, /PRNewswire/ -- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Graphic Packaging Holding Company ("Graphic Packaging" or "the Company") (NYSE: GPK) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 4, 2025 and February 2, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 6, 2026.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at [email protected].
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Graphic Packaging suffered from inventory management problems, increased costs and reduced demand. The Company downplayed the severity of these issues despite the fact they would have a material impact on its financial performance. The Company overstated the strength of its business model. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Graphic Packaging, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
[email protected]
, /PRNewswire/ -- The DJS Law Group reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Graphic Packaging Holding Company ("Graphic Packaging" or "the Company") (NYSE: GPK) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Shareholders who purchased shares of GPK during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointments. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
CLASS PERIOD: February 4, 2025 to February 2, 2026
DEADLINE: July 6, 2026
CASE DETAILS: According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Graphic Packaging downplayed the severity of reduced demand, higher costs, and inventory management struggles. Based on these facts, Graphic Packaging's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, contact us to participate.
WHY DJS LAW GROUP? DJS Law Group's primary focus is to enhance investor return through balanced counseling and aggressive advocacy. We specialize in securities class actions, corporate governance litigation, and domestic/international M&A appraisals. Our clients are some of the largest and most sophisticated hedge funds and alternative asset managers in the world. The litigation claims of our clients are extraordinarily valuable assets that demand respect, focus, and results.
Join the case to recover your losses.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
David J. Schwartz
DJS Law Group
274 White Plains Road, Suite 1
Eastchester, NY 10709
Phone: 914-206-9742
Email: [email protected]
MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (NYSE:MSM) will release earnings for its third quarter before the opening bell on Wednesday, July 1.
Analysts expect the Melville, New York-based company to report quarterly earnings of $1.26 per share, up from $1.08 per share in the year-ago period. The consensus estimate for MSC Industrial Direct’s quarterly revenue is $1.03 billion. It reported $971.14 million last year, according to Benzinga Pro.
On Tuesday, MSC Industrial declared a cash dividend of 87 cents per share.
Shares of MSC Industrial Direct rose 0.3% to close at $116.55 on Wednesday.
Benzinga readers can access the latest analyst ratings on the Analyst Stock Ratings page. Readers can sort by stock ticker, company name, analyst firm, rating change or other variables.
Let’s have a look at how Benzinga’s most-accurate analysts have rated the company in the recent period.
Considering buying MSM stock? Here’s what analysts think:
Photo via Shutterstock
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
, /PRNewswire/ -- The DJS Law Group reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against FS KKR Capital Corp. ("FSK " or "the Company") (NYSE: FSK ) violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Shareholders who purchased shares of FSK during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointments. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
CLASS PERIOD: May 8, 2024 to February 25, 2026
DEADLINE: July 3, 2026
CASE DETAILS: According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. FSK overvalued its portfolio and misled the market about its portfolio valuation process. The Company downplayed weakness in its quarterly dividend program. Based on these facts, FSK's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, contact us to participate.
WHY DJS LAW GROUP? DJS Law Group's primary focus is to enhance investor return through balanced counseling and aggressive advocacy. We specialize in securities class actions, corporate governance litigation, and domestic/international M&A appraisals. Our clients are some of the largest and most sophisticated hedge funds and alternative asset managers in the world. The litigation claims of our clients are extraordinarily valuable assets that demand respect, focus, and results.
Join the case to recover your losses.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
ST. PAUL, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--H.B. Fuller Company (“H.B. Fuller” or “the Company”) (NYSE: FUL), the world's largest pureplay adhesives company, today announced it has made a recommended cash offer to acquire Advanced Medical Solutions Group plc (“AMS”) (LSE:AMS). “This transaction is a rare opportunity to advance the evolution of our portfolio.” said Celeste Mastin, President and CEO of H.B. Fuller. “We have long been clear that medical is a core strategic growth market for H.B. Fuller give.
CompaniesJune 25 (Reuters) - U.S.-based adhesives maker H.B. Fuller (FUL.N), opens new tab will buy Advanced Medical Solutions Group (AMSU.L), opens new tab in a cash deal that values the British medical supplier at about £715 million ($942.1 million) including debt, the companies said on Thursday.
The British company's shares rose 15.8% to 278 pence, the highest level since February 2023.
Keep up with the latest medical breakthroughs and healthcare trends with the Reuters Health Rounds newsletter. Sign up here.
Here are some details:
H.B. Fuller to pay Winsford-based company shareholders 285 pence per share, a 35% premium to its May 20 closing price, the day before the offer period began.
Deal expected to close by end of 2026.
H.B. Fuller expects the deal to generate about $55 million in annual run-rate synergies by 2031.
Deal marks the latest overseas takeover of a London-listed company amid relatively low UK valuations.
Ends a long stretch of private equity interest in AMS, including TA Associates, which walked away in May without bidding, as well as reported interest from Bridgepoint.
"As part of the combined larger medical adhesives platform, AMS and H.B. Fuller will benefit from enhanced commercial, manufacturing and distribution capabilities, which should accelerate the delivery of our strategy and broaden our offering to patients in the US, Europe and beyond," Grahame Cook, Chair of AMS, said.
AMS board has unanimously recommended the deal to its shareholders.
As of last close, AMS shares have risen 16% since H.B. Fuller launched its unsolicited bid on May 20.
In May, activist Ancora urged the Minnesota-based H.B. Fuller to abandon its "irresponsible" pursuit of AMS and conduct a strategic review.
Ancora did not immediately offer a response for Reuters' request for comment on the deal. ($1 = 0.7590 pounds)
Reporting by Nithyashree R B in Bengaluru; Editing by Subhranshu Sahu and Harikrishnan Nair
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
Polkadot governance has approved a proposal to implement a 10,000 DOT validator self-stake minimum, making nominators unslashable and reducing unbonding periods from 28 days to as little as 24 hours.
Polkadot's governance has approved a proposal to establish a 10,000 DOT minimum self-stake requirement for validators. The approved upgrade introduces significant changes to the network's staking mechanics, including eliminating slashing risk for nominators and drastically reducing unbonding times from approximately 28 days to as little as 24 hours.
The proposal represents a comprehensive restructuring of Polkadot's validator requirements and staking incentives. By setting a higher self-stake minimum, the protocol aims to increase validator commitment and security while simultaneously improving the user experience for token holders participating in the network through nomination.
The unbonding period reduction is one of the most substantial changes, allowing users to withdraw staked tokens significantly faster than the current timeline. Combined with nominator protection from slashing penalties, the upgrade is designed to make participation in Polkadot's proof-of-stake consensus more attractive and user-friendly.
Polkadot has come up with a major change in its network’s staking model. Polkadot OpenGov is scheduled to vote on Referendum 1890, which would mandate that each validator self-stake at least 10,000 DOT of their own money.
Since many validators currently depend on nominator capital, this rule would directly increase the economic risk for the validators instead of the nominators.
Assessing present-day Polkadot infrastructure For context, Polkadot employs a two-player team-like system known as Nominated Proof-of-Stake (NPoS). In this case, validators are in charge of operating the computers that process transactions and maintain network security.
Nominators, on the other hand, are regular DOT holders who lend their DOT to validators to improve them rather than operating computers themselves.
In exchange, they receive a portion of the benefits. Currently, the risk is being shared by validators and nominators. Therefore, the new modifications would serve as a prerequisite for two additional staking upgrades.
Referendum 1890 – A catalyst for the network’s staking model? The first prerequisite is “nominators becoming unslashable,” and the second is the “fast unbonding.”
Currently, even if the user does nothing wrong, they would still lose money if they had lent their DOT to a validator and they made a mistake. In this new system, the slashing risk would be directly borne by validators.
Instead of immediately burning the money of numerous small stakers, any validator that misbehaves or goes offline would first lose its own 10,000+ DOT bond. While their principal would be protected, nominators could still receive rewards.
Polkadot added,
Nominators can continue earning staking rewards without exposing their principal to slashing.
In the latter prerequisite, one had to wait 28 days to get their DOT back after unstaking it. That’s almost a month in which the user is unable to use, sell, or transfer the money.
Therefore, the staked DOT unbonding period would now be shortened from 28 days to 24 to 48 hours. Intriguingly, with all these changes, Polkadot would also be able to weed out bad actors and those who don’t put in much effort.
Polkadot market dynamics These developments came on the heels of DOT’s price trading at $1.25 at press time. This could be a good sign because the altcoin recently recovered from a Hyperbridge exploit that caused DOT to lose a large share of its market capitalization.
Source: Token Terminal Here, it’s worth noting that in terms of staking market capitalization for L1s, Polkadot was ranked seventh with $1.1 billion. On the other hand, Ethereum [ETH] led with $82.1 billion.
This might be because staking market capitalization by chain revealed a decline in 2026, compared to 2025.
Source: Token Terminal Final Summary Polkadot OpenGov is geared up to vote for a major upgrade that is the prerequisite for the next major staking upgrade. With the Referendum 1890 upgrade, more risks will be borne by validators and not nominators.
Polkadot and Cosmos both connect separate blockchains, but through fundamentally different engineering. Polkadot ties every connected chain to a central Relay Chain for shared security and consensus.
Cosmos lets each chain operate independently and communicate through IBC, an open messaging protocol. The practical difference comes down to one question: does a project need security delivered by the network on day one, or full control over how it operates?
Why Blockchain Interoperability Still MattersMoving assets between isolated blockchains typically means going through centralized exchanges, which adds cost, delay, and counterparty risk. Both platforms were built to remove those friction points through direct chain-to-chain communication without intermediaries.
The challenge both networks address is identical. The engineering behind each solution is not.
How Does Polkadot's Architecture Work?Polkadot uses a hub-and-spoke model built around its Relay Chain, which coordinates security and consensus for all connected application chains called parachains. Each parachain inherits validation from the Relay Chain rather than running its own validator set from scratch.
Three features define Polkadot's current model:
Shared security: Parachains receive Relay Chain-level validation from day one, removing the need to bootstrap an independent validator network.Cross-chain messaging: XCMP (Cross-Chain Message Passing) handles inter-parachain communication, though many chains still depend on the older HRMP protocol while full XCMP rolls out in phases as of May 2026.Agile Coretime: In 2025, Polkadot replaced competitive parachain slot auctions with a governance-based system that lets DOT holders access compute resources through staking and on-chain votes instead.A significant tokenomics change happened in March 2026. Through OpenGov referendums, Polkadot cut annual DOT issuance by 53.6%, dropping from roughly 120 million to 55 million DOT per year. A hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT was set for the first time. The circulating supply already sits at 1.68 billion DOT, around 80% of that cap. This moved DOT from an open-ended inflationary model to a defined scarcity schedule similar in structure to Bitcoin's halving mechanism.
DOT trades near $1.1 to $1.3 as of late May 2026, with a market cap around $2 billion. Polkadot ranked first in developer commits in 2026, but DeFi TVL across its ecosystem remains below $300 million, a persistent gap compared to Ethereum and Solana.
How Does Cosmos Take a Different Approach?Cosmos gives each chain, called a zone, full sovereignty. Zones run their own validator sets through CometBFT (the successor to Tendermint BFT) and connect to other chains via IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication). IBC uses light client connections between chains and avoids token wrapping, bridge contracts, and trusted custodians.
As of 2026, IBC is active across 115+ networks. Live examples include Osmosis (a decentralized exchange), dYdX (a derivatives platform that migrated from Ethereum to a Cosmos app-chain in 2023), and Celestia (a modular data availability layer). Each operates as a fully independent chain using the Cosmos SDK.
IBC is no longer limited to Cosmos-native networks. IBC Eureka, launched in April 2025, introduced direct connections between Ethereum and Cosmos chains without wrapping assets. Expansion to Solana and major EVM Layer 2 networks is planned through 2026, turning IBC into a cross-ecosystem standard rather than a Cosmos-only protocol.
ATOM trades near $2.06 to $2.11 as of late May 2026.
Polkadot removes the validator recruitment problem entirely. New parachains get full Relay Chain security immediately. The cost is reduced autonomy: governance decisions made at the Relay Chain level apply across all connected parachains.
Cosmos chains control their own governance, tokenomics, and upgrade schedules, but must attract and sustain an independent validator set. That overhead is real. Projects like dYdX and Celestia accepted it specifically because the Cosmos SDK gave them execution control that a shared security model could not provide.
Which Platform Leads on Live Cross-Chain Activity?Cosmos leads by a clear margin. In 2026, Cosmos is winning in real-world cross-chain volume, while Polkadot is catching up with a more tightly integrated long-term vision. IBC is fully live across 115+ networks with significant production transaction volume. XCMP implementation has proven more difficult than initially anticipated, with full functionality still rolling out in phases as of 2026.
ConclusionPolkadot delivers built-in shared security, a freshly capped token supply structure, and a cross-chain messaging layer that is maturing but not yet fully deployed.
Cosmos delivers chain sovereignty, the most widely deployed interoperability protocol in production, and an IBC stack that now extends beyond Cosmos to Ethereum and beyond. Neither is universally better. The decision depends on whether a project needs inherited security from launch day or independent operational control over every layer of its chain.
Frequently Asked QuestionsWhat is the main difference between Polkadot and Cosmos? Polkadot connects chains through a central Relay Chain that provides shared security and consensus. Cosmos connects sovereign chains through the IBC protocol, with each chain managing its own validators, governance, and upgrades independently.
Is Cosmos IBC more advanced than Polkadot's XCMP in 2026? IBC is more mature and more widely deployed. It is active across 115+ networks and was extended to Ethereum via IBC Eureka in April 2025. Polkadot's XCMP is still completing its phased rollout as of May 2026, with many chains relying on the older HRMP protocol in the interim.
What changed in Polkadot's tokenomics in March 2026? Polkadot governance approved a hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT and cut annual issuance by 53.6%, reducing annual inflation from roughly 10% to around 3.1%. It was the largest economic change to the protocol since launch, and is sometimes referred to as the "Polkadot Halving."
ResourcesNOWNodes – Polkadot vs Cosmos in 2026: Choosing the Right BlockchainBitget Academy – Polkadot (DOT) Guide: Architecture, Staking and Trading in 2026Everstake – Cosmos IBC: Breaking Down the Walls Between BlockchainsCoinDesk – Interchain Labs Launches IBC EurekaCosmos Network – The Cosmos Stack Roadmap for 2026CoinMarketCap – Latest Polkadot (DOT) Updates, May 2026CoinMarketCap – Latest Cosmos (ATOM) Price Analysis, May 2026Coin Bureau – dYdX Review: Is It Still a Top Perpetuals DEX in 2026?
TLDR: Polkadot cut annual DOT issuance by 53.6% in March 2026, introducing a hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT. Cosmos IBC is live across 115+ networks in 2026, leading Polkadot in real-world cross-chain transaction volume. IBC Eureka launched in April 2025, enabling direct Ethereum-to-Cosmos connections without wrapping assets. Polkadot ranked first in developer commits in 2026, yet its DeFi TVL remains below $300 million ecosystem-wide. Polkadot and Cosmos both solve blockchain interoperability, but through contrasting engineering models. Polkadot ties connected chains to a central Relay Chain for shared security.
Cosmos lets each chain operate independently through IBC, an open messaging protocol. The choice between them depends on whether a project needs built-in security from launch or full operational control over every layer.
Polkadot Moves Toward Defined Scarcity With Tokenomics Overhaul Polkadot’s architecture relies on a hub-and-spoke model centered on its Relay Chain. Connected application chains, called parachains, inherit validation directly from the Relay Chain. This removes the need to build an independent validator network from scratch.
In March 2026, Polkadot cut annual DOT issuance by 53.6% through OpenGov referendums. Issuance dropped from roughly 120 million to 55 million DOT per year.
A hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT was introduced for the first time, with circulating supply already at 1.68 billion DOT.
DOT currently trades between $1.1 and $1.3, with a market cap near $2 billion. Polkadot ranked first in developer commits in 2026.
However, DeFi TVL across its ecosystem remains below $300 million, a gap that persists compared to Ethereum and Solana.
Cross-chain messaging through XCMP is still rolling out in phases as of May 2026. Many chains still rely on the older HRMP protocol in the meantime.
Polkadot also replaced competitive parachain slot auctions in 2025 with a governance-based Agile Coretime system.
Cosmos Expands IBC Beyond Its Own Ecosystem in 2025 Cosmos takes a different path by giving each chain full sovereignty. Every zone runs its own validator set through CometBFT and connects to others via IBC. IBC uses light client connections and avoids token wrapping, bridge contracts, and trusted custodians.
IBC Eureka, launched in April 2025, introduced direct connections between Ethereum and Cosmos chains. No asset wrapping is required.
Expansion to Solana and major EVM Layer 2 networks is planned through 2026, positioning IBC as a cross-ecosystem standard.
As of 2026, IBC is live across 115 or more networks. Active examples include Osmosis, dYdX, and Celestia. Each operates as a fully independent chain built on the Cosmos SDK.
ATOM currently trades between $2.06 and $2.11. Projects like dYdX migrated from Ethereum specifically for the execution control that Cosmos provides.
That control comes with a real cost, though — each chain must attract and maintain its own validator set. Cosmos leads in live cross-chain volume today, while Polkadot continues building toward a more tightly integrated long-term structure.
PANews reported on June 2nd that, according to Decrypt, following the CFTC's approval of Bitcoin perpetual contracts last Friday, prediction market maker Kalshi quickly submitted self-certification applications for perpetual contracts on 12 major altcoins, including Ethereum, XRP, Solana, Dogecoin, Stellar, Chainlink, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Sui, Shiba Inu, Polkadot, and Hedera. The CFTC stated that while approving the Bitcoin perpetual contract, perpetual contracts for other assets will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis; therefore, Kalshi's applications have not yet been approved.
Polkadot 2.0 replaces the old two-year slot auction model with Agile Coretime, a flexible system that lets developers buy network compute time on a monthly basis or even block by block. This change went live in September 2024 and was finalized with the release of Polkadot SDK version 2509 in October 2025, completing the three-pillar Polkadot 2.0 upgrade alongside Asynchronous Backing and Elastic Scaling.
For developers, the practical difference is significant: launching a parachain no longer requires locking up large amounts of DOT for years at a time. You pay for what you use, when you need it.
What Was Wrong with the Old Parachain Slot System?Before Polkadot 2.0, projects that wanted to run a parachain (a custom blockchain that plugs into Polkadot's shared security) had to win a slot through a candle auction. Those auctions required teams to lock DOT tokens for lease periods of up to two years. Only the highest bidders secured a spot.
This created real barriers:
Small and mid-size teams needed to raise or hold massive amounts of DOT just to get started.Once a slot was won, the team paid for continuous blockspace whether or not they were using it.If a project's traffic was low for a few months, it was still burning through its lease.New projects with promising ideas but limited capital were simply priced out.The auction model also created unpredictable costs. Project budgets depended on DOT's market price at the time of the auction, introducing a layer of financial risk that had nothing to do with the actual work of building.
How Does Agile Coretime Actually Work?In Polkadot's architecture, a "core" is the virtual abstraction of computing power that the Relay Chain provides to secure a parachain's blocks. Think of it as a processing slot. Agile Coretime is the system that controls how those cores get assigned and purchased.
There are two main ways to obtain coretime today:
Bulk coretime: A team buys access to a core for a fixed period, up to 28 days, represented as an NFT on the Coretime Chain. This is suitable for parachains that need to produce blocks continuously, such as every 6 or 12 seconds. Renewal orders take priority over new orders, which protects active chains from price spikes.On-demand coretime: A team pays per block, each time they need one produced. This suits projects with irregular traffic, test deployments, or applications that only need to process transactions occasionally.Bulk coretime can also be split and resold on secondary markets, which means a team running a lighter workload can divide its core allocation and sell unused portions to other projects. This creates a more efficient use of network capacity overall.
Eskimor, lead developer at Parity Technologies, described:
"Agile Coretime is a huge milestone in making the high quality blockspace Polkadot offers more accessible. With this and other features we have in the pipeline, I expect more experimentation and awesome projects to be launched on Polkadot."
What Are the Other Pillars of Polkadot 2.0?Agile Coretime is one piece of a three-part upgrade. Understanding how all three work together matters for developers assessing the platform.
Asynchronous BackingAsynchronous Backing changed how parachain blocks are validated. Previously, each parachain block had to be fully validated before the next one could start. The async model decouples those stages, allowing parachain block preparation and relay chain inclusion to happen in parallel. The result is that block times dropped from 12 seconds to 6 seconds, roughly doubling throughput for chains running on Polkadot.
Elastic ScalingElastic Scaling, completed in October 2025, allows a parachain to temporarily use multiple cores at the same time when demand is high, then release them when traffic drops. A chain that normally runs on one core can burst to two, three, or more during a spike. Early projections suggest individual parachains could theoretically handle hundreds of thousands of transactions per second under this model.
Together, these three upgrades form what the Polkadot community calls the "scaling trilogy," and they all converged in the Polkadot SDK 2509 release.
What Does This Mean for Developers in Practice?The most direct change is cost structure. Instead of locking millions of dollars worth of DOT into a two-year lease, a new project can buy a single month of bulk coretime to start. If the project grows, it renews and scales up. If it shrinks or pivots, it scales back or sells unused coretime.
Builders can also mix and match:
Reserve bulk coretime for steady workloads where consistent block production matters.Use on-demand coretime for testing, low-traffic phases, or applications with predictable low frequency.During traffic spikes, elastic scaling allows temporary expansion across multiple cores without a new contract or auction.This flexibility is especially useful for use cases like gaming (where traffic spikes around events), DePIN (decentralized physical infrastructure networks), and AI-adjacent applications that may see highly variable load patterns.
Polkadot SDK 2509 also introduced Ethereum compatibility through Polkadot Hub, meaning Solidity smart contracts can run on Polkadot with minimal changes. Combined with PolkaVM, which supports contracts written in Rust and C++ compiled to RISC-V, developers now have multiple entry points depending on their existing skill set.
Since 2025, Polkadot has attracted 450 to 500 monthly active developers and distributes grants through an on-chain treasury that disbursed roughly $21.8 million in 2025.
What Is JAM, and Why Does It Matter?The next major upgrade on Polkadot's roadmap is JAM, which stands for Join-Accumulate Machine. JAM is designed to replace the Relay Chain entirely with a more general-purpose architecture that treats Polkadot less like a blockchain router and more like a distributed computer. JAM enables smart contracts written in Solidity, Rust, or C++ to run across hundreds of parallel cores.
JAM was announced by Gavin Wood in April 2024. A public JAM testnet launched in January 2026, with 43 independent teams building implementations across 15 programming languages and competing for a 10 million DOT prize pool administered by the Web3 Foundation. As of June 2026, JAM is not yet live on mainnet.
The current target window for critical testing milestones and early mainnet upgrade proposals through Polkadot's OpenGov process is Q3 to Q4 2026. It builds on the same coretime model introduced in Polkadot 2.0, so the resource-purchasing mechanics that developers learn today carry forward.
DOT Tokenomics and What Changed in March 2026A separate but related update happened in March 2026. Polkadot enacted a hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT and cut annual token issuance by 53.6%. This mirrors Bitcoin's supply-capping approach and was designed to reduce long-term sell pressure on the token.
Alongside the supply cap, Polkadot also overhauled how protocol revenue is handled. Previously, a portion of DOT from coretime sales was burned. That changed in January 2026 when Polkadot's governance passed the Dynamic Allocation Pool (DAP) proposal.
Under the DAP model, coretime sales revenue, transaction fees, and validator slashes no longer get destroyed. Instead, they flow into a governance-controlled pool that allocates funds to validators, nominators, the treasury, and a strategic reserve. The practical result is that network revenue is now recycled back into the ecosystem rather than removed from circulation entirely.
As of June 2026, DOT is trading around $0.94, down significantly from 2025 highs. The first U.S. spot DOT ETF, the 21Shares TDOT, launched in March 2026, though early inflows have remained modest.
ConclusionPolkadot 2.0 is fully deployed. Agile Coretime, Asynchronous Backing, and Elastic Scaling are live on mainnet as of the SDK 2509 release in October 2025. Together, they give developers a credible toolkit: flexible blockspace pricing, six-second block times, and the ability to scale compute capacity up and down in real time.
JAM is the next step, currently in public testnet with a mainnet governance proposal expected in Q3 to Q4 2026. It extends the same coretime model to a broader execution environment. The infrastructure is in place; what happens next depends on developer adoption.
ResourcesPolkadot Developer Docs – Agile Coretime – Official reference for bulk coretime and on-demand coretime mechanics on Polkadot.Polkadot Wiki – Agile Coretime (Scheduling) – Deep dive into coretime scheduling, multi-threading, and bulk purchase mechanics.Parity Technologies – Polkadot Upgrade 2025: What You Need to Know – Overview of SDK 2509, Asynchronous Backing, Agile Coretime, and Elastic Scaling from Polkadot's core development team.Polkadot Newsroom – Polkadot Launches Agile Coretime – Official press release with developer commentary from Parity Technologies.OneKey Blog – What's Next for Polkadot: Upcoming Upgrades and Milestones for 2025-26 – Summary of coretime market development, JAM roadmap, and developer strategy for 2025-26.Polkadot Developer Docs – Obtain Coretime – Practical guide for purchasing bulk and on-demand coretime when deploying a parachain.Elastic Scaling – Polkadot Developer Docs – Technical documentation for multi-core parallel execution on Polkadot.Parity Technologies – Refining Polkadot's Economic Architecture: DOT Issuance, DAP, and Network Adjustments – Official explanation of the Dynamic Allocation Pool, the 2.1 billion DOT supply cap, and the March 2026 issuance reduction.
According to a new projection from Goldman Sachs, spending focused on artificial intelligence is approaching levels last seen during the dot com boom. The bank predicts leading cloud and infrastructure providers could allocate nearly 98 percent of their operational cash flow to capital expenditures in 2026, marking a historic investment shift.
Infrastructure investment nears record heightsThe analysis points to rapidly expanding budgets for data center capacity, computing infrastructure, networking equipment, and specialized AI hardware. Goldman Sachs emphasizes that the current trend is aligning closely with the technology, media, and telecommunications spending peak of the early internet era.
Mini glossary: Hyperscalers are technology companies that operate massive-scale cloud and data processing infrastructure. Capital expenditure refers to investments in long-term assets like data centers, servers, chips, and network equipment.
The financial blog Global Markets Investor also notes the remarkable shift, stating that major tech companies may soon route nearly all generated cash into new infrastructure buildouts. This increasing focus on investment has caught the attention of market watchers worldwide.
Goldman Sachs data shows that by 2026, hyperscaler companies are on track to allocate nearly 98 percent of their operating cash flow to capital expenditures, a rate that comes close to the highs reached in the dot com era.
An accompanying chart in the Goldman Sachs report tracks the ratio of capital expenditures to operating cash flow over time. Historical data reveals that telecom firms in the early 2000s’ infrastructure race exceeded 120 percent. In the broader technology, media, and telecom sector, the peak was around 95 percent.
Period or GroupCapital Expenditure RatioHyperscalers 2015 to 201830 to 40 percentHyperscalers 202355 percentGoldman Sachs 2025 Projection68 percentGoldman Sachs 2026 Projection98 percentHistorically, hyperscaler firms spent at much lower levels. Between 2015 and 2018, they invested roughly 30 to 40 percent of operational cash. However, rising demand for cloud services and the accelerating race for AI development pushed this ratio to 55 percent in 2023. Goldman Sachs now predicts 68 percent in 2025 and an eye-popping 98 percent in 2026.
The debate over returns intensifiesThe current investment cycle is largely fueled by soaring demand for AI computing power. Organizations are rapidly expanding data centers and continuing to purchase high volumes of GPUs and networking hardware to support advanced models.
Goldman Sachs estimates that total technology industry capital investments could approach 920 billion dollars by 2027, and in a more aggressive scenario, could climb as high as 1.4 trillion dollars. This would represent an 89 percent surge over the 2026 average projections, highlighting the unprecedented scale of spending.
As infrastructure spending continues to grow, companies are watching more closely to see whether AI-related investments are matched by corresponding revenue increases.
At the same time, some companies utilizing AI tools are questioning whether these heavy expenses are offset by adequate financial returns. As infrastructure costs rise, a key question emerges: will revenue growth keep pace? Price competition among model developers is also intensifying debate over long-term profitability in the sector.
Current data shows that hyperscaler investments are well above historical averages and closing in on that 100 percent threshold. This trend suggests that nearly all operational cash could end up being poured into growth initiatives, rather than shareholder payouts or other corporate uses, reflecting the aggressive tempo of technology reinvestment.
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.
On June 14, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings show the regulator has formally approved a rule change proposed by NYSE Arca that enables the listing and trading of the T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF. An actively managed cryptocurrency ETF, the fund will invest in a basket of digital assets meeting SEC-defined "eligible asset" criteria. While it uses a cryptocurrency index as its benchmark, it will not track that index passively. The filing notes the fund is projected to hold roughly 5 to 15 distinct cryptocurrencies, including major tokens like Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP, Cardano (ADA), Avalanche (AVAX), Litecoin (LTC), Polkadot (DOT), Dogecoin (DOGE), and Chainlink (LINK). The SEC filing also reveals the fund may hold stablecoins—primarily USDC—as "tokenized cash" during normal operations to cover expenses and rebalance assets, though these will not count toward its core investment portfolio. The approval notice stresses the product must adhere to NYSE Arca’s rules around anti-manipulation, disclosure, liquidity, and risk management. It also requires the fund to have information barriers (often called "firewalls") and position transparency mechanisms in place to uphold market fairness and prevent insider trading. Analysts say this ETF’s approval further expands cryptocurrency’s footprint within the traditional financial sector, marking the arrival of actively managed multi-crypto ETFs as tradable products under mainstream regulatory oversight.
Relevant content
The US stock market's optical communication sector rises across the board in pre-market trading, with Corning up 9.28%.
According to Bitget market data, the U.S. stock market's optical communication sector saw broad pre-market gains, with MRVL rising 4.99%, LITE up 3.24%, Nokia up 3.11%, Corning up 9.28%, and AXTI up 6.69%.
3 minutes ago
US-listed AI chip stocks saw mixed pre-market performance, with Qualcomm surging 13%.
According to Bitget market data, U.S. AI chip stocks posted mixed pre-market performance: Qualcomm (QCOM.O) surged 13%, Intel (INTC.O) rose nearly 6%, AMD (AMD.O) gained nearly 4%, and Google (GOOG.O) declined 1.4%.
3 minutes ago
Micron Technology surges 18% in pre-market trading on US stocks
According to Bitget market data, the US stock storage sector is seeing broad pre-market gains. Micron Technology (MU.O) jumps 18% in pre-market trading, as its strong earnings significantly exceeded expectations, with multiple major banks raising the stock’s target price. SanDisk (SNDK) rises 12.25%, Western Digital (WDC) gains 12.05%, and Seagate Technology (STX) climbs 8.63%.
3 minutes ago
SBI announced it will acquire cryptocurrency trading platform Bitbank for 46.7 billion yen.
According to Nikkei News, Japanese financial group SBI Holdings announced on the 25th that it will acquire cryptocurrency exchange platform bitbank for 46.7 billion yen (approximately $288 million). Upon completion of the transaction, SBI Group’s crypto asset custody scale is expected to exceed 1 trillion yen, making it one of the largest operators in Japan’s crypto industry. Per the plan, a subsidiary under SBI Holdings will acquire Bitbank shares from individual shareholders including its founders as early as August this year. Bitbank will then repurchase shares held by existing shareholders MIXI and Ceres by the end of October. If combining data from SBI’s own crypto exchange SBI VC Trade and Bitbank, as of April this year, the two firms had a total of around 2.92 million accounts and total custody assets of approximately 1.1 trillion yen. While different crypto exchanges disclose custody assets at varying time points, among Japan’s major industry competitors, bitFlyer held about 960 billion yen in custody assets as of the end of December 2025, and Coincheck had around 800 billion yen as of the end of March 2025.
3 minutes ago
US Secretary of State: Will not accept the claim that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to any country.
US Secretary of State Rubio stated, "We will not accept the assertion that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to any country." (Jinshi)
3 minutes ago
Iraqi government spokesperson: Efforts are underway to restore full oil export capacity.
A spokesperson for the Iraqi government stated that Iraq is working to restore its full oil export capacity and plans to increase its oil production to 7 million barrels per day in the coming years. (Jinshi)
@Polkadot's $DOT is generating more social media attention than almost any other asset in crypto right now. The trouble is that very little of it is positive.
According to @SantimentData, the ratio of bullish to bearish comments around Polkadot has collapsed from 6.39-to-1 just one month ago to just 1.18-to-1 today. That is a sharp reversal in crowd mood and it has made DOT one of the most-discussed, and most contested, assets across crypto social channels.
The Question Everyone Is AskingThe debate fuelling the negativity is a familiar one: does Polkadot still matter? The network built its reputation on cross-chain interoperability and parachain architecture, but years of watching Solana and other high-performance chains capture developer attention and retail liquidity have left many questioning whether DOT can regain relevance. Bearish analysts warn that superior technology does not guarantee market share, and there is growing concern that Ethereum Layer-2 rollups and monolithic chains like Solana will continue to monopolise retail liquidity and developer activity.
The price is not helping the case for bulls. DOT is currently trading around $0.97, sitting near the $1 psychological level. The token hit an all-time low of $0.8929 on June 6, 2026 , underscoring just how much ground bulls need to reclaim. DOT's price remains near multi-year lows, largely due to heavy competition from ecosystems like Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos.
Santiment's Contrarian ReadDespite the gloomy picture, @SantimentData offers a different interpretation. Santiment says elevated FUD is historically a contrarian indicator, suggesting prices could rebound sooner rather than later. When the sentiment ratio falls near parity, it suggests market participants are overwhelmingly pessimistic. Historically, such extreme negativity has preceded short-term price rebounds or at least stabilization, as selling pressure exhausts itself and contrarian buyers step in.
For DOT, the signal to watch is whether fear is starting to outrun fundamentals. Santiment has cautioned that sentiment alone is not a timing tool and should be weighed alongside other on-chain metrics such as exchange inflows, whale activity, and funding rates. Whether the current pessimism marks a floor or simply reflects a prolonged loss of relevance remains the central question for DOT holders.
Sources:
Crypto.news: Polkadot Price and Market Stats
Bitbo: Santiment on Elevated FUD as a Contrarian Indicator
Coin Edition: Santiment Contrarian Sentiment Signals
@Polkadot's $DOT has become one of the most closely watched assets in crypto, and not for the right reasons. Sentiment around the token has deteriorated sharply, with on-chain analytics firm Santiment flagging growing skepticism over adoption, tokenomics, and long-term relevance. The reading is now at one of its weakest points in months.
Sentiment at Multi-Month Lows The bearish mood is well reflected in the broader data. Technical indicators show only 22% bullish market sentiment on Polkadot, while the Fear and Greed Index is displaying a score of 18, firmly in extreme fear territory. $DOT is currently trading around $0.975, sitting significantly below its 20-week, 50-week, and 200-week moving averages, highlighting a persistent bearish bias.
The concerns are not purely price-related. Tokenomics play a critical role in the DOT narrative, and the asset faces stiff competition from Ethereum Layer-2s, Solana, and Cosmos. The primary bearish argument centres on attention economics, with analysts fearing that Ethereum Layer-2 rollups and high-performance chains like Solana will continue to monopolise retail liquidity and developer attention.
It is worth noting that Polkadot has taken meaningful steps to address some of these concerns. The network's DAO approved a hard maximum supply of 2.1 billion DOT in September 2025, replacing a previous model that could have expanded supply to more than 3.4 billion tokens by 2040. In March 2026, the network also implemented Agile Coretime, a system that replaces the old slot-based model with an on-demand resource allocation framework. Despite these upgrades, the market's response has been muted.
Could Extreme Fear Spark a Contrarian Bounce? Historically, deep pessimism in any asset can set the stage for a sharp, if short-lived, reversal. Sentiment has collapsed in recent weeks, suggesting DOT holders are actively losing confidence, though historically, such extreme negative readings can precede contrarian bounces.
$DOT remains deeply negative year to date and year over year, so any recent weekly strength looks more like a relief rally after a prolonged downtrend rather than the start of an established uptrend. For a more durable recovery to take hold, the technical indicators call for caution, even as structural upgrades and the supply cap offer a compelling longer-term story.
For now, the question is whether extreme fear is the floor or just another step lower. Santiment's data suggests the crowd is increasingly sceptical. And in crypto, that kind of consensus has a habit of being wrong at exactly the wrong time.
Sources:
Changelly: Polkadot Price Prediction and Sentiment Analysis 2026
CCN: Will Polkadot Price Sink to $1 Next? Key Analysis
CoinMarketCap: Polkadot Drops 3% as Fed Hawkish Turn Hits Crypto Market
19 June 2026 | 16:33 Polkadot has become one of the most talked-about coins in crypto, but almost none of the talk is positive. Attention has surged while confidence has collapsed, producing one of the most bearish sentiment setups DOT has seen in months.
Key Takeaways Polkadot is now one of crypto’s most-discussed assets on social media. Its bullish-to-bearish comment ratio fell from 6.39 to 1.18 in a month. DOT trades near $0.95, below all major moving averages. Open Interest has collapsed from over $600M toward $150M-$170M. Leverage has largely reset while sentiment sits near multi-month lows. The notable part is not that Polkadot is trending. It is that attention spiked at the same moment confidence fell apart. That combination, high discussion volume paired with deeply negative sentiment, is the kind of setup that occasionally appears near major turning points, because by the time pessimism is this widely shared, a large amount of it is often already reflected in the price. That does not make it a bottom, but it does make it worth watching.
What the Sentiment Data Shows According to Santiment data, Polkadot has climbed into the ranks of the most-discussed assets across crypto social media, yet the conversation has turned sharply sour. On May 18, DOT recorded 6.39 bullish comments for every bearish one, a clearly optimistic backdrop. By June 18, that ratio had collapsed to just 1.18 bullish comments per bearish comment, meaning positive and negative commentary are now nearly balanced. Confidence deteriorated hard even as the volume of discussion climbed.
The debate itself centers on a familiar frustration: whether Polkadot’s developer ecosystem, governance model, and technology can finally translate into adoption and price performance. Many traders are openly irritated by DOT’s inability to keep pace with faster-moving rivals like Solana and Sui.
Why Negative Attention Can Matter When an asset becomes heavily discussed while sentiment stays weak, it usually signals that the market is actively reassessing its long-term value rather than chasing hype.
This scrutiny has intensified following the latest community discourse surrounding the upcoming JAM (Join-Accumulate Machine) mainnet proposal and the ongoing transition to Polkadot 2.0. As the ecosystem prepares for these architectural shifts, the community is moving past superficial price action to debate whether these high-level upgrades can bridge the gap between technical potential and tangible market adoption.
The conversation around DOT has shifted away from price-chasing and toward fundamentals: ecosystem adoption, developer activity, governance decisions, tokenomics, and whether the roadmap can actually be executed. That kind of sober, scrutinizing discussion tends to cluster around periods of uncertainty, not euphoria, which is part of what makes the current setup interesting rather than simply bearish.
What the Price Chart Adds The technicals explain most of the gloom. On the daily TradingView chart, DOT trades near $0.95, sitting below every major moving average: the 50-day SMA at $1.17, the 100-day at $1.24, and the 200-day at $1.50. That stack matters beyond the individual levels.
With all three averages sitting above price and lined up in descending order, each one becomes a layer of overhead resistance, a price zone where traders who bought higher are waiting to sell at breakeven. To reclaim its longer-term trend, DOT would need enough sustained buying to push through all three in sequence, which typically takes a meaningful inflow of fresh capital rather than a short-lived bounce.
The most recent recovery attempt stalled near the $1.03 to $1.05 zone before sellers reasserted control, and the latest candle shows yet another rejection, a sign bulls still cannot reclaim momentum.
RSI sits near 32.9, just above oversold territory. That tells us selling pressure remains the dominant force, though the downside momentum is no longer as violent as it was earlier in June. The trend is still down; it is simply less frantic than it was.
What Open Interest Reveals The derivatives picture adds a key piece. CoinGlass data shows leverage has largely drained out of the DOT market. Open Interest, which previously topped $600 million, has fallen toward roughly $150 million to $170 million, one of the lowest readings in two years. That decline points to speculative traders having mostly exited, excess leverage being flushed out, and overall participation sitting far below what it was during previous rallies.
Low Open Interest is not bullish on its own. But it does mean there is less leveraged selling pressure left to unwind compared with periods when positioning is crowded and over-extended. The market has, in effect, been cleared of much of its speculative froth.
Putting the Signals Together Taken as a whole, the data describes a specific kind of market: sentiment near multi-month lows, social attention unusually high, price in a confirmed downtrend, and leverage largely reset. The striking part is that the bearish narrative around Polkadot is currently louder than the price action itself warrants.
That is what makes DOT worth keeping on a watchlist rather than writing off. If adoption and ecosystem developments begin to improve while sentiment stays depressed, Polkadot could shape up as one of the more interesting contrarian setups in the market. For now, though, the charts are unambiguous: sellers still control the trend, and a depressed-sentiment setup is a reason to watch, not yet a reason to act.
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.
Polkadot [DOT] returned to the center of crypto discussions, though not for the reasons bulls would have preferred.
Growing concerns about adoption, competition, and long-term growth prospects dominated conversations, pushing sentiment toward fear levels rarely seen in recent months.
Traders increasingly questioned whether Polkadot could convert its strong developer activity into stronger user growth and price performance.
The shift in sentiment became evident over the past month.
On the 18th of May, DOT recorded a bullish comment ratio of 6.39. By the 18th of June, however, that figure had fallen to just 1.18, marking a sharp deterioration in confidence.
The reading also remained well below the 3.0 crowd-greed threshold, placing sentiment firmly in fear territory. Despite the negativity, discussion volume remained elevated, making DOT one of crypto’s most debated assets.
DOT outflows persisted despite growing attention Exchange flow data showed capital continued leaving exchanges despite the increase in social activity surrounding DOT.
At the time of writing, Spot inflows reached approximately $718,980, while outflows totaled about $787,370. This left a negative netflow of roughly $68,390.
The imbalance suggested holders continued withdrawing slightly more tokens than they deposited onto trading platforms.
Although persistent outflows can reflect reduced selling intentions, the margin between inflows and outflows remained relatively small.
As a result, exchange activity did not point to aggressive accumulation or heavy distribution.
Instead, investors appeared cautious while monitoring whether Polkadot’s growing visibility could translate into stronger market demand.
Source: CoinGlass DOT defend support but resistance remain intact At the time of press, DOT traded near $0.966 after stabilizing above the $0.916 support level that halted its recent decline.
Buyers prevented a deeper breakdown and helped price recover modestly from June lows. However, DOT remained below the key $1.044 resistance zone, leaving the broader structure under pressure.
The DMI indicator showed bearish control persisted despite signs of stabilization. The ADX stood at 32.70, confirming a strong prevailing trend.
Meanwhile, the -DI measured 22.78, comfortably above the +DI reading of 12.18, indicating sellers still held the advantage.
If buyers reclaim $1.044, sentiment could improve further. Yet a break below $0.916 would likely place renewed pressure on the market.
Source: TradingView Liquidity zones highlight the next targets Liquidation data revealed notable liquidity concentrations above and below the current price. The strongest upside cluster sat between $0.98 and $1.00, creating a potential attraction zone if buyers extended the recovery.
Another significant liquidity pocket appeared near $1.008, reinforcing resistance overhead. Below the market, substantial liquidity remained concentrated around $0.94 and $0.93.
These levels could attract price if support weakened and sellers regained control. The heatmap therefore presented a balanced setup rather than a clearly directional one.
Source: CoinGlass Should DOT move above $0.98, liquidity around $1.00 could come into focus. If bearish pressure strengthens, the clusters below current price could become the next downside targets.
Final Summary Polkadot remained heavily discussed even as investor confidence weakened sharply. DOT held key support, but resistance continued limiting recovery attempts.
Polkadot has emerged as one of the most debated cryptocurrencies on social media in recent days, but this heightened visibility has failed to translate into positive sentiment in terms of price or market perception. According to data from Santiment, while discussions around DOT have surged, the overall market attitude toward the asset continues to weaken.
A central question among market observers is why Polkadot, despite its advanced technical infrastructure and robust developer community, has not achieved the expected momentum in user adoption or price performance. Recently compared with faster-growing blockchain networks like Solana and Sui, Polkadot has faced criticism for lagging behind these competitors.
Santiment highlighted that periods featuring high social attention but low investor confidence can sometimes mark important turning points in crypto markets. Nevertheless, the prevailing sentiment suggests that uncertainty over Polkadot’s future prospects remains among investors.
According to Santiment, Polkadot has become one of the most talked-about crypto assets on social media; however, the increased attention has amplified perceptions of fading investor confidence rather than reversing them.
A divergence of opinion continues within the Polkadot community. Some believe the network’s infrastructure and ongoing development are strong points, while others focus on its comparatively weak price action versus competitors. Topics such as developer engagement, ecosystem adoption, governance structure, tokenomics, and the project roadmap are among the most fiercely debated issues.
Technical indicators suggest easing selling pressureAs of reporting, DOT was trading at $0.9630. The token declined 1.17% over the past 24 hours, with daily trading volume recorded at $148.12 million and a market capitalization of $1.63 billion. Weekly charts indicate a prolonged downtrend from levels above $10 to below $1.
On the technical front, a drop below the psychologically significant $1.00 mark has signaled that selling pressure persists. This break reinforces the underlying market weakness and further erodes investor confidence.
Mini glossary: RSI is a momentum indicator that measures the speed and magnitude of price movements. Readings below 30 indicate the asset is oversold. MACD tracks the relationship between short and long-term moving averages to signal shifts in momentum.
Despite the ongoing decline, some technical signals suggest the downtrend could be losing steam. The RSI has dipped to 29.4, entering oversold territory. Historically, similar levels have occurred ahead of short-term rebounds or consolidation phases. Additionally, the MACD histogram has turned slightly positive and the MACD lines are converging, which could point to weakening downward momentum.
Although technical indicators hint that selling pressure may be easing, current data does not yet confirm a definitive trend reversal.
For a more sustained recovery scenario, analysts note that DOT needs to reclaim the resistance zone between $1.30 and $1.60. Unless the token breaks above this range, the broader market structure is likely to remain negative, and DOT will continue searching for a bottom after its sharp decline.
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.
Are altcoins exploding or collapsing? Can we still hope for anything beyond bitcoin? These questions cross the minds of many investors. For Polkadot fans, they have become a true obsession. The former glory of crypto seems to have evaporated like a poorly planed plank under the sun.
In brief Polkadot has lost 98% of its value since its all-time high. Investor sentiment has fallen into extreme fear zone. The support at $0.916 still barely holds against sellers. Resistance at $1.044 blocks any attempt at a lasting rebound. DOT hits rock bottom after historic 98 % crash There was a time when Polkadot reigned over the crypto market. The fourth largest market cap, 60 billion dollars, infinite promises. Today, those memories resemble an old collapsing framework. Max Crypto summarized the situation with brutal frankness on X:
Remember Polkadot DOT? It was once the 4th largest crypto with a 60 billion dollar market cap. Today, it has dropped 98.34% from its peak and hit an ALL-TIME LOW. Absolutely brutal.
Source: Max Crypto’s X account, June 19, 2026. Investor sentiment followed the same trajectory as the price. The ratio of bullish comments fell from 6.39 in May to only 1.18 in June. It is a dizzying fall that firmly places DOT in the fear territory. Yet, the volume of discussions remains high.
Polkadot is still one of the most debated assets in the crypto-sphere. A plank creaking from all sides but which carpenters still examine closely.
Exchange flows show a mixed situation. Outflows slightly exceed inflows, with a net negative flow of $68,390. The margin is thin, like a well-fitted saw cut.
Investors are cautious but not panicking. They wait, saw in hand, to see if the plank will split or hold.
$0.916 support: the last line of defense before the abyss Currently, Polkadot holds above the $0.916 support like a shaky workbench. This level has stopped the fall, but resistance at $1.044 blocks any rebound attempts. The price is between two waters, like a poorly fixed beam.
Technical indicators are conclusive, sellers keep the advantage. The ADX at 32.70 confirms a solid downtrend, while buyers struggle to be heard with a +DI of only 12.18.
The liquidity map offers valuable clues for the days to come. A liquidity zone concentrates between $0.98 and $1.00. Another significant cluster appears near $1.008. Below, liquidity accumulates around $0.94 and $0.93.
If buyers manage to break through the $1.044 resistance, sentiment might improve. Conversely, a break below $0.916 would open the way to a new descent. The support looks like a last peg holding the whole structure together.
Key figures to remember about DOT $0.916: key support still holding; 98.34% drop since all-time high; 1.18: current bullish comment ratio; $0.964: DOT price at writing; 32.70: ADX confirming a strong downtrend. Polkadot finds itself at a decisive crossroads. Extreme fear could trigger a rebound, but nothing is certain. The former crypto giant must find new strength to rise. Bitcoin’s dominance, however, reaches new heights, plunging altcoins into the shadow. Without a trend reversal, DOT could well remain in the workshop of the forgotten, watching other cryptos shine under the sun.
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
Mikaia A.
La révolution blockchain et crypto est en marche ! Et le jour où les impacts se feront ressentir sur l’économie la plus vulnérable de ce Monde, contre toute espérance, je dirai que j’y étais pour quelque chose
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.
Two New Referenda Target Polkadot's Staking Economics@Polkadot has put two new OpenGov proposals to its community: referenda 1909 and 1910. Together, they represent the next step in a broader effort to overhaul the network's staking architecture, shifting risk away from everyday participants and toward the validators who operate the infrastructure.
Referendum 1909 builds on the 10,000 $DOT validator self-stake minimum that was established by the earlier Referendum 1890. The new proposal adds self-stake rewards for validators, sets validator commissions to 0%, and introduces permissionless chilling, meaning that under-bonded validators can be removed from the active set without requiring a governance action. The intent is to sharpen validator incentives and ensure operators carry genuine financial exposure to their own performance.
Referendum 1910 addresses the nominator side of the equation. It proposes removing nominator slashing entirely and reducing the unbonding period to 48 hours. Under Polkadot's current model, nominators who back a misbehaving validator can lose a portion of their staked funds. The existing unbonding period, meanwhile, sits at approximately 28 days, meaning stakers must wait nearly a month before withdrawn $DOT becomes transferable.
Rebalancing Risk Between Validators and NominatorsThe two proposals are designed to work in tandem. By concentrating slashing risk on validators through the self-stake requirement and removing it for nominators, Polkadot aims to make staking more accessible to a broader range of participants. Cutting the unbonding window to 48 hours addresses a longstanding liquidity concern that has discouraged some holders from participating at all.
Taken together, referenda 1909 and 1910 continue a reform trajectory that @Polkadot's governance community began earlier in 2026. The core logic remains consistent: validators, who control the infrastructure, should absorb the primary operational risk, while nominators should be able to delegate and earn rewards with fewer barriers and less exposure to losses outside their control.
Both proposals are open for a vote through Polkadot's OpenGov system, where $DOT holders can participate directly in the decision.
New Polkadot proposals aim to strengthen validator incentives, remove nominator penalties, and shorten unbonding period to 2 days
PANews, June 24 – According to Cointelegraph, Polkadot OpenGov has recently introduced two new staking proposals (Proposals #1909 and #1910), aimed at strengthening validator incentives, removing the nominator slashing mechanism, and shortening the unbonding period from approximately 28 days to 2 days.
Share to:
Author: PA一线
This content is for market information only and is not investment advice.
Follow PANews official accounts, navigate bull and bear markets together
Recommended Reading
Related Topics
Popular Articles
Industry News
Market Trends
Curated Readings
Subscribe
US AI chip stocks mixed in pre-market trading, Qualcomm surges 13%
The Polkadot community is currently debating OpenGov Referenda 1909 and 1910, which propose sweeping changes to the network’s staking system. These proposals aim to bolster network security, make staking more accessible for users, and reorganize the incentive structure for validators. If passed, the way validators and nominators participate in network security could undergo significant transformation.
10,000 DOT self-stake focus for validatorsReferendum 1909 builds on a previously approved requirement for validators to have at least 10,000 DOT in self-stake. The new proposal introduces additional rewards for validators who lock their own capital within the network. The initiative is designed to raise the economic responsibility of validators and deepen their investment in Polkadot’s security.
According to the proposal, incentives for validators’ self-stake would receive 22.6% of the Dynamic Allocation Program’s budget, with 45.2% allocated to staker rewards. A concave weighting model would be used to distribute rewards, preventing large validators from disproportionately dominating the reward pool.
Glossary: OpenGov is Polkadot’s on-chain governance system. DOT holders can vote in referenda to decide on technical and economic changes within the network.
If the proposals are approved, the amount of DOT staked by validators themselves will become central to the incentive structure, further aligning network security with economic interests.
Unbonding period could drop to 48 hours for nominatorsOne major highlight of Referendum 1910 is the reduction of the unbonding period for nominators, slashing it from about 28 days down to just 48 hours. This change would give DOT stakers much greater liquidity and flexibility within the network.
The same proposal also calls for the removal of slashing penalties for nominators. Currently, nominators can lose funds if they support misbehaving validators. By eliminating this risk, the staking process is expected to become much more accessible for individual participants.
Setting commission to zero may shift incentivesReferendum 1909 also proposes resetting validator commission rates to zero and updating the maximum commission cap. Under this updated system, validators would benefit directly based on their own staked DOT rather than collecting commissions from nominators.
Supporters argue this model would better align validator interests with the overall health of the network. However, critics caution that smaller validators could struggle to remain competitive. Proponents believe the weighted reward mechanism included in the proposal should help curb these inequalities.
Security model and participation balance could be reshapedThe proposals further introduce a non-permissioned “chilling” mechanism for validators who fall below the required self-stake threshold. The chill threshold would be lowered to 32%, empowering network participants to remove under-collateralized validators from the active set.
At the same time, safeguards are included to prevent the validator set from falling below safe operational levels. As staking accessibility and validator economics attract more attention in the blockchain ecosystem, Polkadot prepares to overhaul its staking and governance frameworks. Recent moves in networks like Ethereum and Solana point to a broader sector trend toward such changes.
If these reforms are approved, Polkadot’s long-term staking model is expected to grow stronger, making it easier for a wider range of users to join the network.
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.
In 2021, Forbes magazine published a ranking of the 100 richest people in Ukraine and the 59th place was taken by the crypto entrepreneur from Kharkov, Mykola Udianskyi. His fortune according to the magazine is estimated at $ 180 million. He was one of the first crypto investors in the CIS and today he is the founder of the digital holding Ehold, Bitcoin Ultimatum fork and many other projects.
As a reminder, Mykola acquired LocalTrade in September 2020 after the sale of the Coinsbit exchange in November 2019. Initially, it was planned to transfer LocalTrade under the jurisdiction of Montenegro and repurpose it for futures and OTC transactions, but later the entrepreneur announced the sale of the trading platform. Mykola Udianskyi decided to devote his time to other projects: he focused on the creation of regulated exchanges in the UK and Austria. The entrepreneur’s team is working on the launch of four new exchanges in England and the UAE, Ukraine and Montenegro are next in line this year. In addition, he recently launched the only available regulated exchange in India.
Currently, Mykola’s company is also working on the creation of a Digital Bank, the main feature of which is the simultaneous support of cryptocurrencies and their integration with the traditional banking system. The project is aiming for the implementation of innovative functionality that will make everyday calculations in cryptocurrency as simple as it is now through fiat.
Digital banking is one of the most important development areas in the cryptocurrency industry. Succeeding in this area will combine digital coins with conventional banking, which in turn will erase the line between fiat and cryptocurrencies.
New LocalTrade team and contractors The new leadership of Local Trade has pledged to turn blockchain and digital finance into understandable notions and revolutionize this field. The head of the company is CEO Aaron Levi Yahal. The new top manager has vast experience in marketing and has supported many financial and cryptocurrency projects. His many years of practice have proven to us that the projects Aaron had a hand on all ended up achieving excellent results. Perhaps the most famous one is PureFi, where he holds the position of RegTech Strategist. This is a unique protocol (unparallelled in the market) that allows AML technologies to be implemented in DeFi.
Alexandra Buimister is the chief operating officer of the exchange. Alexandra has a very rich portfolio: she has international experience in the fintech and financial sectors, in addition, she is the founder of alternative banking services. Alexandra has experience in leadership positions in many global brands: BCA Research (Euromoney PLC), Forbes Latvia & Finland, Supreme Group, etc.
Aaron’s team has ambitious plans for the future of the LocalTrade exchange. In order to implement them, he turned to the time-tested SPACE IT Blockchain contractors. The latter is a leading IT company from the UAE.
The CEO of LocalTrade is confident in the high-quality execution of the technical component of his own ideas since he has already used the services of SPACE IT Blockchain several times and knows from his own experience what high standards are set within the company.
How to get the most out of DeFi? According to the company’s management, they are planning on not only upgrading the platform, but they also want to create a fundamentally new product, which has no equal in the world. The community’s reaction to this news is overwhelmingly positive, traders can’t wait to test the updated product.
First and foremost, the team will focus on the security and usability of the updated platform. They intend on developing the FinTech industry, as well as integrate DeFi capabilities that will solve the existing problems through blockchain technology.
The implementation of DeFi completely removes intermediaries from the equation and puts smart contracts in their stead, which, in turn, create trusted protocols. In fact, decentralized finance almost completely eliminates the risk of losing funds due to fraudulent activities, since the user conducts all financial transactions through his personal wallet, the private keys of which are only with him.
The boom in decentralized finance came in the summer of 2020. The excitement in this area caused a huge increase in the prices of certain assets: the DeFi token YFI became an absolute record holder, which increased by 1280 times. Therefore, this branch of the digital economy is one of the most promising and important at the moment.
Although the DeFi topic is over a year old, it is still quite difficult to understand, especially for new crypto investors. On the Internet, there are a huge number of investment proposals in plenty of DeFi projects. However, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of market participants cannot conduct an objective analysis of each of them.
In order for non-professional investors to safely invest in this sector, LocalTrade is creating another product – Marketplace. Only verified DeFi projects will be included here, and users will be able to invest in them without restrictions.
DEX’s Launch Towards the end of summer – early fall 2021, the LocalTrade management plans to launch a decentralized exchange (DEX). The fundamental difference between this service and its centralized counterparts is security and a guarantee of complete anonymity.
The fact is that DEX does not collect nor store any user data on its servers (IP addresses, time zone, screen resolution data, and other digital prints). On decentralized exchanges, there is no need to go through the registration process, let alone verification (KYC / AML). And, most importantly, DEX does not store user funds in their wallets, so clients are the rightful owners of their assets.
Disadvantages of DEX Despite the many positive aspects, decentralized exchanges also have a number of disadvantages. Perhaps the primary weakness of DEX is the small selection of trading pairs and the lack of necessary liquidity in the least popular tokens.
Market makers and liquidity pools are responsible for trading cryptocurrencies on decentralized exchanges. In order to add a new trading pair to the exchange, you need to create a smart pool contract and lock in it a certain amount of an asset that provides liquidity.
Unoptimized smart contracts lead to various inconveniences:
long transaction processing time, high commissions, increased likelihood of canceling the transaction without a refund by gwey (applies to DEX on Ethereum). Solving the problem of sub-optimal smart contracts from LocalTrade The LocalTrade team intends to eliminate this deficiency, for this they decided to use the orderbook model. With its help, it will be possible to add new trading pairs without the need to register a separate smart contract for it each time.
For the creation of the DEX protocol, the LocalTrade team focused on optimizing smart contracts, namely, increasing the speed of work and at the same time reducing commission fees. In the near future, performance will be significantly improved by reformatting the system architecture based on Layer-2.
Loss on the course at high volumes Another problem that worries traders is the significant change in the rate during the processing of large volumes. LocalTrade has a solution to this problem as well: Traders will now set the maximum allowable price range themselves.
All of the above sounded like a fairy tale just a year ago, but now it is already a prospect for the near future. If you look at Aaron’s past and follow the further development of his projects, then we can safely say that the grandiose changes to LocalTrade that he talks about are only a matter of time. We just need to be patient and wait for the best blockchain developers to embody the ideas of Aaron Levi Yahal.
Image: Mykola Udianskyi and Binance founder Changpeng Zhao
DeFi tokens have not witnessed any massive price change over the past few week. For instance, the likes of Uniswap, Marker and PancakeSwap rallied by only 10%, 8% and 2.3% respectively, in the aforementioned time window. However, tokens such AAVE and YFI, managed to appreciate slightly higher [17% each], successfully demonstrating their strength.
However, the question remains, as to whether or not these two tokens would be able to carry on their respective rallies.
Market Sentiment The market has been quite favorable to traders advocating the price-drop narrative and the long-short liquidation data supported the aforementioned claim. Over the past 12 hours, $270k worth of YFI long contracts were liquidated when compared to the mere $56k worth of short contracts.
Source: ByBt With AAVE too, $851k worth of long contracts were forcefully closed, when compared to the mere $129k worth of short contracts. The funding rate on all major exchanges, for both the tokens, was negative at the time of writing, thus intensifying the bearish sentiment.
Additionally, the OI data revealed another not-so-healthy trend. Even though the number of outstanding derivative contracts witnessed a slight spike of late, they were nowhere near their pre-set benchmarks. As seen from the chart attached, YFI’s OI peaked at $137.2 million during May this year, while its current value [$54.08 million] is not even half of the same. AAVE’s OI too, for that matter, has to bridge a gap of close to $90 million to reach its previous peak.
Source: ByBt On-chain setbacks The state of on-chain metrics for both these tokens also remained unsatisfactory. For starters, less than one-fourth of the addresses that were active during the initial few months of the year, for both YFI and AAVE, were active at press time. The decreased participation, by and large, points out the fragile state of their respective blockchain’s activity.
Further, the balance on exchanges have been gradually increasing. In fact, they’ve been depicting contrasting trends when compared to their previous rallies. A day back, for instance, more than 16.4k AAVE tokens were sent to exchanges, outlining the fact that participants were gradually cashing out.
Source: Glassnode Well, it is quite obvious that the rallies of both these DeFi tokens lack momentum. Ergo, without the same re-entering their respective markets, traders shouldn’t expect any unreasonable pump. The next few days would indeed, test the resilience of these two tokens.
Uniswap, AAVE, Maker, and Yearn.Finance are some of the best performing DeFi assets existing in the space at the moment. While DeFi has grown monumentally over the past few months, with Cardano releasing its smart contracts mainnet today, the excitement is unmatched. Even so, the market has seen a significant drop in DeFi’s value. And with it, these altcoins took a hit as well.
DeFi goes down Total value locked in DeFi this week fell hard dropping by about $11 billion, from $98 billion. This is not necessarily new, as this has occurred twice this year earlier after a bull run, first in Feb then May. In February it fell by $18 billion and in May it fell by $19 billion.
However, at $87 billion, it was still way higher than ever before, so there isn’t much to worry about there.
DeFi TVL in the past | Source: DeFi Pulse – AMBCrypto In accordance with the drop in TVL, the DeFi Pulse Index (DPI) fell by 16.62% at press time. At its worst, it plunged by 24.01%. The worry although is when it came to the top-performing DeFi assets such as Uniswap (UNI), AAVE, Maker (MKR), and Yearn.Finance (YFI).
In the last 5 days, each of these tokens dropped over 20%. Uniswap witnessed the highest fall of all, as it went all the way down to 26.86% (UNI)
Uniswaps 26% fall | Source: TradingView – AMBCrypto So which asset is the best? Even though UNI fell the most, it was also the strongest in terms of network performance. MVRV ratio and the network value to transactions showed stark dominance of Uniswap over the other altcoins.
MVRV of the assets | Source: Coinmetrics – AMBCrypto As for investor participation, once again UNI lead, followed by AAVE, YFI, and MKR. Uniswap is once again the best performer, both in terms of daily active addresses and transaction numbers.
Active Address for the coins | Source: Coinmetrics – AMBCrypto But in terms of profitability, the ranks changed. MKR is the most profitable option at the moment with YFI and UNI following it. Here AAVE came out as a bad asset since its profitability is a mere 37%.
AAVE’s profitability is at 37% | Source: Intotheblock – AMBCrypto However, here are the latest updates. UniCode hackathon event announced for the Uniswap community. Maker Foundation moved to dissolve itself in order to give way to a completely decentralized network. Lastly, $868k earnings reported by YFI in Q2, through yield farming treasuries.
These were helping the price rise and make the 3 alts, a better choice of investment. So AAVE, may be the one here to stay away from.
Digital asset analytics firm Santiment is looking at a handful of altcoins to gauge crypto’s strength after the global market cap tanked by 8% in less than a day.
In a new Santiment Insights report, the crypto intelligence company analyzes what it calls “blue chips” in the ERC-20 market segment: Shiba Inu (SHIB), Uniswap (UNI), Yearn.Finance (YFI), Aave (AAVE) and Chainlink (LINK).
While assessing crypto inflow into exchanges, Santiment highlights meme coin SHIB as a positive metric.
“People seem to be very confident in their holdings. SHIB for example.
A declining trend of SHIB being deposited to exchanges is indicating that traders are not afraid of Shiba going down. They are not going to send tokens to exchanges to sell.”
Source: Santiment On the topic of exchanges and exchange inflow, Santiment also looks at decentralized exchange (DEX) Uniswap.
“Three increasing spikes might indicate people were looking to take profits just before the dump.
But nothing similar after the dump itself.”
Source: Santiment In terms of active deposits, the firm sees only one negative indicator from crypto yield optimizer YFI.
“No worries or minimal worries visible. Except for YFI.”
Source: Santiment Moving on to network profit and loss, Santiment says that four of the five altcoins avoided panic sell-offs.
“Interesting that the picture here is completely the same again: almost no panic sells except in YFI.”
Source: Santiment The fourth indicator involves the amount of time since a crypto asset was last moved, known as the age consumed. Santiment says it’s a good sign that long-term holders don’t appear to be moving their tokens onto exchanges.
“All five tokens do not have any significant outliers here. Likely no huge old bags moved or sold. It’s looking like this on charts.”
Source: Santiment Finally, the firm looks at what whales holding between $500,000 and $50 million worth of crypto are doing with their bags. Only decentralized price feed service Chainlink shows a downtrend.
“Is it standing still (nothing special) or going down (whales offloading the bags)?
Here we can say that only one token from five is showing a downtrend in whales’ balances [over the] last day. It’s LINK.”
Source: Santiment Santiment concludes its analysis by saying,
“We do not see many signs of panic or sell-offs within selected ERC-20 tokens.
One altcoin that helps holders earn yields is seeing its own value soar even as the broader crypto markets try to shake off a recent slump.
Decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol Yearn.Finance (YFI) offers lending and trading services so users can optimize their crypto asset earnings.
[adinserter block="1"]
The YFI token’s price jumped by 50% virtually overnight after word spread that Yearn had gone on a major shopping spree buying back its own token.
Yearn says in a tweet to its 159,200 followers,
“Yearn has purchased $7,526,343 worth of YFI from the open market. We got 282.4 YFI (0.77% of total supply) at an average price of $26,651.
More YFI has been bought back in the past month than in the prior year.”
Yearn reports that its treasury now holds over $45 million and intends to do more buybacks in the future.
In the investing world, companies often do buybacks when they believe their shares are undervalued or to reward existing holders by reducing the total available supply.
The move is paying off in a big way for the Ethereum-based protocol. YFI’s price has surged from a weekly low of $18,877 on Wednesday all the way to $28,802 at time of writing, including a nearly 20% rise on the day.
When Yearn first launched in July of 2020, the YFI token was worth around $30, then skyrocketed to a staggering valuation above $90,000 back in May before crashing down to $33,000 within days.
Like most of the crypto markets, YFI has experienced choppy price action in recent months.
An altcoin that helps holders earn yields is lapping the field as the crypto markets try to recover from a difficult month.
Yearn.Finance (YFI) is a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol that offers lending and trading services so users can optimize their crypto asset earnings.
[adinserter block="1"]
The YFI token’s price has been on fire over the past week, more than doubling from $18,867 on December 15th to a high of $39,353 on December 20th.
The altcoin first got a boost last week as word spread that Yearn had gone on a major shopping spree buying back its own token.
Yearn tweeted that it had purchased over $7.5 million worth of YFI, adding that its treasury was armed with $45 million with the intention of buying more tokens in the future.
Yearn’s price continues to surge as the community now considers a change in YFI’s tokenomics.
At the top of the list is the suggestion that token holders active in Yearn governance be rewarded with a portion of buybacks.
Yearn says in a tweet,
“Tokenomics, rewarding YFI holders with the… token buybacks, diluting paper hands for the benefit of the blue-pilled diamond hands.”
Next is a four-stage proposal involving a combination of rewards, locking tokens in vaults for set periods of time, and credit for performing useful work.
The process is outlined in a series of illustrated tweets.
“Step 1: xYFI. Stake in the xYFI vault, earn bought back YFI from the treasury. Simple as that.”
Source: 0x7171/Twitter “Step 2: veYFI. Vote-lock YFI, with decay and time extension. Max-lock and earn disproportionate rewards compared to those who lock for a shorter duration. Early exit any time but pay a penalty to the other stakers.”
Source: 0x7171/Twitter “Step 3: Vault gauges. Stake your yVault token in a gauge, earn YFI rewards, boosted by how much veYFI you have staked. Vote on which vaults should get allocated rewards. Pay a penalty to other stakers if you don’t have a strong enough lock.”
Source: 0x7171/Twitter Step four involves engaging in “useful work,” which could include “configuring vault parameters, setting fees, providing insurance.”
At time of writing, YFI is down 9.25% on the day and trading for $34,553.
Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure
Fantom Foundation has responded to the news of Andre Conje exiting crypto. The announcement which came early on Sunday saw Anton Nell and Andre Conje announce their departure from crypto and decentralized finance (DeFi) and any contribution thereof. This had sent shocked the community as it came seemingly out of nowhere, leaving many questioning the fate of the blockchain.
Fantom Foundation had been quick to respond and address these concerns, assuring the community that the departure would not adversely harm the development of the project in any way. The foundation explained that Conje’s contribution to crypto had been immense but that Fantom was not a “one-man team” meaning that the exit of a single dev would not derail the project in any way.
Related Reading | Mastercard, Visa, Paypal Suspend Russian Operations – No Love For Russia?
Furthermore, Fantom Foundation added that Conje was not a “core dev”. The project will continue along in its development as there are more than 40 others who continue to work tirelessly towards the success of the network. In addition to hundreds of developers and 100K+ unique addresses that continue to carry out transactions on the network daily.
The foundation referred to Conje as a “big picture guy” who had worked closely with the CEO, but noted that his decision to leave the crypto world would have no impact on the network. Development will carry on as scheduled, the foundation explains, and are still on track to ship notable upgrades expected in the short term.
Therefore, the development of Fantom won't be impacted by Andre's decision.
Big things are coming, as scheduled.
We're still on track to ship snapsync and a db upgrade in the short term and to release middleware improvements such as flat storage and the fvm.
— Sonic (@SonicLabs) March 6, 2022
Why Is Andre Conje Leaving Fantom? Conje had been a notable figure in the Fantom community going as far back as 2018 given his involvement and contribution to the development of the network. He further went on to spearhead popular projects like Yearn Finance (YFI) and Keep3r Network, alongside others, further solidifying his role as a key player on the Fantom network. This is why the dev’s exit has come as a shock.
Related Reading | Ethereum Gains Edge Over Stock Market, What’s the Key to Fresh Rally In an announcement that was posted on Twitter, Anton Nell explained that he and Conje had made the decision to leave crypto and DeFi. Explaining the reasoning behind this, Nell said that it was “not a knee-jerk reaction to the hate received from releasing a project, but a decision that has been coming for a while now.” This means that they have been planning the departure for a while.
Following the announcement, the prices of projects Conje was involved with had taken a plunge. Fantom’s FTM token had fallen 8% from above $1.5 to $1.39 and YFI had seen $3k wiped off its value as it plunged from $20K to $17K. These tokens have since begun to find balance after this but continue to suffer effects from the news.
FTM tumbles after Nell's announcement | Source: FTMUSD on TradingView.com Featured image from CryptoWisser, chart from TradingView.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.
Sign Up for Our Newsletter! For updates and exclusive offers enter your email.
Best Owie is a Managing Editor at Bitcoinist with extensive experience and a proficient expert known for crafting captivating and insightful content. Best boasts over six years in the crypto sector, and has supervised the conception and publication of thousands of articles. Best is also a content and marketing strategist with the ability to make sure your content reaches the right audience and beyond. In every aspect, Best stands out as a consummate professional, always striving for unparalleled excellence both within and outside the workplace.
The largest Ethereum (ETH) whales in the world are accumulating decentralized oracle network Chainlink (LINK) and several altcoins that prioritize decentralization.
According to blockchain tracker WhaleStats, the top 100 Ethereum whales are currently most interested in a pair of stablecoins and over a half dozen altcoins, with Chainlink in sixth place and seeing an average buy-in of $186,693 for 25,576 LINK tokens.
[adinserter block="1"]
Ethereum whales are also scooping up decentralized derivatives exchange Serum (SRM), spending on average $299,901 for 249,918 SRM tokens.
The wealthy investors are keen on the decentralized finance (DeFi) sector, particularly the yield-optimizing protocol Yearn.Finance (YFI). The whales bought three YFI tokens for an average price tag of $25,883.
Decentralized exchange aggregator 1inch (1INCH) finds itself in 10th place this week, as the whales shelled out $3,020 to acquire 3,096 1INCH tokens.
Coming in second overall was FTX Token (FTT), the native asset of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange, with an average buy-in of $301,121 getting the whales 9,847 FTT.
Eighth on the list is Rari Governance (RGT), the native token of the DeFi startup Rari Capital, and the rich wallets bagged 1,482 RGT tokens for $10,240.
In ninth place is Tribe (TRIBE), the governance token of the Fei Protocol which aims to bring stablecoin economics to DeFi. The whales spent on average $6,936 for 27,557 TRIBE.
US Dollar Coin (USDC) and Tether (USDT) are the two most accumulated stablecoins among ETH whales, with USDC actually taking the first spot among the top 10 popular tokens with an average buy-in exceeding $1.62 million.
Source: WhaleStats Ethereum itself ranks fifth overall with the whales spending an average of $241,251 to accumulate 119 ETH tokens.
Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure
Decentralized exchange (DEX) dYdX has had to take out millions from its insurance fund to cover user liquidations on its platform, according to a recent announcement. This action was forced by the recent liquidations in the Yearn.Finance (YFI) market.
What Led To The $9 Million Insurance Fund Withdrawal? On Saturday, November 18, the Yearn.Finance’s governance token (YFI) witnessed a drastic 43% decline in value, leading to a wipeout of $50 million in YFI Open Interest.
Consequently, this dramatic drop in price triggered a moment of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) within the crypto community, with some members speculating on the possibility of an exit scam.
In a post on the X (formerly Twitter) platform, the team behind dYdX disclosed that about $9 million from the platform’s v3 insurance fund was used to fill gaps in liquidations processed in the YFI market.
Last night about $9m from the dYdX v3 insurance fund were used to fill gaps on liquidations processed in the YFI market. The v3 insurance fund remains well funded with $13.5m in funds remaining
No user funds were affected and our team is working to investigate the event
— dYdX (@dYdX) November 18, 2023
According to the decentralized exchange’s website, the insurance fund is “the first backstop to maintain the solvency of the system when an account has a negative balance.” The fund is not decentralized, meaning that the protocol’s team is directly responsible for deposits to and withdrawals from it.
In the announcement, the protocol’s team also clarified that the insurance reserve still remains “well-funded” with $13.5 million left. However, this only means that the protocol was forced to part with about 40% of its initial balance to cover the liquidations in the YFI market.
Furthermore, the team asserted that no user funds were affected by this event. And they also revealed that they are currently investigating the incident.
dYdX Founder Claims ‘Targeted Attack’ – What Next? In a separate post on X, dYdX founder Antonio Juliano made accusations of market manipulation in the Yearn.Finance token market. The executive said:
This was pretty clearly a targeted attack against dYdX, including market manipulation of the entire $YFI market.
Juliano reiterated that the protocol is currently investigating the incident alongside other partners. And the founder promised to be fully transparent with the results of their findings.
This was pretty clearly a targeted attack against dYdX, including market manipulation of the entire $YFI market
We are investigating alongside several partners and will be transparent with what we discover https://t.co/djWHaaPIua
— Antonio(@AntonioMJuliano) November 18, 2023
Furthermore, Antonio Juliano mentioned that there will be a thorough review of the protocol’s risk parameters. “We will be making appropriate changes to both v3 and potentially the dYdX Chain software if necessary,” he added.
dYdX remains one of the largest trading platforms in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space. As of this writing, the protocol boasts a total value locked of $372 million, according to data from DefiLlama.
DYDX price rebounds on the daily timeframe | Source: DYDXUSDT on TradingView Featured image from Shutterstock, chart from TradingView
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.
Sign Up for Our Newsletter! For updates and exclusive offers enter your email.
Opeyemi Sule is a passionate crypto enthusiast, a proficient content writer, and a journalist at Bitcoinist. Opeyemi creates unique pieces unraveling the complexities of blockchain technology and sharing insights on the latest trends in the world of cryptocurrencies. Opeyemi enjoys reading poetry, chatting about politics, and listening to music, in addition to his strong interest in cryptocurrency.
The founder of layer-1 blockchain Sonic (S) is speaking up about his decision to step away from crypto in 2022, two years after launching the decentralized finance (Defi) platform Yearn Finance (YFI).
In a post on Medium, Andre Cronje says he stopped his public engagement with DeFi because of regulatory pressure.
[adinserter block="1"]
He says it all started in 2021 when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sent him a letter asking for more information on YFI, including whether he raised funds and who the investors were.
Cronje says he complied and provided as much information as he could provide, but the SEC continued to send him letters that later became hostile in tone. The regulator investigated him on different issues, including violations, which Cronje says confused him because he is not a US citizen or resident and he neither sold anything to anyone in the US.
“The letters kept coming, every time pivoting to a new angle of attack. It started ‘investigating’ me from the angle of a raise and SEC violation… When it became apparent that [the raise] was not an angle of attack, it shifted to focusing on the yearn vaults themselves as ‘investment vehicles’.”
Cronje says the time and effort it took him to answer the questions from the regulator diverted his attention.
“At this point, I was practically forced to completely stop development or R&D, and focus solely on this legal and regulatory battle.”
He says the sleepless nights and stress of the ordeal prompted him to quit.
“All in all this took 2 years of my life and finally culminated in a point where I was essentially given a choice. I can keep trying to build things for free, receive no benefit, spend hours of my energy and time to release this code into the wild, while needing to constantly face these attacks and have to spend months of my life and real money to defend it. Or I need to step away.”
Cronje says he is now sharing his experience as the SEC takes a new direction.
“I finally figured I can actually write about this, as previously I was strongly advised by those same investigators to not mention the investigation or it could escalate things.”
They always come back, more inventive, more technical. Hackers have just struck a new blow in the crypto sphere. This time, Yearn Finance is the victim. Outcome: 9 million dollars vanished. Behind the exploit, a bug of rare complexity in the yETH contract. On the surface, a simple swap. In depth, mathematical chaos. And worst of all, this is not an isolated case.
In brief Yearn Finance loses 9 million due to a flaw in a custom swap contract. The technical bug: a division omitted in the calculation of the virtual balance product. The attacker uses temporary contracts to drain assets and obfuscate the trail. A single transaction is enough to pocket 100% of the affected yETH pool liquidity. When arithmetic explodes: a bug worth millions On November 30, a user was able to create 2.35 × 10³⁸ yETH thanks to a subtle flaw in the swap() function of the smart contract. This contract was supposed to maintain a balance rule between tokens. Except a critical division was omitted in the formula. Result: the variable vb_prod ran away. Like a speedometer stuck in overdrive, it deceived the protocol about its own health.
The exploit was confirmed by PeckShield, who alerted in a tweet that nearly 9 million dollars had been lost. Part of the funds — about 3 million in ETH — was sent via Tornado Cash, a famous crypto mixer used to obscure trails. The rest still sleeps in the hacker’s address.
The severity of the bug is not a simple oversight. As Ilia.eth explained on X:
Today’s exploitation of the $yETH pool was not a flash loan type price attack, but indeed a structural collapse of the AMM’s internal accounting. Here is a technical analysis showing how a simple omitted division led to complete protocol drainage.
This flaw painfully recalls the precedent of Balancer, where poor rounding management caused similar chaos. Same cause, same effect: uncontrolled monetary creation followed by a legitimate but destructive withdrawal.
Helper contracts to raze Yearn Finance’s architecture It’s not just the bug that impresses. It’s the attack engineering. In a single transaction, the hacker orchestrated everything: deployment of “helper contracts,” token minting, conversion to ETH, fund transfer, and self-destruction of contracts to erase traces.
According to Blockscout, each helper contract executed a targeted call to the vulnerable function, then sent the ETH to a master wallet before disappearing. A strategy worthy of a heist movie, where the robber erases his digital footprints in the same second he acts.
The key address identified by several analysts is: 0xa80d…c822, currently still holding about 6 million in stETH, rETH, and other Ethereum derivatives.
On X, William Li offers further reading:
The hacker actually did not withdraw all the yETH he created, he only sold part of it in the yETH-ETH pool for 1,000 ETH (about 3 million dollars) — which is far less than the real gain he made (P2).
More than a theft, it is therefore a controlled disintegration of the yETH protocol. And behind the attack, a deep mathematical knowledge, coupled with cold and precise programming talent.
Crypto and trust: when code becomes Achilles’ heel Yearn Finance is far from an amateur project. Yet, the flaw was detected neither by users nor by audits. This is where the matter becomes worrying for the entire crypto market. Because this type of error — a multiplication instead of a division — could exist elsewhere, lurking in other protocols.
The yETH contract structure is a hybrid between Curve and Balancer. Except that instead of recalculating each transaction, it stores an intermediate state (vb_prod) supposed to be updated after each swap. A dangerous practice, according to Ilia.eth:
Storing complex product results (vb_prod) to update them incrementally is extremely risky. Errors accumulate, and the slightest logical bug can remain active indefinitely. It would be better to recalculate invariants from current balances.
The hack revives the debate: should gas economy or rigor be prioritized? One thing is certain: the consequences of a botched trade-off now amount to millions. At Yearn, the time is for remobilization: SEAL911, ChainSecurity, and a post-mortem investigation are already on the front line.
5 key facts about the Yearn Finance exploit November 30, 2025: date of the hack; $9 million: estimated total losses; 2.35 × 10³⁸ yETH: artificially created tokens; Single transaction: the entire attack happened in one block; Helper contracts: deployed, used, then self-destructed. Calculation errors in crypto do not forgive. And for good reason: it’s not another audit that would have avoided the carnage. Balancer, despite 11 security audits, was also emptied by an almost twin bug. A simple multiplication factor can become a weapon of mass destruction when finance becomes programmable. Protocols have short memory, but blockchains never forget.
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
Mikaia A.
La révolution blockchain et crypto est en marche ! Et le jour où les impacts se feront ressentir sur l’économie la plus vulnérable de ce Monde, contre toute espérance, je dirai que j’y étais pour quelque chose
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.
Getting robbed is one thing. Recovering your property is another. In the crypto universe, where the slightest flaw can turn into an algorithmic heist, you need cool-headedness, solid allies, and a keen nose for the chase. That is exactly what Yearn Finance demonstrated. No time to dwell on it. Battle-ready, the protocol launched a race against time to get back a vanished digital fortune. And the story is worth the detour.
In brief The bug allowed minting 2.3544×10^56 yETH and draining pools in minutes. A crypto alliance managed to recover 857.49 pxETH, equivalent to $2.4 million. The targeted contract was isolated, with no link to other Yearn Finance vaults. The attack used self-destructing contracts and Tornado Cash to mask transactions. Express Rescue: Yearn Finance Recovers $2.4M in the Heart of the Storm When the alert sounded, the scene was already a field of ruins. On November 30, an attacker minted an absurd amount of yETH tokens – precisely 2.3544 × 10^56 units – from an unchecked arithmetic bug. In minutes, nearly $9 million was siphoned from two DeFi pools: yETH and yETH-WETH on Curve.
But Yearn Finance did not let chaos settle in. Immediately, the protocol mobilized a recovery commando. Plume Network, Dinero, SEAL911, and ChainSecurity formed an interoperable “war room” to identify and locate the funds. Result: 857.49 pxETH, equivalent to $2.4M, was recovered, secured, and promised to the affected users.
The tweet from @yearnfi set the tone:
With the assistance of the Plume and Dinero teams, a coordinated recovery of 857.49 pxETH ($2.39m) was performed. Recovery efforts remain active and ongoing. Any assets successfully recovered will be returned to affected depositors.
What this action shows is the growing maturity of DeFi projects. This ability to launch a complex crypto rescue plan amidst turmoil is a resilience marker rarely seen in an industry that often patches leaks after shipwrecks.
Yearn Finance has, in short, given a post-hacking coordination lesson. While some lock themselves in silence, the platform chose openness, collaboration, and action.
Crypto Under Pressure: A Bug, Billions of Tokens, and a DeFi Challenge The exploit was no simple opportunistic theft. It was a precision attack. Using self-destructing helper contracts, the hacker masked their tracks. These small code bits, once their dirty work is done, erase themselves like spies who are never found. A method already seen in the Balancer hack, showing the level is rising.
Fortunately, the targeted contract was custom code. No impact was reported on Yearn Finance’s V2 or V3 vaults. The team hammered this message to reassure its users. In this unstable galaxy that is DeFi, trust is won and regained with every line of code.
But it didn’t stop there. A portion of the stolen funds was sent to Tornado Cash, an anonymization tool well-known among hackers. This anonymizer, now a refuge for suspicious funds, continues to fuel the tug-of-war between ethics, privacy, and traceability in the crypto sector.
However, Yearn Finance did not flee. It took the mic, owned the mistake, announced a post-mortem investigation, and mobilized its partners to strengthen future defenses. A choice praised by the community, which prefers an admission a thousand times over silence.
What this attack reveals is both the sophistication of hackers and the adaptability of protocols. Crypto is under pressure, but crypto learns fast.
In Numbers, Dates, and Key Facts Date of attack: November 30, 4:11 PM EST; Amount stolen: about $9M, including $8M from the yETH pool; Amount recovered: $2.4M (857.49 pxETH); Flaw: unchecked arithmetic bug + helper contracts; Allies mobilized: Plume, Dinero, SEAL911, ChainSecurity. In the crypto industry, memory is sharp. We recall the Curve Finance hacker who, sure of his genius, didn’t hesitate to mock the community after siphoning millions. Yet, this arrogance is often short-lived. Because in the world of code and chains, the union of defenders always fights back.
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
Mikaia A.
La révolution blockchain et crypto est en marche ! Et le jour où les impacts se feront ressentir sur l’économie la plus vulnérable de ce Monde, contre toute espérance, je dirai que j’y étais pour quelque chose
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.
Michael Egorov, who founded decentralized finance protocol Curve Finance, has proposed a 17.45 million CRV token grant that will fund several key initiatives designed to improve the protocol’s infrastructure and support a 25-person core development team.
Summary
Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov has proposed a CRV grant to fund core development work through 2026. The grant will support Curve Finance developer Swiss Stake AG’s 25-member team. “This proposal requests a grant for software research and development work, as well as related activities for the continued benefit of Curve,” Egorov said in the proposal posted on the Curve DAO governance on Dec. 14.
If approved, the grant will be awarded to Swiss Stake AG, the Zug-headquartered IT firm that initially developed Curve Finance and continues to maintain its underlying software infrastructure. The company operates independently of the DAO.
Starting January 2026, the proposal would extend funding for a new one-year period, mirroring the structure of a similar grant awarded in 2024 that concluded in August of this year.
Egorov acknowledged that while Swiss Stake AG has managed to establish several revenue streams, these earnings alone “do not yet make the company sustainable.”
“This grant will fund software research and development, infrastructure, security, and ecosystem support, ensuring that the 25-member team at Swiss Stake AG can continue its ongoing contributions to Curve,” Egorov added.
Swiss Stake AG to work on several protocol enhancements in 2026 For 2026, Swiss Stake AG hopes to accelerate development across several high-priority initiatives that are expected to advance the protocol’s technical capabilities and product suite.
Some of the major areas of focus include Llamalend V2, which introduces admin fees for the DAO and expands collateral support, and FXSwap, Curve’s on-chain foreign exchange platform designed to support low-volatility assets like tokenized gold. The team also plans to continue development on crvUSD and its broader lending systems.
Simultaneously, the Swiss development team will continue maintaining Curve’s smart contract ecosystem and core software repositories. Any intellectual property developed using the grant will be released “under an open-source license compatible with the Curve software repositories.”
“Swiss Stake AG commits to produce bi-annual reports on the spending of the Grant Amount. It will list expenses in a summarized form and inform about the ongoing initiatives for which the funds are used. The report will be published in written form on the governance forum,” the proposal noted.
Upon approval, the firm will also be permitted to stake CRV tokens not immediately required for operational expenses in liquid locker platforms such as Convex and Yearn, with any yield generated used strictly in line with the terms of the grant.
Voting on the proposal is open through Dec. 22, 2025. At press time, all participating votes were in favor of approval.
CRV price action remains muted CRV, the native token of Curve DAO, bounced from multi-week lows around $0.37 and was up more than 3% at the time of writing, although the uptick was not enough to offset the token’s seven-day losses.
That’s despite Curve Finance closing the third quarter of 2025 with strong revenue numbers. Protocol revenue more than doubled from the previous quarter, while DEX trading volume and stablecoin activity saw a notable surge across the network.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Curve DAO token saw a 6.6% increase in Open Interest in the past 24 hours, according to Coinalyze stats. Generally, increased speculative activity points toward strong momentum.
During this period, Curve DAO [CRV] prices have gone down 2.63%. The token has also shed 9.9% over the past week.
The wider market was bearish as well, with Bitcoin [BTC] facing rejection at the $90k level on Wednesday.
Does this mean it is time to enter short positions on CRV?
AMBCrypto investigated the higher timeframes to determine if a bullish reversal or bearish continuation is likely next.
Multi-timeframe analysis hints at this CRV move next Source: CRV/USDT on TradingView The weekly chart showed a bearish swing structure after falling below $0.49. Additionally, the March support at $0.37 has also failed to hold back the bears.
The A/D indicator was sliding lower over the past month, showing increased sell pressure. The MACD also underlined heavy downward momentum on the weekly timeframe.
Source: CRV/USDT on TradingView Zooming in on the 6-hour timeframe, Curve DAO token showed a short-selling opportunity. The trend was bearish and there have been two quick-fire bearish structure breaks on this timeframe.
Additionally, the fair value gap, or imbalance, overhead up to $0.38 (white box) was tested before a bearish continuation.
Discussing the invalidation point for the bears The structure, momentum, and volume indicators across the two timeframes showed that bears have the upper hand.
Traders going short would have their idea invalidated upon a CRV price bounce past the imbalance at $0.38.
Traders’ call to action – Here’s the next target Using the weekly chart, the next bearish target can be determined.
It is the $0.243 support, where the Curve DAO token was trading from July to November 2024. On the way, the $0.329 and $0.298 would be short-term support levels that could halt a bearish move.
Final Thoughts The increased speculative interest in CRV alongside a price drop suggested strong bearishness in the market. The weekly and 6-hour chart gave a trade setup with a clear invalidation favoring the downside. Disclaimer: The information presented does not constitute financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice and is solely the writer’s opinion
A Curve DAO [CRV] whale who accumulated 5 million tokens at $0.26 last year — roughly $1.3 million in cost basis — has finally capitulated, on-chain data from Arkham shows.
The investor held through CRV’s sharp rally to $1.30, where unrealized profit peaked near $5.2 million, but never sold a single token during the uptrend.
This week, the whale sent more than 4 million CRV to Binance at roughly $0.34, realizing only ~$400,000 in profit — a dramatic reversal from the multi-million-dollar gain he previously sat on.
Source: X The move signals not just individual capitulation, but deeper structural weakness across CRV markets.
Whale held through the top but sold into weakness According to Arkham analyst, the transfer history shows:
5M CRV accumulated around $0.26 Unrealized peak value: ~$6.5M Actual realized profit after this week’s sale: ~$400K Instead of selling during the October run-up, the whale offloaded into thin liquidity and declining momentum, a behavior typical of distressed exits rather than strategic distribution.
Curve DAO price structure confirms the capitulation narrative CRV’s 12-hour chart shows the token locked in a steady downtrend since early November. Every short-lived bounce has formed lower highs, reinforcing the broader bearish structure.
Source: TradingView Two indicators echo the weakness:
The YTD Moving Average Multiple stands at -0.84, indicating that CRV is trading significantly below its yearly trend baseline. CMF [20] prints -0.18, signaling persistent outflows and weak buy-side pressure. With price now hovering around $0.34–$0.35, the whale sold directly into the lower bound of this declining range.
What this capitulation tells us about Curve’s market cycle Whale capitulation at cycle lows is often interpreted as a:
Sentiment capitulation signal — large holders exiting after months of unrealized loss Liquidity stress indicator — fewer strong hands willing to accumulate Market-cycle inflection risk — phases like this precede either deeper downside or, occasionally, bottom formation In CRV’s case, the data suggests macro weakness rather than a reversal, given the combination of negative inflows, declining trend structure, and muted liquidity.
What to watch next Three key levels matter for CRV going forward:
$0.33 — immediate support $0.38–$0.40 — short-term resistance $0.45 — first break level needed to negate the downtrend Until buy-side volume increases, CRV remains vulnerable to further downside pressure.
Final Thoughts A whale leaving millions in unrealized profits on the table is a clear sentiment red flag for CRV’s broader market structure.
Price indicators confirm persistent weakness, with liquidity flows and trend structure still pointing downward.
Tokenholders denied a proposal to allocate 17.4 million CRV tokens to Curve’s core development firm.
The Curve DAO has rejected a governance proposal to allocate 17.4 million CRV tokens, worth about $6.2 million, to the decentralized exchange’s (DEX) development team.
The proposal submitted by Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov sought approval for a grant of CRV tokens to fund Swiss Stake AG, the core development firm behind Curve, managed by Egorov.
The funding is intended to cover software development, infrastructure, security work and ecosystem support for Swiss Stake’s roughly 25-person team working on the protocol, which is the third-largest DEX in decentralized finance (DeFi) with over $2.1 billion in total value locked, according to DeFiLlama.
However, the vote ended with 54.46% of participants against and 45.54% in favor. Voting data shows that addresses linked to two major DeFi protocols, Yearn Finance and Convex Finance, accounted for nearly 90% of the votes cast against the proposal.
Voting data on proposal #1286. Source: Curve FinanceSome community members noted in forum comments that the proposal raised centralization concerns, questioning whether Curve’s governance was too dependent on a small group. Others suggested that Swiss Stake should better explain how past funds were spent before any new funding is approved.
The Curve Finance team did not respond to The Defiant’s request for comment.
Curve community members also argued that past allocations already distributed significant protocol funds and that further grants could “be spread in several installments” to avoid negatively impacting the price of CRV.
Another DeFi giant, Aave, recently faced similar controversy when Aave Labs redirected some fees to itself rather than to the DAO, sparking debates over tokenholder rights.
This is not the first time Egorov has sought the community’s approval to use the project’s funds to support Swiss Stake. In August 2024, Egorov sought over 21 million CRV tokens, valued at around $6.3 million at the time, to “build and support the growth of the Curve ecosystem.” That proposal passed with nearly 91% of voters in favor.
As of press time, CRV is trading up 1.5% on the day but is down nearly 50% over the past three months, per CoinGecko data.
PANews reported on December 24th that the voting page showed the Curve DAO voted against granting 17.45 million CRV to Swiss Stake AG for development. The proposal had a one-year vesting period, could be suspended or disabled by the DAO at any time, and could return to DAO control; the contract function was `deploy_vesting_contract`, the token address was 0xD533…cd52, the recipient was 0x96D0…11a2B, and the vesting period was 31,536,000. The voting results showed: 41.45% quorum (threshold 30%), minimum support 45.54% (threshold 51% not reached), total voting power 719.63 million veCRV, 141 voters, and a result of 54.46% against and 45.54% in favor.
Earlier this month, it was reported that Curve's founder proposed allocating 17.45 million CRVs to support the R&D team and a technology upgrade in 2026 .
Curve DAO (CRV) price is struggling to close above the key resistance at $0.433 on Thursday after a bullish breakout last week. On-chain indicators point to improving sentiment, with whale accumulation increasing alongside rising daily active addresses. If buyers can maintain momentum and confirm a breakout, CRV could extend its recovery toward the $0.548 resistance area.
CRV whales wallets buy dipsSantiment’s Supply Distribution data supports a bullish outlook for Curve DAO, as certain whales are buying CRV at recent price dips.
The metric indicates that whales holding between 10 million and 100 million CRV tokens (blue line) have accumulated a total of 33 million CRV tokens from early January to Thursday. During the same period, wallets holding between 100,000 and 1 million ADA tokens (red line) and 1 million and 10 million CRV tokens (yellow line) have shed 29 million tokens.
This shows that the second cohort of whales could have fallen prey to the capitulation event. In contrast, the first set of wallets seized the opportunity and accumulated CRV at a discount.
CRV supply distribution metrics chart. Source: SantimentSantiment’s Daily Active Addresses index, which tracks network activity over time, also paints a bullish picture for CRV. A rise in the metric signals increased blockchain usage, while a decline in addresses indicates lower demand for the network.
In CRV’s case, Daily Active Addresses rose from 945 on December 26 to 1388 on Thursday, the highest level since October 14. This indicates that demand for Curve DAO’s blockchain usage is increasing, which bodes well for CRV’s price.
CRV active daily addresses chart. Source: SantimentCurve DAO Price Forecast: CRV could extend gains if it closes above key resistanceCurve DAO price broke above the descending trendline (drawn by joining multiple highs since early August) on Friday and rose nearly 7% in the next three days. However, CRV failed to close above the weekly resistance at $0.433 and declined slightly towards the 50-day EMA at $0.413. As of Thursday, CRV is attempting to break above this weekly resistance level.
If CRV closes above the weekly level at $0.433 on a daily basis, it could extend the rally toward the November 10 high of $0.548, which coincides with the 200-day EMA.
The Relative Strength Index (RSI) on the daily chart reads 59, above the neutral level of 50, indicating bullish momentum is gaining traction. In addition, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) indicator shows a bullish crossover and rising green histogram bars above the neutral level, further supporting the bullish outlook.
CRV/USDT daily chartHowever, if CRV closes below the 50-day EMA at $0.413 on a daily basis, it could extend the decline toward the January 1 low of $0.357.
