and resistance zones by mapping where investors have the highest cost concentration.

At the $1.06 mark, more than 830 million XRP have previously been traded. Should selling deepen, the data reveals notable clusters of activity at $0.80, $0.62, and $0.51 as well. In these areas, approximately 923 million, 1.16 billion, and 1.06 billion XRP respectively have been accumulated.

LevelPast Accumulation$1.06Over 830 million XRP$0.80About 923 million XRP$0.62About 1.16 billion XRP$0.51About 1.06 billion XRPAli Martinez notes that the $1.06 zone is the most crucial defense in the short term and warns that any drop below this level could shift focus to the $0.80 area as the next key support.

Short term indicators send mixed signalsAs per Bitstamp’s data, XRP is trading near $1.05 and has shown only a minor intraday increase. Technical tools on TradingView reveal that, while oscillators suggest a search for balance, trend-following indicators continue to reflect a weak profile.

The 14-day RSI measures 32.41, approaching oversold territory. Stochastic %K stands at 13.84, while the 20-period CCI reads minus 127.34. Momentum and Williams %R at minus 85.73 further suggest that selling could soon slow, yet the MACD for 12 and 26 periods remains negative at minus 0.0515.

Moving averages support the bearish caseWithin this wider technical framework, most moving averages continue to flash a sell signal. The 10-period averages are in the $1.08 to $1.09 range, while the 50, 100, and 200-period averages sit between approximately $1.21 and $1.53, all reinforcing the downward bias.

A notable exception comes from the Hull Moving Average at around $1.025, which provides a buy signal, while the Ichimoku base line remains neutral. Overall, moving averages indicate roughly 13 sell signals, 1 neutral, and just 1 buy signal. In pivot point analysis, the classic pivot stands at $1.38, with the next major resistance at $1.50, and key support zones at $1.10 and $0.81.

Although a short-term reaction rally cannot be ruled out completely, XRP needs to hold the $1.06 support zone and reclaim higher resistance levels to regain momentum. Otherwise, market attention may rapidly shift towards the $0.80 demand area as the next battle line.

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.

Crypto Market Crashing Amid Rotation to StocksA key driver behind the accelerating weakness in the crypto market is that investors in major economies such as the United States, South Korea, and Japan are rotating into equities, as stock markets surge amid the ongoing AI supercycle.

Digital Asset Treasury Companies WoesInvestors now fear that these companies will be forced to start selling their crypto assets to fund their dividends this year. If this happens, there is a risk that cryptocurrencies will continue falling as the biggest buyers become sellers. 

Crypto Confidence Waning Amid Hackings and FraudThe crypto market crash is also happening because of the lack of confidence in the industry. These fears escalated on October 10 last year when the crypto industry suffered over $18 billion in liquidation losses. 1.6 million traders were liquidated.

At the same time, fraud and pump-and-dump schemes have been on an upward trajectory. A good example of this is President Donald Trump’s decision to launch the a meme coin in January last year. After initially pumping, the token crashed, erasing billions of dollars in value. 

Other recent examples of pumps and dumps are coins like Humanity Protocol, Audiera, and SKYIE. 

Data shows that crypto hackings have soared this year. According to DeFi Llama, hackings have jumped to over $1.4 billion in the last 12 months. This includes popular networks like Polymarket, Drift Trade, Balancer, and Upbit.

Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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

ETH was stopped at a crucial resistance once again and the massive sell-offs from ETF investors and whales could spell further trouble.

Ethereum continues to trade under severe pressure, although it managed to recover around around 5% from its recent multi-year low at just over $1,500.

The threat remains since many of the major investors in its ecosystem continue to offload. The only positive change in the past few weeks has been the return of SharpLink.

Whales Dump Data shared by popular analyst Ali Martinez shows that these large market participants have disposed of $880 million worth of the largest altcoin in the span of just one week. From an Ethereum perspective, this means a massive dump of 550,000 ETH, which, according to him, means a substantial $880 million injection in “sell-side supply into the market.”

He added that this heavy selling volume is among the reasons behind the asset’s drop below its first immediate support at $1,633. The other could be the behavior of ETF investors. As reported earlier this weekend, those gaining exposure to Ethereum through the exchange-traded funds sold over $270 million during the week, as ETH dropped toward $1,500 for the first time in over a year.

Citing URPD data, Martinez outlined the significance of the $1,583 level as a critical volume support. If ETH breaks below it, it would open a “clear path for extended liquidations.” He doubled down that Ethereum’s asset risks falling to a new cycle low of somewhere between $1,237 and $1,089.

ETH WHALES SELL $880 MILLION IN ONE WEEK

Large-scale holders have offloaded roughly 550,000 ETH over the past week, injecting $880 million in sell-side supply into the market.

This heavy selling volume has successfully pushed Ethereum below its immediate $1,633 support floor.… https://t.co/2n4rVK4oTK pic.twitter.com/7g1zSPepez

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) June 28, 2026

Fellow analyst Ted Pillows commented that ETH remains stuck between key support (at $1,500) and resistance (at $1,700). A breakout above the latter would be “what bulls need,” while a potential decisive drop below $1,500 is “what bears are pushing for a new cycle low.”

You may also like: Bitcoin (BTC) Dips Below $62K, Ethereum (ETH) Plunges 6% Daily: Market Watch 5 Reasons Why Bitcoin Just Crashed Below $63K as Liquidations Top $500M Bitmine Buys 52K ETH as Tom Lee Believes the Best Years for Crypto Are Still Ahead Who Is Buying On the flipside, the two largest corporate holders of Ethereum are accumulating. While this is not really a surprise for Bitmine, which has been buying consistently even through the bear market, the return of SharpLink made the headlines over the week.

The Joe Lubin-chaired firm made its first ETH buy in eight months on Friday and has only doubled down since then. Lookonchain noted earlier today that the company accumulated another 29,196 ETH for $46.7 million. Thus, it has acquired over $62 million worth of ETH in the past three days alone.

Tags:

Ethereum is currently trading around $1,576, as it retests a demand zone that previously marked a major market bottom, according to weekly chart analyses. Recent technical charts shared by analysts show that the price has fallen back toward a support region similar to the one seen at the lows of 2022.

Key demand zone identified on weekly chartA weekly Ethereum chart based on TradingView data from Kamran Asghar compares the current pullback to the market bottom formed in 2022. According to the analysis, ETH has once again returned to its underlying support band. If this area holds, there is potential for a rebound, mirroring previous market behavior.

The chart also shows that Ethereum’s price remains below the blue moving average, which is currently situated around $2,498. This level stands out as a major resistance area should a recovery take place. A move back above this moving average would strengthen the case for a technical reversal.

Kamran Asghar’s chart suggests the current region could act as a long-term reaction zone, yet the technical outlook does not point to a confirmed reversal at this stage.

The relative strength index (RSI) has also dropped near the 30 mark, indicating heightened selling pressure. However, the RSI signal alone does not confirm the establishment of a bottom. A definitive sign of strengthening technicals would be a clear price recovery emerging from the demand zone.

In the short term, the $1,500 to $1,600 range is highlighted as a critical support area. If this zone is held, buyers could attempt to drive the price toward higher resistance levels. Conversely, a break below the support band would weaken the optimistic scenario.

Monthly chart signals $1,368 as critical levelAccording to a monthly chart prepared by CJ using TradingView data, Ethereum has continued to trend lower after failing to sustain higher prices in 2025 and 2026. The analyst identifies the equally matched lows around $1,368 as the next significant level for price action to test.

IndicatorLevelCurrent price$1,572 to $1,576Nearby support$1,500 to $1,600Critical monthly level$1,368Moving average resistance$2,498Lower support$881A possible pullback to $1,368 would take Ethereum back to a support zone that has provided a floor several times since 2022. If buyers defend this region, the price could again attempt a reaction from the lower boundary of its multi-year range.

CJ emphasizes $1,368 as the first critical threshold, noting that a drop below this level could shift focus to even lower supports dating back to 2021.

Beneath this, the 2021 cycle’s low point stands at $881. If Ethereum loses its equal lows on the monthly chart and selling pressure persists, this area could become increasingly important. The monthly RSI sits near 40, suggesting weak momentum, but not yet an extreme oversold condition.

Overall, Ethereum’s technical outlook signals critical support and resistance levels to watch in both the short and medium term. Whether the current demand zone holds will likely dictate the next significant move in price action. Analysts advise monitoring these key thresholds as Ethereum attempts to break out of its recent cycle of declines.

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.

The crypto market slipped 0.83% to $2.07 trillion as selling pressure returned across major assets. Bitcoin hovered below $60,000, while Ethereum traded near $1,557 after large holders increased selling. 

XRP price held around $1.05, supported by stronger ETF demand. Fresh flow data showed XRP ETF products gaining inflows, while Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs continued to lose capital during a weak market session on June 26.

XRP ETF Inflows Outpace Bitcoin and Ethereum Funds The positive bright spot for U.S. spot crypto funds was XRP ETF products. XRP tokens attracted more interest from investors, with bigger holdings seeing redemptions.

The total daily net inflows for U.S.-listed XRP spot ETFs reached $15.63 million on June 26. This added to the already existing net inflows of $1.47 billion into all XRP ETFs.

XRP’s monthly performance was also positive. Over 30 days, XRP funds added $60.61 million in net inflows. This was in contrast to Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, which both saw monthly outflows.

Source: Sosovalue data Bitwise’s XRP fund led the daily inflow table. The fund attracted $11.66 million and held $293.49 million in net assets. Next came Franklin’s XRPZ, which had $3.97 million in inflows and $235.20 million in assets.

Canary’s XRPC was also a significant investor with $234.97 million in assets. Grayscale’s GXRP was valued at $57.60, whereas 21Shares’ TOXR was still in the red on a cumulative basis.

But XRP remains far behind the bigger ETF markets in terms of trading volume. Over all, the value traded in XRP spot ETFs totaled $22.04 million. Net assets stood at $934.26 million, equal to 1.44% of XRP’s market capitalization.

Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs Extend Seven-Day Outflow Streak Bitcoin & Ethereum ETFs continued to struggle, with investors withdrawing from leading funds. According to SoSoValue, both categories posted a seventh straight day of net outflows on June 26.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced daily net outflows of $444.51 million from the U.S. market. Investors pulled $4.41 billion out of Bitcoin funds during the 31-day period. Net inflows were still high over the 12-month period, however, at $51.61 billion.

U.S. Spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs See Seventh Straight Day of Outflows

According to SoSoValue, on June 26 (ET), U.S. spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs both recorded their seventh consecutive day of net outflows. Spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a total net outflow of $445 million, while… pic.twitter.com/vm3nFGOnUQ

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) June 27, 2026

For the whole day, all of the money flowed out of BlackRock’s IBIT. However, IBIT was the top Bitcoin ETF by assets. The fund has $44.42 billion in net assets and $60.77 billion in cumulative inflows.

Fidelity’s FBTC trailed with $10.44 billion in assets. The Grayscale GBTC was down overall with $27.14 billion of cumulative outflows. But there was no net redemptions in the day for GBTC.

Ethereum ETFs experienced less demand, but losses were not as severe as Bitcoin’s. Daily outflows of spot Ethereum ETFs hit $12.85 million in the U.S. Ethereum has lost more than $610.61 million over the course of 30 days.

BlackRock’s ETHA continued to be the biggest Ethereum fund. It had $4.27 billion in net assets and $11.08 billion in cumulative inflows. Grayscale’s ETHE continued to stay in the red by recording an outflow of $5.33 billion in cumulative outflows.

Bitcoin Still Leads Assets as XRP Gains Fresh Investor Demand XRP is currently the leader in the short-term flow race, whereas Bitcoin has the crown in size. The net assets of U.S. Bitcoin ETFs totaled $72.82 billion. They traded a total of $2.54 billion, which is significantly higher than XRP’s day-to-day activity.

The net assets of Ethereum ETFs totaled $8.38 billion. This was 4.42% of Ethereum’s total market capitalization. Bitcoin ETF assets equaled 6.08% of Bitcoin’s market value.

The new figures reveal a stark difference in investor action. Bitcoin and Ethereum funds are seeing withdrawals, and XRP ETF products are gaining new demand. Nevertheless, Bitcoin is the biggest and most flow market for ETFs.

Near term, traders are watching Bitcoin’s $58,000 support level. Failure to move below this zone will give room for the price to move to $54,000. Any recovery above $61,800 could help ease overall crypto ETF sentiment.

The cryptocurrency market is enduring one of its sharpest broad-based pullbacks of 2026, with blue-chip assets @dogecoin $DOGE, @Ripple $XRP, and @Ethereum $ETH taking the heaviest hits among large-cap tokens over the past seven days.

@dogecoin $DOGE has fallen 12% on the week, while both @Ripple $XRP and @Ethereum $ETH have shed roughly 9% over the same period. At the time of writing, not a single asset in the CoinMarketCap top 30 had recorded positive price action in the past seven days, an unusually uniform sign of bearish pressure across the market.

A Market-Wide Rout The scale of the decline reflects more than routine volatility. Bitcoin slid toward $62,000 amid a broad sell-off in technology and semiconductor stocks, extending its weekly losses and pressuring risk assets globally. Crypto markets fell across major tokens while U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs logged a record 30-day net outflow of more than $6 billion, signaling sustained institutional de-risking.

Leading cryptocurrencies cracked alongside stocks after a sharp decline in chip-related shares cast doubt on the sustainability of the AI rally. Bitcoin dropped below $62,000 amid heavy selling, while Ethereum bulls failed to defend support at $1,700. XRP and Dogecoin recorded sharp declines as well, with over $560 million liquidated from the cryptocurrency market in a single 24-hour window, according to Coinglass data.

For $XRP, the slump threatened to push the digital asset under $1 for the first time since shortly after President Donald Trump's 2024 reelection win. For $DOGE, the fall thrust the first meme coin to its lowest levels since late 2023.

Macro Pressure and Weak Sentiment "Extreme Fear" sentiment intensified, returning to levels seen earlier this month, according to the Crypto Fear and Greed Index. The pullback is primarily driven by Bitcoin-led selling amplified by derivatives liquidations. Traders are also contending with a mix of ETF outflows, weak risk sentiment, and rising debate over whether the massive SpaceX IPO demand is pulling liquidity away from crypto markets.

The iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF saw $239.30 million in net outflows and the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund shed $120.80 million in a single session. Around $86.10 million also flowed out of the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF.

"Days like today are undoubtedly painful," said Juan Leon, senior investment strategist at crypto asset manager Bitwise. Leon noted that pronounced drawdowns in crypto prices have felt thesis-breaking in the moment, but the technology continues to be adopted as a modern form of market plumbing.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Sources:
CoinDesk: Bitcoin drops toward $62,000 as chip selloff deepens
Yahoo Finance: Bitcoin sell-off drags Ethereum, XRP and Dogecoin lower
Benzinga: Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Dogecoin drop amid global chip sell-off

Dogecoin (DOGE) traded within a narrow range between $0.074 and $0.076 in recent hours, as market participants watched closely to see if buyers could push the cryptocurrency above $0.078. While technical patterns suggest the possibility of a short-term rebound, a build-up of long positions in the futures market could trigger greater volatility in the event of a downward break.

Technical outlook points to short-term recovery potentialCurrently, DOGE hovers near key levels identified in technical analysis. Based on data from TradingView and analyst Carlos Garcia Tapia, the price remains above the pivotal $0.07408 point, marked as a support zone from January 2024. The maintenance of this level, alongside a short-term upward trendline, suggests that buying interest at lower levels persists.

The chart structure maintains the prospect of a short-term recovery for Dogecoin, yet there is not a definitive breakout signal at this stage.

The first significant resistance lies around $0.0759. Should this range be breached, DOGE could target the short-term resistance band between $0.0783 and $0.0784. If buying momentum increases further, the next area to watch is $0.0803 to $0.0804.

Critical price levels under scrutinyAbove these bands, resistance is seen at $0.0850 and later $0.0876. For DOGE to advance to these zones, the current sideways pattern must give way to a stronger wave of buying. Conversely, losing the rising trendline support, or slipping below $0.07408, could undermine the positive scenario and spark fresh selling pressure.

A recent market table highlights the importance of several price thresholds: $0.07408 as primary short-term support, $0.0759 as initial resistance, $0.0783–$0.0784 as the next resistance target, and $0.0803–$0.0804 should the upward move persist. These markers remain pivotal for traders tracking near-term momentum.

Rising long positions add to market riskAnother noteworthy dynamic is the sharp increase in long positions within the DOGE perpetual futures market. Charts shared by CW using TradingView data indicate that after a pullback in the second half of June, DOGE stabilized in the $0.073 to $0.076 range. Meanwhile, open interest—reflecting the total number of active, unsettled contracts—has surged, revealing that investors have significantly increased exposure even as prices hold steady.

According to the view provided by CW, while the price moves sideways, there is a concentration of long positions, suggesting both uncertainty and a heightened risk of sudden price swings.

In this market environment, $0.076 remains a key resistance. If DOGE pushes above this level, a move toward the $0.078 to $0.080 zone could become likely. On the downside, a break below the $0.072 support would upset the current balance and place additional pressure on leveraged long positions.

At present, Dogecoin is yet to signal a clear direction. Charts continue to hint at a short-term recovery, but heavy positioning means any loss of key support levels could trigger sharp market reactions.

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.

Cardano’s native token ADA continued its downward trend on June 28, falling 1.09% over the past 24 hours to $0.1452. ADA’s market capitalization was reported at $5.31 billion, with daily trading volume reaching $285.04 million during this period.

Technical indicators paint a weak outlookWhile the broader cryptocurrency market remains directionless, ADA has failed to break free from the persistent downtrend seen over wider time frames. This ongoing weakness has increased concerns that the token could suffer further declines in the short term.

In an assessment dated June 28, 2026, More Crypto Online noted that Cardano’s price continues to move within a clear downward pattern on higher time frames. The analyst stated that if the current wave count holds, the next critical support lies near $0.092.

According to More Crypto Online, unless ADA overcomes key resistance levels, the outlook is likely to remain in favor of sellers.

Support and resistance areas are closely watched by the market to guide buying and selling decisions. If ADA falls below current support zones, selling pressure could intensify. Conversely, buyers defending these regions may lay the groundwork for a possible recovery in the coming weeks.

Derivative market signals cautious sentimentData from derivatives markets also underscores the current caution. Open interest dropped 3.36% over the last 24 hours to $363.35 million, while derivative trading volume plunged 36.53% to $264.19 million in the same period.

These simultaneous declines indicate that some market participants are choosing to close existing positions rather than open new ones. This trend highlights a lack of strong conviction about short-term direction.

Mini glossary: Open interest refers to the total number of derivative contracts, such as futures, that have not been settled. Cost of carry is the expense of holding these positions; a negative value can indicate that short positions are priced more favorably.

IndicatorCurrent LevelChange (24h)ADA Price$0.1452-1.09%Open Interest$363.35 million-3.36%Derivative Trading Volume$264.19 million-36.53%Analyst’s Key Support Level$0.092Highlighted critical levelThe open-interest weighted cost of carry also remained negative at -0.0220%. This data indicates that short positions continue to hold a modest advantage in the futures market, reflecting participants who expect further price pressure in the near term.

Network development continues, but price lags behindCardano’s network is making progress with ecosystem upgrades and the expansion of decentralized applications. Known as a research-driven and scalable blockchain, Cardano has focused on smart contract development. Despite these network advancements, ADA has not seen a corresponding boost in price performance.

Despite technical progress in the ecosystem, the market remains focused in the short term on whether ADA can maintain its current support levels.

Looking ahead, investors will be monitoring whether ADA can hold above key support zones. Market sentiment and buying interest are expected to determine the token’s direction. If downward pressure persists, the $0.092 level will draw even closer attention.

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.

Tether is expanding the use of Tether Gold as crypto lender Ledn adds support for XAU₮. 

Summary

Tether is expanding XAU₮ utility by bringing tokenized gold into Ledn’s lending platform this year. XAU₮ holders will be able to borrow against gold without selling the underlying tokenized bullion. The move follows Tether’s wider shift toward gold, Bitcoin mining, AI, and infrastructure assets. The move will let users hold and trade tokenized gold on Ledn, with gold-backed loans expected later this year.

The plan extends Tether’s wider gold strategy at a time when tokenized bullion is gaining more use in crypto markets. Each XAU₮ token represents one fine troy ounce of physical gold stored in Swiss vaults.

XAU₮ joins Ledn’s lending platform Ledn said it has added support for XAU₮ alongside Bitcoin, USD₮ and USA₮. The platform said users can now hold and trade XAU₮, while borrowing against the tokenized gold product will come later in 2026.

The product follows the same structure Ledn has used for Bitcoin-backed loans. Users can access liquidity while keeping exposure to the underlying asset instead of selling it for cash.

Ledn said client collateral remains held 1:1 and is not lent out or used to generate yield. That point matters after the 2022 crypto lending failures, when weak risk controls and rehypothecation hurt many customers.

The company said demand is growing for services that combine long-term asset ownership with financial flexibility. 

“As digital assets become an increasingly important part of the global economy, demand is growing for solutions that combine long-term ownership with financial flexibility,” Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said.

Tether expands its gold strategy Tether Gold has grown sharply over the past year as demand for tokenized gold increased. Tether said XAU₮ reserves reached 707,747.139 fine troy ounces by March 31, 2026.

That was up from 520,089.350 fine troy ounces at the end of 2025. Tether said XAU₮’s market value rose from about $2.25 billion to more than $3.3 billion during the first quarter.

The wider $23 billion gold figure refers to Tether’s broader bullion position across its products. Reuters reported that Tether held about 132 metric tons of gold for USDT reserves at the end of March, valued near $19.8 billion, while XAU₮ accounted for about 22 tons.

Tether has also moved to focus more on XAU₮ after closing Alloy and aUSDT. As previously reported, users can redeem aUSDT and recover XAU₮ until Sept. 17 before Alloy support ends.

Gold-backed loans mirror Bitcoin lending Gold-backed lending is not new in traditional finance. Banks, bullion dealers and large financial firms have long used physical gold as collateral.

Tether and Ledn are trying to bring that model into digital asset markets. Tokenized gold can move on blockchain rails while still tracking ownership of physical bullion held in custody.

This setup may appeal to users who want to keep gold exposure but still need liquidity. A borrower could use XAU₮ as collateral and receive stablecoins without selling the gold-backed asset.

The model also gives Tether another way to add use cases around XAU₮. Instead of acting only as a tokenized gold holding, XAU₮ could become collateral inside crypto lending markets.

Tokenized gold push widens The Ledn plan follows other recent moves around Tether Gold. Tether and Fasset launched a Visa card with XAU₮ rewards, allowing eligible users to spend through the card and earn up to 6% cashback in tokenized gold.

That product placed XAU₮ closer to everyday payments. It also showed how Tether is testing uses for tokenized gold beyond storage and trading.

The company has also invested beyond stablecoins. Tether has backed Bitcoin mining, renewable energy projects, AI infrastructure, Gold.com and Antalpha as part of a wider technology and infrastructure push.

For Tether, the Ledn deal gives XAU₮ another practical role. Users may soon be able to borrow against tokenized gold in a structure closer to Bitcoin-backed lending, without giving up exposure to the underlying bullion.

@Tether is putting its vast gold reserves to work. The stablecoin issuer is partnering with crypto lender Ledn to bring gold-backed loans to holders of its tokenized gold token, XAUT, with the product expected to go live before the end of 2026.

Borrowing Against Bullion The partnership integrates Tether Gold (XAUT) into Ledn's platform alongside Bitcoin and stablecoins, with gold-backed loans expected to follow later this year. The arrangement would let XAUT holders use their holdings as collateral for loans instead of selling off the gold they own. Ledn plans to roll out gold-backed loans denominated in Tether's stablecoins, with borrowers able to choose between $USDT and the newly launched USAT.

The structure mirrors Ledn's existing bitcoin-backed lending model, with client collateral held on a 1:1 basis and not lent out or used to generate yield. That approach is a deliberate contrast to the aggressive rehypothecation strategies that brought down rivals such as Celsius and BlockFi during the crypto downturn of 2022. The lending product will not be available to residents of Canada or the EU.

Each XAUT token represents one troy ounce of physical gold stored in Swiss vaults, according to Tether. XAUT's market cap recently surpassed $3 billion, making it one of the most significant commodity-backed tokens in crypto.

One of the World's Largest Corporate Gold Holders Alongside growing XAUT, Tether has accumulated roughly 140 metric tons of physical bullion, making it one of the world's largest corporate gold holders. That stockpile makes it one of the largest known holders of gold outside of governments, central banks, and major ETFs. Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has previously described the ambition in stark terms, telling Bloomberg that the company intends to become one of the largest "gold central banks" in the world.

The move is the latest example of Tether leveraging the profits generated by $USDT, the world's largest stablecoin, to expand beyond its core business, reshaping itself into a broader technology and infrastructure group spanning finance, energy, and AI. It has also invested in precious metals marketplace Gold.com and partnered with crypto financing firm Antalpha to expand the use of XAUT in lending and physical redemption.

Gold-backed lending is traditionally the realm of central banks, major financial institutions, and bullion dealers. Tether and Ledn argue that by tokenizing physical gold, the asset can function more like bitcoin as digital collateral, unlocking liquidity without requiring a sale.

Sources:
CoinDesk: Tether putting $23 billion gold stockpile to work with bullion-backed loans
Crypto Briefing: Tether expands gold reserve use as Ledn supports tokenized gold XAUT
CoinDesk: Tether is buying up to $1 billion of gold per month and storing it in a James Bond bunker

TLDR:

Forbes estimates CZ’s fortune at $110B, placing the Binance founder ahead of Bill Gates in the latest rankings. Binance ownership remains the largest contributor to CZ’s wealth despite past regulatory settlements and leadership changes. Forbes says Bill Gates’ continued philanthropy has reduced his personal fortune while keeping him among top billionaires. CZ noted crypto wealth changes rapidly because private company valuations and digital asset prices fluctuate daily. Changpeng Zhao, widely known as CZ, has moved ahead of Bill Gates on the latest Forbes billionaire rankings. The shift reflects the growing value of Binance alongside rising digital asset markets. 

CZ’s estimated fortune now stands at $110 billion, placing him above the Microsoft co-founder in Forbes’ published list. The milestone also highlights how crypto infrastructure has become a significant source of global wealth.

CZ Tops Bill Gates as Binance Valuation Lifts Net Worth Forbes estimates CZ’s net worth at $110 billion. Bill Gates follows with an estimated $108 billion. The updated rankings place CZ at No. 17 globally, while Gates ranks No. 19.

The largest contributor to CZ’s fortune remains his ownership stake in Binance. Forbes estimates that he still controls roughly 90% of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. 

The value of that stake has increased alongside stronger activity across digital asset markets. CZ also holds substantial personal cryptocurrency investments. 

Previous public statements indicate that most of his personal assets remain invested in crypto, including Bitcoin and Binance Coin. Forbes factors those holdings into its overall wealth calculations.

CZ acknowledged the published ranking after its release but noted that billionaire estimates can change rapidly. He pointed to crypto market volatility, saying real-time valuations often differ from published figures because private company values and digital assets fluctuate continuously.

Binance Recovery Strengthened CZ’s Position Binance remained the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange despite major regulatory challenges over the past several years. 

After stepping down as chief executive following a U.S. settlement in 2023, CZ retained his reported ownership stake in the company.

According to Forbes, Binance’s business recovered as trading activity stabilized and the exchange maintained a leading share of global crypto trading volume. That recovery significantly increased the estimated value of CZ’s equity.

🚨 BREAKING:

BINANCE FOUNDER CZ JUST SURPASSED BILL GATES IN NET WORTH

HE IS THE RICHEST PERSON IN CRYPTO WITH A NET WORTH OF OVER $110 BILLION

THIS MAN IS AN ABSOLUTE LEGEND!! pic.twitter.com/GCv2ZAy7Ax

— ᴛʀᴀᴄᴇʀ (@DeFiTracer) June 28, 2026

Posts shared by DeFiTracer on X highlighted the updated Forbes rankings, describing CZ as the richest individual in the cryptocurrency industry. The discussion quickly spread across the crypto community as investors compared traditional technology fortunes with wealth created through digital asset infrastructure.

The rankings also reflect Bill Gates’ long-term philanthropic strategy. Forbes notes that Gates has continued transferring substantial assets to charitable causes through the Gates Foundation, reducing his personal fortune over time while remaining among the world’s wealthiest individuals.

The latest billionaire list illustrates how ownership of crypto infrastructure can rival wealth generated through traditional technology companies. 

While token prices influence personal fortunes, Binance’s business valuation remains the largest driver behind CZ’s estimated net worth, according to Forbes. The figures also serve as a reminder that billionaire rankings change frequently as private company values and cryptocurrency markets continue to move.

Pi Network lets tens of millions of people “mine” crypto by tapping a button on their phone once a day, with no hardware, no electricity bill, and no drained battery. That sounds too easy to be real mining, and in a sense it is not. Here is what Pi mining actually does, how the Stellar Consensus Protocol underneath it works, and what your daily tap really secures.

Summary

Pi mining is not computational mining in the Bitcoin sense; it is a daily check-in that distributes PI tokens and feeds a trust graph the network uses to reach agreement. Pi runs on a version of the Stellar Consensus Protocol, a Federated Byzantine Agreement system that reaches consensus through overlapping groups of trusted participants instead of energy-intensive proof-of-work. Mobile users contribute their trust relationships through Security Circles, while the actual transaction validation runs on computer nodes, not on phones. There are four roles, Pioneer, Contributor, Ambassador, and Node, and the daily tap mainly proves you are a real human and keeps your token rewards flowing. The model trades the energy cost and hard security guarantees of proof-of-work for accessibility, and it depends on honest trust circles and a node network that is still maturing. Pi mining is the process by which Pi Network distributes its PI tokens to users who confirm their participation through a mobile app and contribute trust relationships to the network, rather than by solving the energy-intensive computational puzzles that power Bitcoin mining. That distinction is the single most important thing to understand about Pi, because the word “mining” carries heavy baggage from Bitcoin, where it means racing thousands of specialized machines to solve cryptographic problems and consuming enormous amounts of electricity in the process. Pi uses the same word for something almost entirely different. A Pi user opens an app once every 24 hours, taps a button, and is credited with newly minted PI.

No puzzle is solved, no hardware is strained, and no meaningful electricity is consumed. This has made Pi one of the most-downloaded crypto apps in the world, with tens of millions of users, and also one of the most debated, because the obvious question is how something so effortless can be called mining at all, and what, if anything, the daily tap actually accomplishes. The answer lies in the consensus mechanism Pi is built on, a system called the Stellar Consensus Protocol, and in a reframing of what “mining” means. In Bitcoin, miners contribute energy and computation to secure the ledger, and they are rewarded for it; in Pi, the contribution is different.

Users supply trust relationships, vouching for people they know, and those relationships aggregate into a structure the network uses to agree on which transactions are valid. This guide explains how that works from the ground up. It covers why Pi rejected proof-of-work in the first place, how the Stellar Consensus Protocol reaches agreement without energy-intensive competition, what Security Circles are and how they feed the network, the four roles a participant can play, what the daily tap genuinely does as opposed to what users often assume, a worked example of how one person’s activity flows into consensus, why the mining rate falls over time, and the criticisms and limits that any honest account has to include. By the end you will understand both the clever idea at the heart of Pi and the real questions that surround it.

What Pi mining actually is Begin by stripping the word “mining” of its Bitcoin associations, because they cause most of the confusion. In Bitcoin, mining is the work of validating transactions and securing the ledger by solving cryptographic puzzles, and the energy spent doing it is what makes the network hard to attack. Pi mining is not that. When a Pi user taps the lightning button in the app, the phone does not solve anything, does not validate transactions, and does not run any heavy computation.

What the tap does is twofold: it signals that the user is a real, active human participating in the network, and it keeps that user eligible to receive newly distributed PI tokens. In Pi’s own framing, mining is the act of making a contribution to the consensus algorithm in order to secure the ledger, in exchange for rewards, but the contribution a mobile user makes is not energy. It is trust. That is why Pi mining is better understood as a combination of two things: a distribution mechanism and a trust-gathering mechanism.

As a distribution mechanism, it is the way PI tokens are handed out fairly to a large population without requiring anyone to buy expensive equipment, which is the project’s central pitch of accessibility. As a trust-gathering mechanism, the daily check-in and the connections a user makes feed into the network’s way of telling real participants apart from bots, which matters because a system that gives away tokens to anyone who taps a button needs some defense against people creating thousands of fake accounts to farm rewards. The daily tap, and especially the trust relationships a user builds, serve that defense. This is why Pi places so much emphasis on identity verification and on the social connections between users: the whole model rests on being able to distinguish genuine humans from fake ones, and the “mining” activity is partly how it gathers the raw material to do that.

Calling it mining is a marketing choice that borrows Bitcoin’s vocabulary, but mechanically it is closer to a daily proof-of-participation than to anything involving computation. For readers comparing the two models, the model Pi rejected is proof-of-work, where miners expend computation and electricity to secure the chain. Pi’s design replaces that energy cost with a trust-based participation model. The tradeoff is accessibility on one side and a different set of security assumptions on the other.

Why Pi does not use proof-of-work To understand why Pi works the way it does, you have to understand what it is reacting against. Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies use a consensus mechanism called proof-of-work, in which participants called miners compete to solve a difficult mathematical puzzle, and the first to solve it gets to add the next block of transactions and earn a reward. Proof-of-work is genuinely secure and has protected Bitcoin for over a decade, but it has two consequences that Pi’s founders saw as barriers. The first is energy: the global competition to solve puzzles consumes vast amounts of electricity, which is both an environmental concern and a cost.

The second is access: because the competition rewards raw computing power, serious mining requires specialized, expensive hardware and cheap electricity, which puts it out of reach of ordinary people and concentrates it among well-resourced operators. Pi Network was founded by two Stanford researchers, Nicolas Kokkalis and Chengdiao Fan, with the explicit goal of making cryptocurrency accessible to anyone with a smartphone, and proof-of-work was incompatible with that goal. A system that demands costly hardware and large electricity bills cannot, by design, be opened to billions of ordinary phone users. So Pi needed a fundamentally different way of reaching consensus, one that did not depend on burning energy or owning powerful machines, while still allowing the network to agree on a single, valid history of transactions without a central authority in charge.

That requirement led the project to a different family of consensus mechanisms, one built not on computational competition but on trust between participants. The choice it landed on was the Stellar Consensus Protocol, and understanding it is the key to understanding everything Pi does, because it is what allows a phone tap to stand in for the energy a Bitcoin miner would otherwise spend. Pi’s own explanation of mobile mining also frames the design this way, saying its consensus algorithm is adapted from SCP and Federated Byzantine Agreement rather than proof-of-work. The shift from work to trust is the core design decision behind Pi mining.

The Stellar Consensus Protocol, explained The Stellar Consensus Protocol, usually shortened to SCP, is a way for a decentralized network to agree on the state of a shared ledger without proof-of-work, and it was created by David Mazières, a computer scientist associated with the Stellar blockchain. Its underlying model is called Federated Byzantine Agreement, and the core idea is a genuine departure from how Bitcoin works. Instead of every participant competing, or relying on a fixed, predetermined set of validators chosen by a central authority, each participant in an SCP network decides for itself which other participants it trusts. The set of validators that a given participant chooses to trust is called its quorum slice.

Crucially, no central body assigns these trust relationships; each node selects its own, which is what makes the system both open and decentralized. Consensus then emerges from the overlap of these individual trust choices. When enough of the participants that a node trusts, and enough of the participants they in turn trust, all agree on a transaction or a block, that agreement propagates across the network until a global decision forms. In plainer terms, nodes reach agreement by exchanging messages and aligning with the peers they trust, and because trust relationships overlap and interlock across the whole network, a decision that begins locally spreads until the entire system converges on it.

There is no puzzle to solve and no energy to burn; the security comes from the structure of overlapping trust rather than from computational work. This is why the Stellar Consensus Protocol can run on modest hardware and reach agreement quickly with low energy use, which is exactly the property Pi needed. The protocol has well-studied properties of open membership, flexible trust, and fast, low-bandwidth messaging, and it is a real, respected approach to consensus, not something Pi invented. What Pi did was adapt SCP and layer on top of it a way to gather the trust relationships from a mass of ordinary mobile users, which is where Security Circles come in.

Security Circles and the global trust graph The bridge between millions of phone users and the Stellar Consensus Protocol is a feature called the Security Circle. Each Pi user is encouraged to build a Security Circle by adding a small number of people, typically three to five, whom they personally know and trust. This is a deliberately human act: you are vouching for specific individuals, asserting that they are real people you have reason to trust. On its own, one person’s Security Circle is a tiny thing, a handful of trust links.

But Pi’s design aggregates every user’s Security Circle into a single, enormous structure called the global trust graph, a map of who trusts whom across the entire network of tens of millions of users. This global trust graph is what feeds Pi’s consensus mechanism, and it is the mobile user’s actual contribution. Where a Bitcoin miner contributes energy, a Pi mobile user contributes trust relationships and the active, daily confirmation of them. The individual Security Circles become the raw material from which the network builds its quorum slices, the overlapping trust sets that the Stellar Consensus Protocol uses to reach agreement.

The graph also serves a defensive purpose that is central to Pi’s whole proposition. Because the network distributes tokens to participants, it is a tempting target for people who would create armies of fake accounts to harvest rewards, an attack known as a Sybil attack. The trust graph is Pi’s main defense: if real humans only add other real humans they know to their circles, then fake accounts struggle to embed themselves in the web of genuine trust, and the network can prioritize the accounts that sit within dense, authentic trust relationships over isolated or suspicious ones. This is why the social dimension of Pi is not incidental but foundational, and why Pi’s identity-based design belongs in the broader debate about proving real humans in crypto.

The security of the whole system is meant to rest on the authenticity of the trust relationships that ordinary users build, which is also one of the model’s most debated features. If users build careful circles with people they genuinely know, the graph can become a useful Sybil-resistance layer. If users add strangers just to boost earnings, the quality of the graph weakens. That tension is central to understanding both Pi’s accessibility and its open questions.

The four roles: Pioneer, Contributor, Ambassador, and Node Pi organizes participation into four roles, and understanding them clarifies who does what in the network. The most basic role is the Pioneer, which is simply a user who opens the app once every 24 hours and taps the button to confirm they are a real, active human and not a bot. Pioneers are the foundation of the user base, and the daily check-in is the minimum act of participation that keeps a user earning. The Pioneer role, on its own, does not validate transactions or secure the ledger in any direct technical sense; it confirms presence and keeps the rewards flowing.

The second role is the Contributor, which is a user who actively builds a Security Circle by adding trusted people. This is the role through which a user supplies the trust relationships that feed the global trust graph, so Contributors are the ones doing the work that actually matters for the consensus mechanism, even though that work consists of nothing more technical than choosing which people to vouch for. The third role is the Ambassador, a user who grows the network by referring new members, typically rewarded with a boost to their earning rate for doing so. Ambassadors expand the network’s reach, though, as critics point out, referral-based growth is also the feature that draws comparisons to multi-level marketing.

The fourth and most technically significant role is the Node. Node operators run Pi’s node software on a computer, not a phone, and it is these computer nodes that perform the heavy lifting of actually running the consensus algorithm and validating transactions, using the trust graph that all the mobile users have collectively built. The four roles together describe a division of labor: Pioneers prove they are real and keep earning, Contributors supply trust, Ambassadors grow the network, and Nodes do the actual computational work of reaching consensus. Recognizing that the validation happens at the Node level, not on phones, is essential to understanding what mobile “mining” really is.

What the daily tap really does Here is the honest core of how Pi mining works, the part that promotional descriptions tend to blur. When you tap the button each day as a Pioneer, you are not validating transactions, you are not running the consensus algorithm, and you are not securing the ledger in the way a Bitcoin miner secures Bitcoin. What you are doing is two specific things. First, you are confirming that you are a real human who is actively present, which keeps your account in good standing and keeps you eligible to receive PI.

Second, through your Security Circle and your ongoing confirmation of those trust links, you are contributing to the global trust graph that the network’s computer nodes use to reach consensus. Your phone is a source of trust data, not a validator. The crucial point, in Pi’s own words, is that the heavy lifting of running the consensus algorithm based on the trust graph still falls to computer nodes. The mobile phones create and confirm the trust relationships; the nodes use those relationships to do the actual work of validating transactions and securing the ledger.

So when a Pi user says they are “mining,” what is really happening is that they are feeding the security model with trust and keeping their reward stream active, while the computational securing of the network happens elsewhere, on the node layer. This is not a criticism so much as a clarification, because it explains both why Pi mining can be so effortless and why it is so different from what most people picture when they hear the word mining. The effortlessness is real because the user truly is not doing computational work. The contribution is real too, but it is a contribution of trust and presence, not of energy or computation.

Understanding this distinction is the difference between thinking you are personally securing a blockchain with your phone and understanding that you are providing one input, trust, into a system whose actual validation happens on computers run by node operators. That is also why “mining” in Pi should not be evaluated with the same checklist as Bitcoin mining. The daily tap is closer to proof of participation and identity maintenance than to proof-of-work. The right question is not whether the phone solves blocks, because it does not, but whether the trust graph and node layer mature enough to secure a real network.

A worked example: how one Pioneer’s activity flows into consensus To make this concrete, follow a single user through a day. Imagine a Pioneer named Maria who has had the Pi app for a few months. Each morning she opens the app and taps the lightning button, which starts a 24-hour earning cycle and credits her with PI at her current rate. That tap, on its own, simply tells the network that Maria is a real, active human and keeps her rewards flowing.

So far, nothing about the ledger has changed; Maria has only confirmed her presence. The part that feeds the network is Maria’s Security Circle. Some weeks ago, Maria added five people she knows personally, her sister, two close friends, a coworker, and a former classmate, to her Security Circle, vouching for each as a real, trustworthy person. Those five trust links are Maria’s contribution to the global trust graph.

When the network’s computer nodes run the Stellar Consensus Protocol to agree on the next set of transactions, they draw on the vast web of trust relationships that Maria and tens of millions of other users have built. Maria’s five links are a tiny but real part of the overlapping trust sets, the quorum slices, that the nodes use to reach agreement, and because Maria’s circle connects to her contacts’ circles, which connect to theirs, her small contribution is woven into the larger structure that lets the whole network converge on a shared, valid history. If Maria also chose to run node software on her computer, she would move into the Node role and take part directly in the validation work; as a Pioneer with a Security Circle, she instead supplies trust that the nodes consume. The reward she receives for her daily tap is, in effect, payment for her presence and her trust contribution.

This is the full loop of Pi mining at the level of one person: tap to prove presence and earn, build a circle to contribute trust, and let the node layer turn that aggregated trust into consensus. The example also shows why Pi’s model is both accessible and contested. Maria did not need an ASIC miner, a warehouse, or a power contract, which is the whole point. But the quality of her contribution depends on the authenticity of her trust choices, and the strength of the network depends on millions of similar choices being honest.

The mining rate and why it falls A practical feature that surprises many new users is that the rate at which they earn PI is not fixed; it falls over time, by design. Pi built in a declining emission schedule loosely modeled on the way Bitcoin’s block reward halves over time, intended to create scarcity as the network grows. In Pi’s history, the base mining rate has dropped sharply at population milestones: it halved as the network crossed 1 million users, halved again at 10 million, and has continued to decline as the user base has grown into the tens of millions. A Pioneer today earns a small fraction of what early users earned for the same daily tap.

The logic is that rewarding early participants more generously bootstraps the network, while tapering rewards as it grows prevents the supply from expanding too fast and preserves some scarcity. On top of the declining base rate, a user’s actual earnings are shaped by multipliers tied to the roles described earlier. Building a Security Circle increases your rate, referring new users as an Ambassador adds a boost, engaging with apps in the ecosystem can contribute, and some users choose to lock up their PI for a period in exchange for a higher rate. So two users tapping on the same day can earn quite different amounts depending on how much they have contributed to the network’s trust and growth.

All of this sits against the backdrop of Pi’s very large maximum supply, on the order of 100 billion tokens, of which only a portion is currently in circulation. That large supply, combined with the way new tokens enter the market as users complete verification and move their balances onto the live network, is a structural factor that weighs on the token’s price, a dynamic worth keeping in mind alongside the mechanics of how the mining itself works. For readers following the market side, how mined Pi reaches the market explains why unlocks, migration, and supply absorption matter after tokens become transferable. The declining rate is, in part, the project’s attempt to manage that supply, rewarding participation while trying not to flood the market.

Risks, criticisms, and what mining really secures An honest explanation of Pi mining has to address the genuine criticisms and limits, because they go to the heart of what the model is and is not. The most fundamental point, already noted, is that mobile “mining” does not secure the ledger the way proof-of-work does. The daily tap proves presence and feeds the trust graph, but the actual validation runs on computer nodes, and the security of the whole system rests on the trust graph being authentic and on the node network being sufficiently decentralized and robust. That leads directly to the central criticism: the trust-based security model is debated.

Its strength depends on real humans adding only other real humans to their circles, and skeptics question how reliably that holds at a scale of tens of millions of users, and how resistant the system truly is to manipulation if trust links can be gamed. Centralization is another recurring concern. For much of its life Pi has operated with significant control held by its founding team and foundation, including over key aspects of the network and the pace of its decentralization, which sits uneasily with the decentralized ideal that the consensus model is meant to embody. The node network that does the real validation is still maturing, and the degree to which it is truly decentralized is a fair question.

Critics also point to the referral mechanics, the Ambassador role and its rewards for recruiting new users, as resembling the structure of multi-level marketing, where growth is driven by recruitment, and they note that the long period during which Pi could be mined but not traded or used invited skepticism about whether the tokens would ever have real value. There are technical limits too, including questions about the network’s transaction throughput and its capacity to serve a user base of its claimed size. None of this means Pi is necessarily a scam, a charge its supporters reject by pointing to its real technical development and large verified community, but it does mean a clear-eyed user should understand exactly what their daily tap does and does not accomplish. You are not single-handedly securing a blockchain with your phone.

You are providing trust and presence to a system whose validation happens on a node network, in exchange for tokens whose ultimate value depends on the project delivering real utility and decentralization over time. That is the honest picture of what Pi mining secures, and what it does not. For price-focused readers, where the mined token trades is a separate question from how the mining mechanism works. For consensus comparisons, another way networks reach consensus shows how other systems use locked capital rather than proof-of-work or Pi’s trust graph.

Frequently asked questions Is Pi mining real cryptocurrency mining? Not in the way Bitcoin mining is. Bitcoin mining involves solving cryptographic puzzles with specialized hardware, consuming large amounts of energy, to validate transactions and secure the ledger. Pi mining involves tapping a button in an app once a day, which solves nothing and consumes no meaningful energy. What the tap does is prove you are a real, active human and keep you eligible for PI rewards, while the trust relationships you build feed the network’s consensus mechanism.

The actual transaction validation runs on computer nodes, not phones. So Pi uses the word mining, but mechanically it is closer to a daily proof-of-participation than to computational mining.

What is the Stellar Consensus Protocol? The Stellar Consensus Protocol, or SCP, is a way for a decentralized network to agree on a shared ledger without proof-of-work, created by computer scientist David Mazières. It uses a model called Federated Byzantine Agreement, in which each participant chooses for itself which other participants it trusts, forming what is called a quorum slice. Consensus emerges when these overlapping trust choices align across the network, so a decision spreads until the whole system converges on it. Because security comes from the structure of overlapping trust rather than from computational work, SCP uses little energy and can run on modest hardware, which is why Pi adapted it for mobile use.

What does tapping the button actually do? Two things. First, it confirms you are a real human who is actively present, which keeps your account in good standing and your PI rewards flowing. Second, combined with your Security Circle, it contributes to the global trust graph that the network’s computer nodes use to reach consensus. What it does not do is validate transactions or secure the ledger directly; your phone is a source of trust data, not a validator.

In Pi’s own description, the heavy lifting of running the consensus algorithm falls to computer nodes, while mobile users supply the trust relationships those nodes rely on. So the tap is about presence and trust, not computation.

What is a Security Circle? A Security Circle is a small group of people, typically three to five, whom a Pi user personally knows and trusts and adds to their account, vouching for them as real, trustworthy individuals. On its own a Security Circle is just a few trust links, but Pi aggregates every user’s circle into a single global trust graph spanning the whole network. That graph is the mobile user’s real contribution: it feeds the consensus mechanism and serves as the network’s main defense against fake accounts, since genuine humans adding only other genuine humans makes it harder for bot armies to embed themselves in the web of authentic trust. The social authenticity of these circles is foundational to Pi’s security model.

Why does my Pi mining rate keep dropping? By design. Pi built in a declining emission schedule, loosely modeled on Bitcoin’s halving, to create scarcity as the network grows. The base rate has halved at population milestones, dropping as the network passed 1 million and then 10 million users, and continuing to fall as it reached the tens of millions, so a Pioneer today earns a fraction of what early users earned. Your actual earnings also depend on multipliers from building a Security Circle, referring users, engaging with the ecosystem, and optional lockups.

The declining rate is partly an attempt to manage Pi’s very large maximum supply of around 100 billion tokens, rewarding early participation while trying to limit how fast new supply enters.

Is Pi Network legitimate, or is it a scam? It is truly debated, and this guide does not resolve it. Supporters point to real technical development, the adaptation of a respected consensus protocol, and a large verified community as evidence that Pi is a serious project. Critics raise concerns about centralized control held by the founding team, the maturity and true decentralization of the node network, referral mechanics that resemble multi-level marketing, the long period when Pi could be mined but not used, and questions about the network’s technical capacity. A clear-eyed view is that Pi is a real project with real open questions, and that any user should understand exactly what their daily tap accomplishes and treat the token’s ultimate value as uncertain instead of assured.

This article is educational information, not financial advice. Details of Pi Network’s mechanics, mining rate, supply, and development reflect information available as of June 28, 2026, and can change. Pi Network is a debated project, and its token’s value and future remain uncertain. Verify current details from official sources and consider your own circumstances before participating or making any decision.

Chainlink‘s native token LINK is currently testing a pivotal support zone seen as critical for short-term price direction, as market participants closely monitor whether this level will be maintained. At the time of writing, LINK was trading at $7.29, with a 24-hour trading volume of $171.54 million and a market capitalization of $5.3 billion. Although LINK slipped 1.72% in the past 24 hours, price action and accumulation data continue to keep the possibility of a rebound in focus.

Support level seen as key for near-term directionCrypto market analyst Alpha Crypto Signal noted that LINK has retraced its recent gains following a reverse V-shaped move on the daily chart, erasing much of the advance made during its previous rally and reinforcing a cautious sentiment in the market.

LINK is currently testing a critical horizontal neckline support—a region traders have been closely watching—made even more important by mounting sell pressure. If this support holds, a relief rally toward resistance at $8.64 could play out, according to market observers.

Alpha Crypto Signal explained that LINK is now challenging a crucial neckline support on its daily chart. Holding this level could open the way to a rebound toward $8.64, while a break below would likely strengthen the downward trend.

Conversely, if LINK closes a daily session below this support, the technical outlook could shift in favor of sellers. In that scenario, market structure would likely deteriorate further, raising the prospect of deeper losses.

Chainlink boosts reserves with fresh LINK purchaseDespite heightened price pressure, Chainlink added another 593,088 LINK to its reserves in June, with the acquisition valued at over $4.6 million. This recent addition brings the Chainlink Reserve’s balance to 4,504,167 LINK in total.

Known for its decentralized oracle network that brings off-chain data to smart contracts, Chainlink’s move to increase reserves is being closely monitored as part of efforts to bolster ecosystem development and ensure long-term financial resilience.

Mini glossary: An oracle is infrastructure that allows blockchains to securely access data from external sources. Chainlink is among the most widely used networks in this domain, playing a pivotal role in decentralized finance, tokenized real-world assets, and cross-chain applications.

The growing reserve size is fueling expectations that Chainlink is positioning for expansion in decentralized finance, tokenized real-world assets, and cross-chain infrastructure. Strengthening the treasury structure is viewed as a sign of confidence in the company’s long-term strategy.

Market continues to exercise cautionNonetheless, despite reserve accumulation and the potential for positive technical developments, downward pressure on the LINK price remains. Caution across the broader cryptocurrency market and Bitcoin‘s sideways movement are among the key factors limiting upside momentum for LINK.

As a result, short-term market direction hinges on whether this technical support zone holds. Investors are closely watching both the $8.64 resistance and the risk of a daily close beneath support, as these will help gauge the token’s recovery prospects and overall market sentiment.

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.

Predict.fun’s first World Cup knockout match: Canada vs South Africa, with Canada holding a 58% win probability.

Data from prediction market platform Predict.fun indicates that the first knockout match of the 2026 Canada-Mexico-USA World Cup’s 32-team knockout stage is approaching. The clash between Canada and South Africa will kick off at 3 a.m. Beijing time today. Current predicted win probabilities stand at 58% for Canada (CAN), 16% for South Africa (RSA), and a 27% chance of a draw. The data shows that the market has given higher support to the Canadian national team’s overall strength ahead of the match.

4 hours ago

Predict.fun Launches World Cup 32-Team Knockout Stage Event, Remaining Prize Pool Exceeds $1.1 Million

According to an official announcement from Predict.fun, the knockout stage of the World Cup’s 32-team tournament has officially launched, with the platform simultaneously upgrading its Predict Cup event mechanism. For this knockout round, Predict.fun will open 11 prediction markets per match and boost Fan Points rewards. The official added that the ongoing event still has a prize pool of over $1.1 million up for grabs, with rewards disbursed immediately after each knockout match’s conclusion. Notably, the Canada vs. South Africa match is set to kick off in under 3 hours, with a direct $25,000 reward allocated for this fixture, giving users more frequent chances to participate and win. Predict.fun stated that as the knockout stage commences, the platform will incentivize users to actively join World Cup prediction markets and compete for subsequent prize pool rewards via more markets, higher point rewards, and a more frequent reward distribution system.

4 hours ago

Predict.fun World Cup Group Stage $840,000 Event Rewards Now Available for Claiming

According to official announcements from Predict.fun, rewards for the World Cup group stage event are now available for collection, with the current prize pool totaling $840,000. The platform noted that users who participated and secured rewards during the group stage can now claim them via the platform. With the conclusion of the 32-team group stage, the number of World Cup-related markets on Predict.fun has risen from the initial 6 to 11, providing more trading and points-chasing opportunities for new participants. For the upcoming knockout stage, the platform will release over $1 million in additional event rewards, giving users ongoing opportunities to compete for leaderboard positions and split the subsequent prize pool.

4 hours ago

South Korean investors' borrowings for stock trading hit an all-time high, with record leverage exacerbating volatility in South Korean equities.

South Korean investors’ margin lending for stock trading hits an all-time high: South Korea’s margin loans have reached a record of approximately $26 billion, doubling since the start of 2025. However, when measured as a share of South Korea’s free-float market capitalization, margin lending currently makes up only around 0.8% — the lowest level since the 2020 pandemic low. This is because the sharp rise in South Korea’s total stock market capitalization has far outpaced the growth of leverage. Meanwhile, during the recent market correction, the daily forced liquidation ratio surged to 4-5% of total outstanding margin loans, far exceeding the normal level of roughly 1%. This means that leveraged investors unable to meet margin call requirements are forcing brokers to liquidate 4-5% of all margin positions in a single day. Record leverage is exacerbating volatility in the South Korean market.

4 hours ago

Samson Mow asserts that Bitcoin has reached its bottom, as analysts’ views on the market outlook have grown increasingly divergent.

Jan3 CEO Samson Mow today asserted that Bitcoin has reached its bottom. His core argument is that Bitcoin hit its then all-time high 37 days before the April 2024 halving, an anomaly indicating the traditional four-year halving cycle has accelerated, rendering historically reliable timing patterns no longer applicable. “Even if you believe in the cycle, you should conclude that it has accelerated.” However, the market is far from reaching a consensus: Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research, believes the bottom is more likely at $55,000, with a time window between August and October; BitMex co-founder Arthur Hayes is more bearish, predicting Bitcoin will hit roughly $40,000 within six months; senior analyst James Van Straten notes that Bitcoin is currently testing its 200-week moving average, with on-chain data suggesting the $50,000–$54,000 range could be the next key battleground. Since 2011, every major Bitcoin bear market has only confirmed its cycle bottom after falling below its realized price, and this signal has not yet emerged in the current cycle.

4 hours ago

Galaxy CEO: MicroStrategy has evolved into a key confidence signal for the overall Bitcoin market, with $59,000 serving as a critical support level.

Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz stated that the core reason for Bitcoin’s recent decline is a "confidence collapse triggered by Strategy". The issue extends beyond Bitcoin’s price itself: concerns over Strategy’s financing model are spreading across the market. As the world’s largest public corporate holder of Bitcoin, Strategy’s stocks and senior securities have become key metrics for traders to gauge Bitcoin market risk. Earlier, the company’s Bitcoin flywheel effect came under pressure, with its stock once trading below the value of its Bitcoin holdings—meaning its years-long reliance on the "issuing stock at a premium to raise funds for Bitcoin purchases" model is now facing challenges. Novogratz bluntly noted that STRC (Strategy’s ticker) is trading weakly, and it should have held steady around $100. Currently, Strategy’s annual dividend obligations have risen to roughly $1.2 billion, and shrinking cash reserves have cut the dividend coverage period to just about 14 months. On the macro front, Bitcoin also faces pressure. Novogratz summed up the current market logic as "a strong dollar means a weak Bitcoin": hawkish central bank signals and a strengthening US dollar are suppressing demand for risk assets. Technically, the $59,000 to $60,000 range has become a critical support level for Bitcoin; a break below could open downside space to $45,000. Novogratz also admitted the current situation is complex, with an equal 50/50 probability of a rebound or deep correction. ETF outflows, weak liquidity, and cautious positioning in the options market further confirm the market’s fragile sentiment. Today, Strategy’s balance sheet health, STRC’s price performance, and cash position are no longer just company-level issues—they have evolved into a confidence signal for the entire Bitcoin market.

4 hours ago

@Zcash and its $ZEC token are among the worst-performing major crypto assets this week, sliding 16% over seven days and an additional 6% in the past 24 hours alone. The token is not the only casualty in a broadly weak market, but the scale of its losses stands out even against that backdrop.

What Is Behind the Selloff The recent pressure on $ZEC has roots that go beyond general market weakness. Zcash encountered significant market turbulence in early June 2026 following the disclosure of a critical vulnerability in its Orchard shielded pool, a bug present since the pool's activation in 2022 that raised questions about the integrity of shielded transactions. The flaw, found by security researcher Taylor Hornby during a Shielded Labs protocol audit, could have enabled double-spending within the pool, though no exploit occurred and no funds were stolen. Arthur Hayes, the most prominent institutional backer of the privacy coin narrative, subsequently exited his position, triggering a cascade that drove ZEC sharply lower.

More recently, broader macro conditions have added to the pain, with persistent institutional outflows and hawkish Federal Reserve expectations weighing on risk assets, alongside sector rotation away from niche privacy assets and a technical breakdown below key short-term moving averages.

Is the Privacy Narrative Over The short answer is probably not, though the trade has become considerably more complicated. Privacy coins experienced a notable revival in late 2025, with Zcash gaining 691% and Monero rallying 143%, demonstrating renewed interest in financial privacy. That momentum attracted serious institutional names: Zcash hit $600 in May 2026, with Grayscale filing for a spot ZEC ETF that could reshape institutional privacy coin access.

Privacy-focused cryptocurrencies could extend their market outperformance into 2026, according to analysts and researchers, though the very forces driving demand could also trigger an inevitable regulatory reckoning. AML and KYC constraints, particularly around off-ramps, remain the sector's biggest vulnerability. As one analyst put it, "In 2026, the winners won't be the loudest privacy coins, but the ones that balance strong privacy with usability, liquidity, and regulatory resilience."

For $ZEC holders, the central question is whether the recent vulnerability will have a lasting impact on trust in the network. Some traders are choosing to sell on the view that the incident could make it harder for Zcash to attract new users, while others are waiting for more information, noting that the issue was fixed and no misuse has been confirmed. The privacy narrative is far from dead, but $ZEC will need to rebuild confidence before it can reclaim its earlier highs.

Sources
KuCoin: ZEC Price Declines After Orchard Pool Bug Disclosure
CoinPedia: Zcash Crash, ZEC Token Price Dropped
CoinDesk: Privacy Tokens May Extend Outperformance Into 2026

Zcash is moving closer to one of its most significant consensus-layer changes in years. The proposed Crosslink upgrade introduces a proof-of-stake (PoS) finality layer that runs alongside the existing proof-of-work (PoW) chain. 

It adds a second consensus mechanism that locks confirmed blocks, making them economically irreversible. This provides additional security against rollback attacks and significantly reduces wait times for certain transactions.

Although Crosslink has not yet been activated on the Zcash mainnet, this guide explains how node operators who want to participate as finalizers can be better prepared for public testing and eventual deployment.

Key Takeaways Crosslink adds a PoS finality layer to Zcash, allowing finalizers to stake ZEC and help secure the network alongside PoW miners. Prospective finalizers should migrate to Zebra, move eligible ZEC into the Orchard pool, and participate in Crosslink Feature Net testing to prepare for deployment. Reliable infrastructure, continuous uptime, and active participation in protocol updates will be essential for operating a Crosslink finalizer node. Understanding Crosslink’s Validator Model This model aims to improve settlement security without abandoning Zcash’s existing consensus foundation.

Crosslink introduces a network of PoS participants known as finalizers that operate alongside miners. While miners continue to produce blocks, validators help ensure finality through a Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) mechanism running in parallel with the PoW chain. 

According to Shielded Labs, staking operations, delegation mechanisms, validator roster selection, and reward issuance have already been incorporated into the prototype development roadmap. 

Step-by-Step Process of Preparing Your Node 1. Migrate from Zcashd to Zebra

The Crosslink prototype is built on Zebra, which requires operators running on Zcashd to:

Install the latest Zebra release from the official Zcash Foundation GitHub repository. Sync the Zebra node to the chain tip before switching. Migrate wallet functionality to Zallet. Verify your node reports the correct chain state. The latest Zebra release has upgraded several core cryptography libraries and bumped the minimum supported Rust version, so ensure your build environment meets the current Rust toolchain requirements before compiling from source.

2. Move ZEC to the Orchard Shielded Pool

Staking is tied exclusively to Orchard-pool balances. If your ZEC is sitting in a transparent address or an older Sapling address, it will not be eligible for staking under Crosslink. 

Transfer funds to a unified address beginning with “u1” using Zashi or Zallet, and confirm the balance appears in the Orchard pool. 

Staking uses quantized amounts of 1, 10, or 100 ZEC, so plan your holdings accordingly to avoid locking up funds in amounts that fall between these tiers.

3. Run the Crosslink Feature Net

The first seasonal incentivized testnet allows the community to help test the system while contributing to infrastructure that benefits the Zcash mainnet. Community incentives focus on activities that support the ecosystem.

To join:

Pull the Crosslink-enabled build from the ShieldedLabs/crosslink-deployment GitHub repository. Configure your node to connect to Feature Net peers using the parameters published by Shielded Labs for Season 1. Submit a staking action using the updated transaction version that includes a staking action field. Monitor finality status via the dedicated RPC calls added in Milestone 2, which log warnings when finality stalls. 4. Harden Your Infrastructure

The current focus for Crosslink development is on stability, especially around new networking components for syncing. Finalizer nodes need reliable uptime because BFT consensus requires a minimum quorum of participants to advance the finality layer. Operators should:

Run nodes on dedicated hardware with at least 16 GB RAM and an SSD-backed data directory. Ensure uninterrupted internet connectivity with redundant failover. Monitor the finality-status RPC endpoint to detect and alert on stall conditions. Keep the node software updated across each seasonal Feature Net cycle, as breaking changes to database schemas and serialization formats are expected during the prototype phase. 5. Follow the ZIP Process

Crosslink requires formal Zcash Improvement Proposals (ZIPs) to move from Feature Net to the mainnet. Hardening comes after the productionization phase to finalize ZIPs and complete security audits. These steps are intended to prepare the protocol for a future network upgrade, pending community approval and successful security audits.

Monitor the official ZIPs repository and participate in community sentiment polls, which influence whether Crosslink is scheduled into a future network upgrade.

Potential Challenges for Validators Crosslink introduces new operational responsibilities that traditional PoW miners do not face.

These may include:

Managing delegated stake Maintaining high validator uptime Responding to protocol upgrades Monitoring slashing or penalty mechanisms Balancing security with operational costs Although many design elements are still being finalized, operators should expect validator management to require more ongoing oversight than simply running a standard full node.

Bottom Line To prepare a validator node for the Zcash Crosslink hybrid PoS upgrade, operators should migrate to the Zebra ecosystem, position eligible ZEC in the Orchard pool, participate in Feature Net testing, and maintain reliable infrastructure capable of supporting finality operations. 

While Crosslink is still progressing through testing and governance stages, early preparation can help node operators understand the protocol’s staking and finalization mechanics before deploying on the mainnet. 

If approved, Crosslink could strengthen Zcash’s security model by combining PoW mining with stake-based finality, creating a more resilient network while introducing new opportunities for ZEC holders to participate in consensus.

MicroStrategy’s Saylor Could Become a Bigger Villain Than FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried?

- Phase 3 PROPEL 3 data published today in NEJM were simultaneously presented at ICCBH in a late-breaking oral presentation; presentation includes new arm span Z-score data showing a statistically significant improvement versus placebo (LS mean +0.37 SD; p<0.0001), the first and only statistically significant placebo-controlled arm span result reported for an achondroplasia trial at 52 weeks

- This is the first and only Phase 3 data for an achondroplasia clinical study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), marking BridgeBio’s second NEJM publication in achondroplasia and fourth NEJM publication overall in the last three years

- The data includes the largest mean increase in AHV compared to placebo reported in any Phase 3 achondroplasia study (+2.1 cm/year observed mean improvement)

- Oral infigratinib is the only therapy to demonstrate statistically significant improvement in body proportionality in a Phase 3 achondroplasia study, with a LS mean treatment difference of –0.05 in children ages 3 to 8 years (p<0.05)

- Oral infigratinib was well tolerated, with no discontinuations or serious adverse events related to study drug

- BridgeBio intends to submit an NDA to the FDA in the third quarter of 2026 with launch anticipated in early to mid 2027, and an MAA to the EMA in the second half of 2026

PALO ALTO, Calif., June 28, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. (Nasdaq: BBIO) (“BridgeBio” or the “Company”), a commercial-stage, multi-product biopharmaceutical company focused on developing medicines for genetic conditions, today announced that positive results from PROPEL 3, the global Phase 3 pivotal study of oral infigratinib in children living with achondroplasia, were published as an original research article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). These data were also presented at the International Congress of Children’s Bone Health (ICCBH) 2026 in a late-breaking oral presentation by Ravi Savarirayan, M.D., Ph.D. of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, AUS, and global lead investigator for PROPEL 3.

"The publication of our pivotal trial data (PROPEL 3) in the New England Journal of Medicine is a defining milestone for the field of skeletal dysplasia that reflects the years of rigorous clinical investigation from investigators and dedication from children and their families to make this breakthrough science possible. These remarkable data establish oral infigratinib as the first therapy to directly target FGFR3, deliver the highest treated annualized growth velocity and greatest improvement in body proportionality reported for any current therapy for children with achondroplasia. Presenting these late-breaking data at ICCBH reflects the significance of having an orally administered, mechanistically distinct treatment option that addresses achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia at their very source,” said Dr. Savarirayan. “I believe that we are on a clear path toward a best-in-class therapy for children with achondroplasia that families seeking better options are excited to have available to them.”

The positive results shared in NEJM from PROPEL 3 include:

PROPEL 3 successfully met the primary endpoint of change from baseline in annualized height velocity, with a LS mean treatment difference against placebo of +1.74 cm/yr (p<0.0001). The observed mean difference was +2.10 cm/yr (p<0.0001). Both values are the largest observed in a Phase 3 clinical study in achondroplasiaPROPEL 3 successfully met the key secondary endpoint of change from baseline in height Z-score (achondroplasia reference population) at Week 52 (p<0.0001), with an LS mean increase on the treatment arm of +0.41 SDIn a pre-specified exploratory analysis of the key secondary endpoint, oral infigratinib achieved the first statistically significant improvement in body proportionality against placebo in achondroplasia, demonstrating an LS mean treatment difference of -0.05 (p<0.05) against placebo in children younger than 8 years old (>50% of the participants)Infigratinib was well-tolerated, with: No discontinuations related to study drugNo serious adverse events related to study drug3 cases (4%) of hyperphosphatemia, all mild, transient, asymptomatic, and not requiring dose reductions or discontinuationsNo adverse events associated with inhibition of FGFR1 or FGFR2 (e.g., retinal or corneal)
Additional data presented at ICCBH showed infigratinib improved arm span vs. placebo by +0.37 SD (p<0.0001), marking the first statistically significant improvement in arm span from a placebo-controlled achondroplasia trial In addition to the late-breaking oral presentation at ICCBH 2026, one oral presentation, one poster, and three encore posters were shared. The new details shared included:

Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Achondroplasia: Findings from the Observational PROPEL Study, presented by Marie-Eve Robinson, M.D., of Shriners Hospital for Children Canada, McGill University, Montreal, CA Results from the global observational PROPEL study demonstrated that children with achondroplasia experience reduced health-related quality of life across multiple patient-reported measures, particularly in physical functioning, reinforcing the significant day-to-day burden of the condition and providing important baseline context for future studies of oral infigratinib Qualitative Research to Evaluate the Content Validity and Relevance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Children and Parents of Children with Hypochondroplasia, presented by Chandler Crews of The Chandler Project, U.S. Findings from interviews with children and parents affected by hypochondroplasia demonstrated that commonly used patient-reported outcome measures were clear, relevant, and reflective of the real-world physical, cognitive, and quality-of-life challenges experienced by children living with the condition, supporting their use in future clinical research and care BridgeBio believes oral infigratinib is positioned to become the first approved oral therapy and a potential best-in-class option for children living with achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia. The Company intends to submit an NDA for achondroplasia to the FDA in the third quarter of 2026, and an MAA for achondroplasia to the EMA in the second half of 2026. The Company anticipates a U.S. launch in early to mid 2027.

Oral infigratinib has received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on the shared results from the PROPEL 2 clinical trial, which meet the FDA’s requirement of potentially demonstrating substantial improvement in efficacy over available therapies on clinically significant endpoints. In addition to receipt of Breakthrough Therapy Designation, oral infigratinib has also received Orphan Drug Designation, Fast Track Designation, and Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for achondroplasia from the FDA. If infigratinib is approved, BridgeBio may qualify for a Priority Review Voucher.

Information about PROPEL Infant & Toddler trial (NCT07169279) can be found here on clinicaltrials.gov. Information about ACCEL, the Company’s observational lead-in study for oral infigratinib in hypochondroplasia’s Phase 3 study, (NCT06410976) can be found here, and information about ACCEL 2/3, BridgeBio’s Phase 2/3 clinical study of oral infigratinib in hypochondroplasia, (NCT06873035) can be found here. BridgeBio is committed to exploring the potential of oral infigratinib on wider medical and functional impacts of achondroplasia, hypochondroplasia and other skeletal dysplasia conditions, which hold significant unmet needs for families.

About Achondroplasia
Achondroplasia is the most common cause of disproportionate short stature, affecting approximately 55,000 people in the U.S. and European Union (EU), including up to 10,000 children and adolescents with open growth plates. Achondroplasia impacts overall health and quality of life, leading to medical complications such as obstructive sleep apnea, middle ear dysfunction, kyphosis, and spinal stenosis. The condition is uniformly caused by an activating variant in FGFR3.

About Oral Infigratinib
Oral infigratinib is an investigational small molecule designed to inhibit FGFR3 signaling and target skeletal dysplasias, including achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia, at their source. Overactivating FGFR3 pathogenic variants drive downstream MAPK and STAT1 signaling that aberrates growth plate development, thereby causing disproportionate short stature and the potential for serious health complications. Oral infigratinib improves bone growth by decreasing the overactivity of FGFR3.

About BridgeBio Pharma, Inc.
BridgeBio exists to develop transformative medicines for genetic conditions. Millions of people worldwide living with genetic conditions lack treatment options, often because drug development for small patient populations can be commercially challenging. We aim to bridge the gap between advancements in genetic science and meaningful medicines for underserved patient populations. Our decentralized, hub-and-spoke model is designed for speed, precision, and scalability. Autonomous and empowered teams focus on individual conditions, while a central hub provides the clinical, regulatory, and commercial capabilities needed to bring innovation to market. For more information, visit bridgebio.com and follow us on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok.

BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements. Statements in this press release may include statements that are not historical facts and are considered forward-looking within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), which are usually identified by the use of words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “continues”, “estimates,” “expects,” “hopes,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “projects,” “remains”, “seeks,” “should,” “will,” and variations of such words or similar expressions, or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements, though not all forward-looking statements necessarily contain these identifying words. We intend these forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. These forward-looking statements, including express and implied statements relating to our expectations regarding the potential approval of oral infigratinib for achondroplasia; the timing of a potential NDA submission to the FDA and MAA submission to the EMA for achondroplasia and a potential launch of oral infigratinib; the potential of oral infigratinib to become the first approved oral therapy and a potential best-in-class option for children living with achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia; the potential of oral infigratinib to address achondroplasia, hypochondroplasia and other skeletal dysplasia conditions at their source and with respect to wider medical and functional impacts; the potential use of findings from our observational and qualitative research in future clinical research and care; and our potential qualification for a Priority Review Voucher if oral infigratinib is approved, reflect our current views about our plans, intentions, expectations and strategies, which are based on the information currently available to us and on assumptions we have made. Although we believe that our plans, intentions, expectations and strategies as reflected in or suggested by those forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that the plans, intentions, expectations or strategies will be attained or achieved. Furthermore, actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including, but not limited to, initial and ongoing data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials not being indicative of final data, the potential size of the target patient populations our product candidates are designed to treat not being as large as anticipated, the design and success of ongoing and planned clinical trials, difficulties with enrollment in our clinical trials, adverse events that may be encountered in our clinical trials, future regulatory filings, approvals and/or sales, despite having ongoing and future interactions with the FDA or other regulatory agencies to discuss potential paths to registration for our product candidates, the FDA or such other regulatory agencies not agreeing with our regulatory approval strategies, components of our filings, such as clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies, or the sufficiency of data submitted, the continuing success of our collaborations, our ability to obtain additional funding, potential volatility in our share price, the impacts of current macroeconomic and geopolitical events, including changing conditions from the hostilities in Ukraine and the Middle East, increasing rates of inflation and changing interest rates, on our overall business operations and expectations, as well as those risks set forth in the Risk Factors section of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as required by applicable law, we assume no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

BridgeBio Media Contact:
Bubba Murarka, Executive Vice President
[email protected]
(650)-789-8220

BridgeBio Investor Contact:
Chinmay Shukla, Senior Vice President, Strategic Finance
[email protected]

As Solana trades near $72, market attention has shifted to the $40 to $60 price range, a technically significant support level that could define the token’s next big move. While two technical analysts both underscore the critical nature of this zone, their short term projections for SOL diverge, suggesting alternate market scenarios in the weeks ahead.

Major support seen as launching pad for long term gainsAccording to an analysis shared by CryptoPatel, based on TradingView data, SOL failed to sustain higher levels and retreated back to its previously identified support and entry area. CryptoPatel indicated a personal buying range between $40 and $60, citing long term profit-taking targets set at $500 and $1,000—levels that would represent ambitious upside under bullish conditions.

CryptoPatel stated that they view the $40 to $60 range as a buying zone, while setting sights on $500 and $1,000 as potential long term targets for SOL.

The immediate region to watch is the $52 to $60 band; if SOL can hold this level, buyers may attempt a recovery towards the $100 mark. For a more robust rally, however, the token would need to overcome the historically strong resistance area between $160 and $220, previously a tough barrier in past cycles.

Targets like $500 and $1,000 on the chart remain plausible only if a broader upward wave materializes, requiring a clear breakout above the $220–$295 resistance range. Presently, the outlook for Solana is marked by longer term potential coupled with significant near-term uncertainty.

Short term outlook points to possible final shakeoutA contrasting technical view from analyst Ardi, also referencing TradingView data, suggests Solana may face one final deep correction before a significant recovery begins. According to this perspective, after pulling back from its previous cycle highs, SOL is currently consolidating within a long term structure—potentially part of a market accumulation phase that could last a while.

Ardi assessed that Solana might briefly dip below current lows ahead of a renewed upward attempt, describing this as a possible final shakeout before recovery.

In this scenario, the critical area to watch is Solana’s current support zone. Should SOL breach this level, the charts indicate the price could temporarily slip below the established acceptance area, in a move reminiscent of the final capitulation witnessed in 2022, according to Ardi.

Despite this, the bulk of downside risk may already be behind. Should the market see another wave that flushes out weaker holders, and if buyers subsequently return, SOL could recover towards its previous macro resistance zone.

Recovery prospects hinge on support holding firmBoth analyses stress that the longer term outlook for Solana is predicated on the token maintaining its support between $40 and $50. Losing this band could weaken the technical setup, but a quick recovery or continued stability within this zone would strengthen the bullish case and could pave the way for renewed gains.

Should Solana stage a decisive rebound, the prospect of higher prices may resurface, with some analysts seeing this rally potentially stretching into 2027. For now, the market is closely monitoring whether the crucial support area will hold or give way.

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.