Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

TLDR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🚨 BREAKING:

BINANCE FOUNDER CZ JUST SURPASSED BILL GATES IN NET WORTH

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

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

— ᴛʀᴀᴄᴇʀ (@DeFiTracer) June 28, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Move ZEC to the Orchard Shielded Pool

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

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

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

3. Run the Crosslink Feature Net

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

To join:

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

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

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

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

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

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

These may include:

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

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

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

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

@sparkdotfi and @Uniswap have joined forces to build what they call a "Stablecoin FX Layer," a shared liquidity network designed to let banks, fintechs, and payment companies move between dollar-pegged tokens without each having to build their own infrastructure from scratch.

Spark deployed approximately $150 million in stablecoin liquidity across two pools on Uniswap v4 to kick off the first phase, with the pools pairing Sky's USDS with Tether's $USDT and PayPal's PYUSD. A Spark spokesperson described the deployment as one of the largest automated market maker liquidity migrations in decentralized finance.

One shared system instead of fragmented poolsThe FX Layer acts as shared liquidity and exchange infrastructure on Uniswap v4, enabling multiple stablecoin issuers to plug into a common system instead of each building and bootstrapping their own liquidity pools, market makers, and inventory management. Spark acts as the orchestration layer, deciding how liquidity is allocated, governed, and coordinated across different stablecoins.

Uniswap and Spark are betting that as the number of stablecoins grows, the market will need the equivalent of a foreign-exchange network to move liquidity between issuers. The issuer landscape is already expanding rapidly, with PayPal's PYUSD, Ripple's RLUSD, Revolut's planned stablecoin, and banking consortiums in Europe and Japan among the projects in development.

The stablecoin market's growth potential frames the urgency: Citi has projected the market could grow from roughly $300 billion currently to $4 trillion by 2030.

DualPool hook to put idle capital to workSpark plans to introduce two additional tools in future phases, a Shared Liquidity Layer and a DualPool hook, both built on Uniswap v4's programmable architecture, with a liquidity hook allowing idle capital to be deployed into approved yield strategies when it is not needed for trades.

Between swaps, DualPool keeps idle stablecoin liquidity in Spark's yield-bearing ERC-4626 vaults, and moves that capital into a Uniswap v4 pool only when it is needed for execution. The DualPool hook will go through a separate security review and testing process before release, with the current deployment using standard Uniswap v4 pools rather than this planned framework.

The project could eventually expand beyond USDS, USDT, and PYUSD as Spark works with additional stablecoin issuers and ecosystem partners. Spark CEO Sam MacPherson summed up the thesis plainly: "It will be defined by the infrastructure that allows hundreds of issuers to operate together at global scale."

Sources:
The Block: Spark, Uniswap build stablecoin FX Layer seeded with $150 million liquidity migration
CoinDesk: Uniswap, Spark aim to build stablecoin FX market as banks and fintechs enter the industry
The Defiant: Spark, Uniswap, and Sky launch $150M liquidity migration to build shared stablecoin FX layer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Altcoins

28 June 2026 | 22:02 At $71 at the time of writing, SOL trades below every major moving average in a downtrend that's run since October 2025, but it's also resting directly on top of the largest concentration of recent buyers in its history.

Key Takeaways SOL trades at $71, below all three moving averages in a clear downtrend. Over 60M SOL changed hands between $65 and $71, the largest cost-basis cluster. Funding rates are near neutral, with no speculative positioning either way. Below $65, on-chain support is thin until roughly $53. That makes the current level less a support or a ceiling than a decision point, the zone that could define the next move in either direction.

Where the Price Sits The structure is bearish, with no ambiguity. SOL has fallen from a peak above $290 in January 2025 to $71 on June 28th, 2026, and all three moving averages sit overhead: the 50-day at $77.3, the 100-day at $81, and the 200-day at $95.18. Price is below all of them, a fully bearish stack.

SOL price structure remains bearish as it trades below key moving averages and crucial Fibonacci levels. On the daily Fibonacci retracement, price is sitting between the 0.786 level at $74 and the full retracement at $67.5, which is deep, the 78.6% level is near the bottom of a measured move, and SOL has technically overshot the standard retracement range.

RSI at 47.8 with a signal line at 45.80 is neutral-to-weak, drifting just below the midline rather than oversold or recovering. The recent action backs that up: a sharp early-June drop from around $75 to a wick below $65, then choppy attempts that haven’t held above $72-73, with price now compressing in the $68-72 range on lower highs. There’s no reversal structure forming, just range compression.

The Cost-Basis Cluster That Defines the Level Per Ali Charts citing Glassnode, more than 60 million SOL changed hands between $65 and $71, the largest single cost-basis cluster on the entire URPD chart, with the heaviest concentrations at $70.80 and $67.85. Price is currently sitting right on top of it.

More than 60 million Solana $SOL changed hands between $65 and $71, making this one of the strongest support zones.

As long as this demand cluster holds, the bullish structure remains intact.

If it breaks, the next major support levels based on the UTXO Realized Price… pic.twitter.com/t4lAKe7v6E

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) June 28, 2026

The implication cuts both ways, which is exactly why it matters. The majority of recent buyers are at breakeven or slightly underwater right now. If this zone holds, those holders have little reason to sell at a loss, and the cluster behaves like support. But if price breaks below $65 convincingly, those 60-million-plus SOL flip into loss, and historically that’s when spot selling tends to accelerate, the demand cluster becomes supply. It’s the same zone playing both roles depending on which way price moves through it.

What makes a break below $65 structurally significant is what lies beneath: very little. The fallback levels are sparse and far apart, only about 7M SOL transacted at $53.10, roughly 5M at $23.60, and around 15M at the very old $8.85 basis. The gap between $65 and $53 has thin on-chain support. That’s the risk corridor, stated as a structural fact from the data, not a prediction: if $65 gives way, there isn’t much underneath until around $53.

Derivatives Show No Conviction Either Way The futures market isn’t tipping the balance. Short-term funding rates across exchanges are mixed and shallow, close to zero in both directions: Bybit, Bitget, and BingX slightly negative (around -0.0077% to -0.0080%), HTX and KuCoin slightly positive (+0.0100% and +0.0054%), and Binance and MEXC flat at zero. That’s not an extreme reading anywhere, and there’s no strong consensus bias in positioning.

Solana funding rates remain near-neutral, reflecting a lack of strong directional conviction in the futures market. The longer-term view adds context. OI-weighted funding has hugged near zero or slightly negative since around November 2025, a marked contrast to the clearly positive funding that existed when SOL traded above $200. The current -0.0010% reading is negligible.

Long-term OI-weighted funding data confirms that speculative premium has been drained from the market. What that confirms is that speculative long premium has been fully drained from the market since the price collapse, funding was positive at the highs and has been flat-to-negative throughout the decline. There’s no speculative long buildup happening at current levels, and no aggressive short buildup either. The market is, in effect, waiting.

The Forward Binary Three things are true at once, and together they define a sharp setup. The price structure is weak, below all moving averages, deep in Fibonacci territory, RSI under 50, with no recovery pattern. The price is sitting on the single largest cost-basis cluster in SOL’s recent history, which is both its support and its risk. And derivatives show no directional conviction in either direction, with the market essentially in wait mode.

That leaves a clean binary, and it’s worth stating without spin. If the $65-71 zone holds, the cost-basis cluster absorbs selling and acts as a floor, recent buyers don’t crystallize losses, and the level might hold. If $65 breaks with volume, those 60M-plus coins flip to loss, the cluster probably turns into supply, and the next meaningful on-chain support sits all the way down near $53 with little in between. The data doesn’t favor one outcome over the other; it just defines, with unusual clarity, exactly where the line is.

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.

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

Hyper Foundation to Distribute $10 Million in Grants Amid Phased Exit of USDH Stablecoin

The Hyper Foundation announced it will provide approximately $10 million in grants to help developers affected by the phased shutdown of USDH offset migration costs. The grants are divided into two categories: migration grants for teams that have integrated USDH and are migrating related markets or deployments to USDC; and wind-down grants for teams that choose to terminate USDH-related operations instead of migrating, with amounts lower than equivalent migration grants. Grants for HIP-1 and HIP-3 are calculated based on auction deployment costs, while HyperEVM grants are determined by the amount of affected USDH locked. All grant recipients must commit to completing an orderly migration or wind-down by the end of July. Users can directly swap USDH for USDC on the HyperCore spot order book, or exchange it for free at a 1:1 ratio via the Across Protocol on HyperEVM. The Hyper Foundation thanked all developers who built real markets on USDH, users who supported USDH's growth, and Native Markets for its pioneering work in launching the protocol's native stablecoin. Thanks to the active collaboration of the team and community, the migration process is currently proceeding smoothly and orderly.

4 hours ago

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

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

4 hours ago

Shiba Inu’s price has been caught in an extended downtrend and is now approaching one of its weakest technical outlooks this year. With the asset trading around $0.0000042, it is hovering close to its local bottom. Despite the ongoing decline, both price action and on chain data suggest that the strength of selling pressure may be gradually fading.

Technical indicators remain weakCurrently, SHIB is trading below its 50 day, 100 day, and 200 day exponential moving averages, underscoring the coin’s lackluster technical setup. The downward slope across all these averages highlights persisting weakness on the charts. An attempted rebound was quickly reversed after a brief uptrend, showing that recent recovery efforts have not been successful.

However, the latest pullback has distinct characteristics. Trading volume has been steadily decreasing alongside the falling price. Unlike the capitulation often seen at the end of strong bear markets, SHIB has shown a pattern where market activity is generally cooling off. This dynamic implies that while there are still sellers, the downward momentum is less intense compared to earlier phases.

Although the decline continues in SHIB, the weakening trading volume and on chain data indicate that sellers are now less determined than in previous months.

On chain data shows no signs of panic sellingOn chain metrics paint a similar picture. Net flows remain negative, meaning that more SHIB tokens are leaving exchanges than entering them. Exchange reserves are stable at roughly 80 trillion SHIB, which suggests investors are not rushing to deposit tokens for immediate sale. As an Ethereum based meme coin with a large following, Shiba Inu’s trends attract close scrutiny.

Notably, there has been no sharp deterioration in the number of active addresses or daily transactions. These patterns point to a gradual weakening of market participation, rather than a sudden rush for the exits. While sell side activity persists, buyer interest at these low price points also remains modest.

Mini glossary: Net flow measures the difference between the amount of an asset entering and leaving exchanges. A negative net flow means more tokens are leaving exchanges, which may suggest there is less intent to sell in the short term.

IndicatorCurrent statusPrice$0.0000042Exchange reserves80 trillion SHIBNet flowNegativeVolumeDecreasingRSI nears oversold territoryThe relative strength index (RSI) for SHIB is approaching levels often associated with local lows. Although entering oversold conditions does not guarantee an immediate reversal, technical analysts consider it a sign that further downside could be limited unless a new catalyst emerges.

As such, current conditions do not suggest a strong recovery is imminent. However, after months of persistent declines, the reduction in the number of sellers may mean the risk reward balance is beginning to shift, making further sharp drops less likely in the short term.

On chain data does not suggest panic selling, momentum remains weak and volume continues to drop. This pattern indicates that Shiba Inu may be nearing a point where the decline could start to slow.

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.

Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

The drop in Shiba Inu (SHIB) price to local lows became a signal for large-scale accumulation, as net token outflows from exchanges exceeded 443.2 billion coins over the past four days. According to CryptoQuant, investors launched a continuous cycle of withdrawals to wallets immediately after the price updated its local bottom at $0.00000415 on Thursday, June 25, pushing the daily RSI to a critical 21.84.

The reaction from major players to extreme oversold conditions followed immediately. In the first 24 hours alone, net exchange outflows reached 158.353 billion SHIB, sharply reducing the available market supply. 

Shiba Inu (SHIB): Exchange netflow the last 7 days, Source: CryptoQuantFrom June 25 to June 28, netflow bars remained steadily in negative territory, and even when the price resumed its gradual slide on Saturday, June 27, the charts recorded a new wave of limit buying, bringing the total outflow since Thursday to 443.205 billion SHIB.

HOT Stories

Why SHIB's immediate rebound is facing heavy headwindsToday, the price is trapped in a narrow flat range around $0.0000041, and although the candles of recent days have decreased in size, signaling a temporary pause, exchange outflows continue despite standard market logic. 

Usually, a decline in prices is accompanied by an inflow of coins from panicking retail investors, but the current dynamics prove the opposite: free supply is being methodically absorbed by large capital.

You Might Also Like

Yes, a quick rebound is currently being held back by systematic profit-taking from one of the oldest whales, renowned for buying 103 trillion SHIB for $13,752, who distributed around 3.8 trillion SHIB in June, as well as a daily outflow of $2.38 million from the futures market, which reduced overall volatility.

But the bulk of volume remains much higher, at the $0.00000500 level, and amid a total draining of exchange order books, any strong buying surge risks running into a complete lack of sellers, which could trigger a rapid short squeeze toward medium-term average values.

PANews June 28 news, "White-Haired Stock God" Serenity posted an analysis stating that Schaeffler AG is currently an "ideal sample" for the automotive industry entering the humanoid robot track. The company has a market cap of approximately 7.5 billion euros, yet it is already collaborating with about 45 humanoid robot enterprises, covering core components such as bearings, gearboxes, sensors/ECUs, actuators, and power electronics, theoretically capturing about 50% of a humanoid robot's BOM cost. Despite its potentially high penetration rate, it currently still expects to generate revenue only in the hundreds of millions of euros by 2030.

Serenity also mentioned that Nabtesco Corporation and Chinese manufacturer Sanhua Intelligent Controls, along with other automotive/industrial parts companies, may also benefit from the convergence trend of humanoid robots and smart vehicles, including projects such as Tesla, Inc. Optimus. At present, these companies are undervalued, weighed down by their traditional automotive businesses, but they could become an important catalyst direction under a long-term volume ramp-up scenario for humanoid robots and AI cars (post-2027). He pointed out that before a downstream breakthrough on the "ChatGPT/Anthropic level" emerges, the industry remains in an early infrastructure stage, with the market currently focused more on near-term bottleneck areas such as memory and MLCCs.

PANews reported on June 28, data from Token Unlocks shows that tokens such as SUI, EIGEN, and FF will see large unlocks next week, specifically:

Sui (SUI) will unlock approximately 13.72 million tokens at 8:00 a.m. Beijing time on July 1, accounting for approximately 0.34% of circulating supply, worth approximately $9.4 million;

EigenCloud (EIGEN) will unlock approximately 36.82 million tokens at 12:00 p.m. Beijing time on July 1, accounting for approximately 6.15% of circulating supply, worth approximately $8.7 million;

Falcon Finance (FF) will unlock approximately 102 million tokens at approximately 9:00 p.m. Beijing time on June 29, accounting for approximately 3.66% of circulating supply, worth approximately $6.9 million;

Collector Crypt (CARDS) will unlock approximately 28.84 million tokens at 3:00 a.m. Beijing time on June 30, accounting for approximately 6.11% of circulating supply, worth approximately $6.7 million;

GoPlus Security (GPS) will unlock approximately 708 million tokens at 8:00 a.m. Beijing time on July 1, accounting for approximately 15.90% of circulating supply, worth approximately $6.3 million.

Highest IQ Holder Backs an XRP Supercycle as 3 Bullish Signals Hit at Once

The altcoin market is showing early signs of resilience that could set the stage for a short-term recovery, even as macroeconomic conditions remain deeply unfavourable, according to a weekend update from crypto analyst Cilinix Crypto.

The update opened by laying out just how difficult the backdrop is. Equities pushed lower last week. Bitcoin and Strategy came under significant pressure. New escalations in the Middle East added another layer of uncertainty over the weekend. By any conventional measure, the fundamentals are bearish.

And yet the price of altcoins has not collapsed in line with those fundamentals. That divergence is the most important signal in the market right now.

The analyst said that bottoms usually form when the fundamentals are still very bearish. It is usually when we have max fear and when the fundamentals seem at their worst.

The price action between Wednesday and Friday of last week was cited as a concrete example. During that window, fundamentals got worse, not better. Yet the market held its lows and even printed higher lows, which the analyst described as a sign of strength in a bearish environment.

Funding Rates Turning Negative Is a Bullish Signal

The more technical part of the case rests on funding rates. Several altcoins are seeing funding rates turn sharply negative, including XRP, Ethereum, Dogecoin, and Cardano. Litecoin in particular stood out because it was moving higher on the day while its funding rate turned more negative.

Negative funding rates in a rising or stable price environment typically indicate that spot buyers are in control rather than leveraged longs, a healthier and more sustainable form of buying pressure.

“Spot is buying. Is this enough to go fully bullish? No. But it is a bullish sign.”

This was described as a signal rather than a confirmation, with the analyst noting the altcoin market still lacks the structural clarity needed to declare a full recovery.

Two Conditions Must Be Met

Two specific things need to happen before a recovery becomes the base case.

First, broader financial markets need to open on Monday in a relatively stable manner. There is a risk that weekend geopolitical escalations get fully priced in at the Monday open, which could lead to a sharp gap down. Until that risk clears, caution remains appropriate.

Second, altcoins need to reclaim the seven-day rolling VWAP and the monthly value area low. The Total 3 chart, which tracks the total crypto market cap excluding Bitcoin and Ethereum, was highlighted as the key benchmark. If Total 3 can reclaim those levels while funding rates remain negative and macro conditions are at least neutral, a meaningful recovery becomes the most likely scenario.

Altcoins Worth Watching

Several names were flagged as showing relative strength. Solana has held up notably well compared to the broader altcoin market. Litecoin has already reclaimed both the monthly value area low and the seven-day rolling VWAP, described as technically meaningful with genuine long-term buying interest expressed. Pengu, Sky as a potentially oversold setup, and Syrup were also mentioned as names worth monitoring if broader recovery conditions are confirmed.

Story Ends Here

Trust with CoinPedia:CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.

Investment Disclaimer:All opinions and insights shared represent the author's own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.

Sponsored and Advertisements:Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.

Read the Next News

Jupiter’s Strategic Reserve Trust Fund, nicknamed the Jupiter Litterbox Trust, added 177,570 JUP tokens yesterday, worth approximately $39,000. This month, the fund has accumulated 13,346,232 JUP in purchases, valued at around $2.93 million. As of press time, its total JUP purchases reach 142,703,464, worth roughly $31.4 million. The Jupiter Strategic Reserve Trust Fund is Jupiter’s official on-chain treasury, with 50% of the protocol’s revenue automatically allocated to it. It uses smart contracts to continuously buy and hold JUP tokens on the open market, earning the community’s "Litterbox Trust" moniker.

Relevant content

ForeGate teams up with Michael Owen, OKX and others to release the World Cup AI Prediction Research Report

According to official announcements, ForeGate Supercomputing Database, in collaboration with Michael Owen, OKX, WEEX, and OnebullEX, has officially released the *ForeGate 2026 World Cup Winning Guide* mid-tournament research report. The report integrates ForeGate’s AI prediction model and OKX.ai’s data path simulation to systematically analyze the 48 participating teams in the 2026 FIFA World Cup (co-hosted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico), covering their qualification odds, advancement paths, championship win probabilities, win/draw/loss trends, and handicap betting tendencies. The model currently boasts an overall prediction accuracy rate of 93.8%, demonstrating strong advantages in match outcome responsiveness, points calibration, and potential matchup path judgment. ForeGate stated that during the World Cup, it will continuously update its predictions based on match results, team form, and model simulation outcomes to help users understand the probabilistic logic behind schedule changes. Additionally, ForeGate’s million-dollar World Cup prediction campaign is ongoing, where users can participate in match predictions to split the $1 million prize pool.

14 minutes ago

US and South Korean Stocks Monday Price Preview: SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics Projected to Rise 2%, US Pre-Market to Fluctuate Sideways

During the weekend when traditional stock markets are closed, Trade.xyz—dubbed the "on-chain Nasdaq"—enables continuous trading and real-time price discovery via perpetual contracts, capabilities traditional finance cannot provide, pricing in advance the upcoming Monday’s U.S. and South Korean stock market moves. Popular U.S. stock assets on Trade.xyz have posted mixed performance compared to their Friday after-hours levels, and are expected to consolidate with minor fluctuations ahead of Monday’s pre-market. Their weekend performance is as follows: SpaceX is trading at $154.3, versus $152.769 in U.S. Friday after-hours trading; Micron Technology (MU) is at $1138.2, versus $1133.5 in Friday after-hours; SanDisk (SNDK) is at $2102.7, versus $2109 in Friday after-hours; NVIDIA is at $193.63, versus $192.71 in Friday after-hours; Marvell Technology (MRVL) is at $270.28, versus $265.248 in Friday after-hours; Intel is at $128.13, versus $127.62 in Friday after-hours; Alphabet (Google) is at $340.48, versus $336.15 in Friday after-hours; AMD is at $519.36, versus $518.7 in Friday after-hours. Popular South Korean stock assets on Trade.xyz saw slight gains on Saturday, and are expected to rise around 2% at Monday’s opening. Their weekend performance is as follows: Samsung Electronics is at $224.11, up from $221.17 in Friday’s closing price; SK Hynix is at $1786.1, up from $1741.37 in Friday’s closing price.

14 minutes ago

Marc Andreessen: Zhipu AI’s GLM-5.2 Rivals Top U.S. Open Models, Large Language Model Capabilities Gradually Move Toward a Multipolar Competitive Landscape

According to monitoring by Beating, a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen noted that many AI practitioners and industry insiders consider Zhipu GLM-5.2 to be the first Chinese AI model that can match or even outperform open models from leading U.S. labs on most tasks, while also being balanced across multiple capability dimensions. This development carries "extremely critical timing significance" amid accelerating global AI competition, as large model capabilities are gradually shifting from being dominated by a small number of U.S. labs to a multipolar competitive landscape. Click the original link below to join Beating’s Feishu AI News Channel, which provides 24/7 uninterrupted monitoring of global AI hotspots and news.

14 minutes ago

Michael Saylor has once again released updates for his Bitcoin Tracker, potentially signaling another round of BTC accumulation.

Michael Saylor, founder of MicroStrategy, has once again shared updates on Bitcoin Tracker, remarking, “We are gonna need more charts.” Per historical trends, MicroStrategy typically announces increases to its Bitcoin holdings the day after such statements.

14 minutes ago

Bank of America: Three key thresholds for US stocks to trigger a "full risk-off" this summer, with signals for these conditions already building up.

BofA Securities chief strategist Michael Hartnett outlined three thresholds for a "full risk-off" trigger this summer in his latest Fund Flow Report: the Mag7 ETF falling below $60, USD/JPY dropping below 110, and the yield curve inverting again. None of these conditions have been met yet, but related signals are building. U.S. stock funds posted a net outflow of $8.5 billion, the first such outflow since March, following a historic $119.2 billion net inflow. The divergence where hyperscale cloud providers continue to underperform chip stocks has pushed the sustainability of AI capital spending to the core of market debate: Apple’s MacBook price hikes and Microsoft’s Xbox price increases are both directly tied to rising memory costs. Rack memory prices at Vera Rubin have surged by 435% cumulatively, and Goldman Sachs forecasts AI capital spending could reach as high as $1.4 trillion by 2027. Hartnett’s core ongoing question is: How much further do cloud providers need to fall before the market starts pricing in capital spending cuts? U.S. equity funds have shifted ahead of the curve, with liquidity flowing out of tech giants and into cyclical assets including semiconductors, small-caps, housing, and REITs — a move the market interprets as a front-run bet on a policy shift toward "affordability". For asset classes, Hartnett believes gold remains highly valuable for allocation below $4,000, and going long on long-dated U.S. Treasuries is currently the most contrarian long-term trade. The U.S. dollar is only suitable for short-term holding rather than long-term allocation, while going long on emerging markets over the long term is his strategic stance. Since Fed Chair Waller took office on May 22, U.S. Treasuries have risen by 3.2% cumulatively, while stocks have fallen by 1.6%, with bonds outperforming significantly.

14 minutes ago

Bank of America: There are three key thresholds for US stocks to trigger a full-scale risk-off move this summer; none of the conditions have been triggered yet, but relevant signals are accumulating.

Bank of America Securities chief strategist Hartnett outlined three triggers for a "full risk-off" environment this summer in his latest Fund Flow Report: Mag7 ETF falling below $60, USD/JPY dropping below 110, and the yield curve inverting again. None of these conditions have been met yet, but signals are building. U.S. equity funds have posted a net outflow of $8.5 billion, the first such outflow since March, following a historic $119.2 billion net inflow. The divergence where hyperscale cloud providers continue to underperform chip stocks has put the sustainability of AI capital expenditure at the center of market debate: Apple’s MacBook price hikes and Microsoft’s Xbox price increases are both directly tied to rising memory costs. Vera Rubin rack memory prices have surged 435% cumulatively, and Goldman Sachs projects AI capital expenditure could reach as high as $1.4 trillion by 2027. Hartnett’s core ongoing question is: How much further do cloud providers need to fall before the market begins pricing in capital expenditure cuts? U.S. equity funds have already shifted ahead of time; liquidity flowing out of tech giants is pouring into cyclical assets like semiconductors, small-caps, housing, and REITs, a move the market interprets as a front-run bet on policy shifting toward "affordability." At the asset class level, Hartnett believes gold still holds strong allocation value below $4,000, and going long on long-dated U.S. Treasuries is the most contrarian long-term trade right now. The U.S. dollar is only suitable for short-term holding rather than long-term allocation, and his strategic view is to go long on emerging markets over the long term. Since Fed Chair Waller took office on May 22, U.S. Treasuries have risen 3.2% cumulatively, while stocks have fallen 1.6%, with bonds significantly outperforming.

14 minutes ago

Marc Andreessen: Zhipu AI’s GLM-5.2 Rivals Top U.S. Open Models, Large Language Model Capabilities Gradually Move Toward a Multipolar Competitive Landscape

According to monitoring by Beating, a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen noted that many AI practitioners and industry insiders consider Zhipu GLM-5.2 to be the first Chinese AI model that can match or even outperform open models from leading U.S. labs on most tasks, while also being balanced across multiple capability dimensions. This development carries "extremely critical timing significance" amid accelerating global AI competition, as large model capabilities are gradually shifting from being dominated by a small number of U.S. labs to a multipolar competitive landscape. Click the original link below to join Beating’s Feishu AI News Channel, which provides 24/7 uninterrupted monitoring of global AI hotspots and news.

17 minutes ago

Michael Saylor has once again released updates for his Bitcoin Tracker, potentially signaling another round of BTC accumulation.

Michael Saylor, founder of MicroStrategy, has once again shared updates on Bitcoin Tracker, remarking, “We are gonna need more charts.” Per historical trends, MicroStrategy typically announces increases to its Bitcoin holdings the day after such statements.

17 minutes ago

Bank of America: Three key thresholds for US stocks to trigger a "full risk-off" this summer, with signals for these conditions already building up.

BofA Securities chief strategist Michael Hartnett outlined three thresholds for a "full risk-off" trigger this summer in his latest Fund Flow Report: the Mag7 ETF falling below $60, USD/JPY dropping below 110, and the yield curve inverting again. None of these conditions have been met yet, but related signals are building. U.S. stock funds posted a net outflow of $8.5 billion, the first such outflow since March, following a historic $119.2 billion net inflow. The divergence where hyperscale cloud providers continue to underperform chip stocks has pushed the sustainability of AI capital spending to the core of market debate: Apple’s MacBook price hikes and Microsoft’s Xbox price increases are both directly tied to rising memory costs. Rack memory prices at Vera Rubin have surged by 435% cumulatively, and Goldman Sachs forecasts AI capital spending could reach as high as $1.4 trillion by 2027. Hartnett’s core ongoing question is: How much further do cloud providers need to fall before the market starts pricing in capital spending cuts? U.S. equity funds have shifted ahead of the curve, with liquidity flowing out of tech giants and into cyclical assets including semiconductors, small-caps, housing, and REITs — a move the market interprets as a front-run bet on a policy shift toward "affordability". For asset classes, Hartnett believes gold remains highly valuable for allocation below $4,000, and going long on long-dated U.S. Treasuries is currently the most contrarian long-term trade. The U.S. dollar is only suitable for short-term holding rather than long-term allocation, while going long on emerging markets over the long term is his strategic stance. Since Fed Chair Waller took office on May 22, U.S. Treasuries have risen by 3.2% cumulatively, while stocks have fallen by 1.6%, with bonds outperforming significantly.

17 minutes ago

Bank of America: There are three key thresholds for US stocks to trigger a full-scale risk-off move this summer; none of the conditions have been triggered yet, but relevant signals are accumulating.

Bank of America Securities chief strategist Hartnett outlined three triggers for a "full risk-off" environment this summer in his latest Fund Flow Report: Mag7 ETF falling below $60, USD/JPY dropping below 110, and the yield curve inverting again. None of these conditions have been met yet, but signals are building. U.S. equity funds have posted a net outflow of $8.5 billion, the first such outflow since March, following a historic $119.2 billion net inflow. The divergence where hyperscale cloud providers continue to underperform chip stocks has put the sustainability of AI capital expenditure at the center of market debate: Apple’s MacBook price hikes and Microsoft’s Xbox price increases are both directly tied to rising memory costs. Vera Rubin rack memory prices have surged 435% cumulatively, and Goldman Sachs projects AI capital expenditure could reach as high as $1.4 trillion by 2027. Hartnett’s core ongoing question is: How much further do cloud providers need to fall before the market begins pricing in capital expenditure cuts? U.S. equity funds have already shifted ahead of time; liquidity flowing out of tech giants is pouring into cyclical assets like semiconductors, small-caps, housing, and REITs, a move the market interprets as a front-run bet on policy shifting toward "affordability." At the asset class level, Hartnett believes gold still holds strong allocation value below $4,000, and going long on long-dated U.S. Treasuries is the most contrarian long-term trade right now. The U.S. dollar is only suitable for short-term holding rather than long-term allocation, and his strategic view is to go long on emerging markets over the long term. Since Fed Chair Waller took office on May 22, U.S. Treasuries have risen 3.2% cumulatively, while stocks have fallen 1.6%, with bonds significantly outperforming.

17 minutes ago

Samsung Electro-Mechanics plans to sign a 500 billion won large order for AI server MLCCs, and will partner with Sumitomo Chemical to develop glass substrate business.

Samsung Electro-Mechanics is in final negotiations with a major U.S. tech firm over a supply contract for MLCCs (multi-layer ceramic capacitors) for AI servers. Worth around 500 billion won, the deal equals 10% of its component division’s annual revenue last year, making it an extremely large-scale order. Industry sources speculate the client is a leading player with significant clout in the data center sector. Each AI server requires 15,000 to 25,000 MLCCs—over 10 times the number used in a smartphone—with a unit price more than triple that of smartphone-grade MLCCs, earning the component the nickname "golden rice of the AI industry". Samsung Electro-Mechanics currently holds the No.2 position in the global MLCC market with a 20%+ share. The contract is expected to significantly boost its standing in the AI server MLCC market. Industry observers note the deal essentially secures quality validation from a global "big buyer", which will prompt other major tech firms to follow suit. Turning to its glass substrate business, Samsung Electro-Mechanics will formally sign a joint venture agreement with Japan’s Sumitomo Chemical this week. The two firms will invest a combined 500 billion won to set up a glass substrate JV, with Samsung holding a majority stake and contributing around 300 billion won. The JV will be based at the Pyeongtaek plant of Sumitomo Chemical’s South Korean subsidiary Dongwoo Fine-Chem, with production scheduled to launch in early next year. Glass substrates, which offer superior heat resistance to traditional plastic substrates and can accommodate more HBM (high-bandwidth memory) and GPUs, are hailed as "rule changers" for AI semiconductor packaging. Samsung Electro-Mechanics aims to lock in a high-quality supply chain in advance for mass production, while Sumitomo Chemical is using this partnership to enter the next-generation packaging materials market.

17 minutes ago

Crypto KOL Ansem has continued pumping his eponymous meme coin, with ANSEM’s market cap briefly surging past $78 million.

According to GMGN data, Solana ecosystem meme coin ANSEM briefly hit a market cap of over $78 million before pulling back to $74 million. It has seen a 356x price surge in 24 hours, with 24-hour trading volume reaching $49.4 million. Today, crypto KOL Ansem announced on social media that, due to Pump.fun’s refusal to distribute airdrops, he is issuing a “stimmy” (stimulus fund) to “the trenches” — a term referring to on-chain meme coin traders. As of press time, Ansem has been posting buy calls continuously to stoke community sentiment. BlockBeats reminds users: Most meme coins lack real-world use cases and are highly volatile; please protect your assets and avoid FOMO.

17 minutes ago

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has responded after Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox criticized the exchange over alleged betting prompts inside the Coinbase app.

Summary

Coinbase CEO backs user choice but warns high-risk products need careful in-app promotion rules. Zooko’s complaint turned Coinbase prediction markets into a debate over vulnerable users and app design. Coinbase’s broader product push adds betting-style markets while regulators argue over sports event contracts nationwide. The exchange chief defended user choice, but said platforms should treat high-risk products with care when serving less experienced users.

Zooko criticizes betting prompts Zooko said on X that he had spoken with a young and financially vulnerable Coinbase user. He claimed the app had started prompting that user to bet on sports and the price of Bitcoin.

He said the situation made him “ashamed” to be part of the crypto industry. His post quickly turned into a wider debate about how large crypto apps should promote prediction markets and similar products.

The criticism comes as Coinbase expands beyond spot crypto trading. Recent coverage of Coinbase’s pre-IPO perpetual futures described the firm’s push to combine crypto, stocks, prediction markets and futures inside one account.

That wider product strategy gives users more ways to trade. It also raises questions about how trading apps present risk, especially when products look simple inside a mobile interface.

Armstrong says adults should choose Armstrong replied that he is “pro-freedom” and believes adults should be able to use their money as they choose, as long as they do not harm others. He also said there is no perfect line between investing and gambling.

Interesting — and I appreciate the take.

I think there’s a balance here.

I’m pro-freedom. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their own money, as long as they’re not harming others. I don’t want companies patronizing users or dictating what they can do…

— Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) June 28, 2026 The Coinbase CEO added that buying early Bitcoin, Zcash or stocks could also be described as gambling by some people. His point was that risk depends on the product, the user and the context.

Still, Armstrong agreed with part of Zooko’s concern. He said it does not feel right to “aggressively promote high-risk products to unsophisticated users.”

He also said there is a difference between making a product available and making it the main focus of an app. That distinction now sits at the center of the debate.

Prediction markets face regulatory pressure Coinbase’s sports prediction markets page says the products are offered through Coinbase Financial Markets, a registered futures commission merchant. The page also warns that prediction contracts involve high risk and may lead to the loss of the full investment.

Sports event contracts remain a disputed area in the U.S. In related coverage, Kentucky sued Kalshi, Polymarket and partners tied to Coinbase, Robinhood and Webull, saying the products looked like sports wagering under state law.

The CFTC took the opposite view and argued that Kalshi and Polymarket fall under federal oversight as designated contract markets. The dispute now centers on whether sports contracts belong under federal derivatives rules or state gambling laws.

Former CFTC Chair Gary Gensler also weighed in through a court filing, saying sports prediction contracts do not qualify as swaps under U.S. derivatives law. That filing added another layer to the legal debate.

Coinbase weighs access and safety Armstrong suggested that Coinbase could use clearer disclosures, AI-based financial literacy tools and more personal app settings. He said users could choose whether to enable or disable certain product groups during onboarding.

That approach would let users decide what they see without removing access for everyone. It would also give Coinbase a way to answer concerns about younger or less experienced users seeing betting-style prompts.

The debate shows how fast crypto apps are changing. Platforms no longer offer only coins and tokens. Many now offer event contracts, derivatives and other products that behave more like financial bets.

For Coinbase, the issue is not only whether users can access these markets. The next question is how strongly the app should promote them and what safeguards should appear before users place trades.

Sun, 28/06/2026 - 10:45

Samson Mow dismisses technical analysis, pointing to a massive $58,000 limit order wall protecting Bitcoin from further drops.

Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

Bitcoin maximalist and Jan3 CEO Samson Mow stated that the local bearish trend has ended and that the current cycle has reached its bottom. In his view, the main protective barrier for the market now is a dense wall of limit orders at the $58,000 level.

The reason for Mow's optimism was the fact that, in the current cycle, Bitcoin updated its all-time high (ATH) 37 days before the halving, and the entrepreneur is convinced that this precedent completely breaks old market models. He emphasized that Bitcoin cycles have irreversibly accelerated, which means that calculations by analysts expecting market capitulation over the next four months are no longer relevant.

I find it incredibly interesting how some people are so certain that the bottom is coming in 4 months because "cycles." But we had an ATH 37 days before the halving, so it would seem even if you believe in cycles you should reason out the cycles accelerated. The bottom is in.

HOT Stories

— Samson Mow (@Excellion) June 28, 2026 Against this backdrop, the Jan3 CEO harshly criticized supporters of classical technical analysis, pointing to a logical contradiction in traders' behavior, saying that if charts really predicted the future perfectly, analysts should simply sell at the tops and passively wait for the bottom instead of drawing "endless lines." 

In his opinion, traditional chart analysis is now completely detached from reality.

How the $58,000 buy wall closed the window for Bitcoin bearsInstead of patterns, Mow named a massive block of buy-side liquidity as the real reason for the Bitcoin market's stabilization. According to him, it was the dense wall of limit orders at the $58,000 level that fully absorbed selling pressure and protected the market from a further collapse. 

Bitcoin price action in 2026, Source: TradingViewMow concluded that the successful buyback of this zone definitively formed a local bottom and closed the window of opportunity for investors who had been hoping to enter the asset at lower prices.

You Might Also Like

At the same time, Mow also commented on the current information attacks against major institutional players, agreeing with the view that criticism of Strategy is turning into a new version of "Tether FUD." As an argument, he referred to the latest financial results of USDT issuer Tether for the first quarter of 2026, where, according to the report, Tether's net profit reached $1.04 billion with total assets of $191.77 billion. 

In Mow's view, this proves the complete failure of attempts to destabilize the market through coordinated FUD.

Related articles

Strategy is roughly $12 billion underwater on its Bitcoin, its stock has fallen below its net asset value, and its STRC preferred shares have crashed to a record discount as a law firm opens a fraud probe. Michael Saylor says nothing is wrong. The machine that bought 847,000 Bitcoin is being tested like never before. Here is what is actually happening.

Summary

Strategy holds 847,363 Bitcoin, the largest corporate stockpile in the world, bought at an average cost near $75,650, leaving the position roughly $12 billion underwater with Bitcoin below $60,000. MSTR stock has fallen below $100 for the first time in about two years, trading at a discount to the Bitcoin it owns, which breaks the premium that powered its fundraising model. The sharpest stress is in STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock designed to trade near $100, which crashed to a record low near $74 as dividend obligations quadrupled to $1.2 billion and cash coverage collapsed from over seven years to about 14 months. A law firm has opened a securities-fraud investigation into Strategy and Saylor, and analysts including CryptoQuant have urged the company to stop buying Bitcoin and rebuild cash. Saylor says Strategy’s Bitcoin and cash exceed its debt by roughly $48 billion and points to surviving a worse 2022; the debate is whether this is a temporary confidence shock or a structural flaw in the model. For five years, Michael Saylor’s company had one move, and it worked beautifully: issue securities, buy Bitcoin, watch the stock rise, repeat.

Strategy, the firm formerly known as MicroStrategy, rode that flywheel to a stockpile of 847,363 Bitcoin, roughly 4% of all the Bitcoin that will ever exist and the largest corporate hoard on earth.

The mechanism depended on a simple condition: that Bitcoin kept climbing and that Strategy’s stock traded at a premium to the Bitcoin on its balance sheet, so the company could sell shares to buy more coins on favorable terms.

In June 2026 that condition broke.

Bitcoin slid below $60,000, dragging Strategy’s position roughly $12 billion below what it paid for its coins. Its stock, MSTR, fell under $100 for the first time in about two years and is now trading at a discount to the very Bitcoin it holds.

And the company’s preferred stock, a security called STRC that was engineered to sit near $100, crashed to a record low around $74.

On top of the financial squeeze, a law firm has opened a securities-fraud investigation into the company and Saylor himself.

The flywheel that defined a half-decade of relentless accumulation is, for the first time, visibly spinning in reverse.

The question this raises is the one now dividing the market: is Strategy facing a temporary loss of confidence that a Bitcoin recovery would erase, or is something structurally broken in the model itself?

The stakes are large, because Strategy controls about 4% of all Bitcoin, and any sign that its machine is failing reverberates across a market already fragile from the June sell-off.

This piece works through what is actually happening, without either the doom that some critics project or the serenity that Saylor performs.

It explains the three interlocking pieces that make up Strategy’s structure and why they are straining at once, the specific crisis in the STRC preferred stock, the fraud investigation and the criticism from analysts, Saylor’s defense and the case that the company is fine, the genuinely difficult choices the company now faces, and what would resolve the question in either direction.

The aim is a clear, grounded picture of a financial machine under its sharpest stress in years, and an honest assessment of whether it is bending or breaking.

The three legs of the machine To understand why Strategy is under pressure, you have to understand how its structure works, because the strain comes from three interdependent pieces leaning on one another and weakening at the same time.

The first leg is Bitcoin itself, the reserve asset, which Strategy holds in enormous quantity and treats as a permanent store of value that only grows over time.

The crucial feature of Bitcoin for this purpose is also its limitation: it produces no income. It pays no dividend and no interest, so while it can sit on the balance sheet appreciating, it generates none of the cash the company needs to meet its obligations.

That gap between a non-yielding reserve asset and cash obligations is the hinge on which the whole structure turns.

The second leg is MSTR, the common stock, which functions as the engine.

When MSTR trades above the value of the Bitcoin behind it, at a premium, Strategy can sell shares to buy more Bitcoin, and the premium makes that buying accretive, adding more Bitcoin per share than it dilutes.

This is the mechanics of the reversal that now matters. The same flywheel that works in a bull market starts to drag when the premium disappears.

The engine works in reverse when the premium disappears: raising $500 million at $500 a share takes 1 million shares, while raising the same amount at $50 takes 10 million shares.

That is the same cash for 10 times the dilution, which erodes the very reason to hold MSTR.

The third leg is STRC, the credit leg, a preferred stock with a stated value of $100 that pays a cash dividend, recently yielding around 11.5%.

STRC works only as long as investors trust that the dividend will keep coming, and Strategy can raise the rate to attract buyers when the price slips.

Each leg holds up the others. Bitcoin is the collateral story that supports the stock, the stock is the engine that funds the buying, and the preferred is the credit instrument that raises cash.

When all three weaken at once, as they have, the question shifts from how much Bitcoin Strategy owns to whether it has the dollars to keep its word.

That shift is the heart of the current crisis.

The STRC crisis The most acute stress is concentrated in STRC, and it is worth understanding in detail because it is where an abstract worry becomes a concrete problem.

STRC, formally a variable-rate perpetual preferred stock, was designed to trade near its $100 stated value, held there by a variable dividend mechanism that raises the payout to keep the price anchored.

Saylor has spent months explaining the structure publicly, framing STRC as part of Strategy’s broader Bitcoin-backed capital machine.

JUST IN: Michael Saylor explains Strategy’s STRC Preferred Stock on KevinWSH podcast. Breaks down product Peter Schiff calls a “Ponzi scheme” pic.twitter.com/EReAclQjdT

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) May 29, 2026 That design has failed under pressure.

STRC crashed to a record low, touching around $74 intraday before recovering somewhat, leaving it trading roughly a quarter below the par value it was engineered to hold.

A preferred stock trading that far below par is the market’s way of saying it demands far more yield before it will treat the instrument as sound, which is a vote of diminishing confidence in the dividend behind it.

The reason for that lost confidence is a squeeze coming from both directions at once.

As Strategy issued more and more STRC over the first half of 2026 to fund Bitcoin purchases, its annual dividend obligations ballooned from about $300 million at the start of the year to roughly $1.2 billion, a near fourfold increase in under six months.

At the same time, its cash reserves fell by 38% over the same period, drained in part by a $1.5 billion repurchase of convertible debt in May.

The result is a collapse in what analysts call dividend coverage, the measure of how long the company’s cash could keep funding the payouts: it fell from more than seven years to approximately 14 months.

A particularly unforgiving feature of STRC compounds the problem. Its dividends are cumulative, meaning any payment Strategy skips still has to be made up later.

So the company cannot simply switch the dividends off to conserve cash, and it is unlikely to suspend them anyway because doing so would shatter its credibility with the preferred holders it depends on.

CryptoQuant calculated that to restore a healthy 24 months of coverage and let STRC recover its peg, Strategy would need to rebuild its reserve to roughly $2.8 billion, against the roughly $1.4 billion it holds.

That is why CryptoQuant’s warning that Strategy should pause Bitcoin purchases and rebuild cash matters. The issue is not just the price of STRC; it is whether the cash behind the whole preferred-stock structure is thick enough to survive a prolonged Bitcoin drawdown.

STRC, in short, is the leg that is visibly cracking, and it is cracking because the cash behind its promises is running thinner while the promises themselves have multiplied.

The fraud probe and the analyst warnings The financial squeeze has now drawn legal and analytical fire, which has intensified the pressure and the scrutiny.

A plaintiff law firm announced a securities-fraud investigation into Strategy and Michael Saylor, soliciting investors who bought the company’s securities and incurred losses, and saying it is examining whether the company may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.

The probe covers all five of Strategy’s publicly traded securities, the common stock and four series of preferred.

It is important to be precise about the status of this: an investigation announcement of this kind is common in volatile sectors, no class action has actually been filed, the allegations are unproven, and Strategy has not publicly responded.

It does not establish wrongdoing.

But it adds a layer of legal uncertainty and reputational pressure at the worst possible moment, and it has fed the narrative that something is wrong.

That narrative intensified because prominent critics have also tied the decline in MSTR and STRC to broader Bitcoin weakness, arguing that Strategy’s structure is no longer a harmless side story but a market stress point.

The analytical warnings have been sharper and more substantive than the legal noise.

CryptoQuant published a detailed report urging Strategy to stop buying Bitcoin and rebuild its cash position before resuming accumulation, laying out the collapse in dividend coverage and noting that the company sits on a large unrealized loss with every Bitcoin bought in 2024, 2025, and 2026 now underwater.

Its chief executive argued that a forced Bitcoin sale at current prices would crystallize those losses and destroy shareholder value.

He also separately observed that Strategy’s relentless buying had begun to look more like a liquidity sink than a price catalyst, absorbing capital without moving Bitcoin’s price upward.

Another firm suggested Strategy might eventually need to sell $3 billion to $4 billion of Bitcoin to ease the pressure on its capital structure, though it assigned that outcome only a modest probability and saw continued small stock sales as the likelier path.

Not all of the analysis was bearish. One firm rejected comparisons between STRC and the collapsed Terra stablecoin, arguing the funding engine had become less efficient rather than broken.

But the weight of the commentary converged on a single uncomfortable message: Strategy has overextended itself by buying too aggressively while its cash thinned, and the model needs to change, at least temporarily, to stabilize.

Saylor’s defense Michael Saylor’s response to all of this has been characteristically defiant, and his arguments deserve a fair hearing because they are not without merit.

His central rebuttal, made in a public post, is one of scale: Strategy’s Bitcoin and cash reserves exceed its outstanding debt by roughly $48 billion, a cushion so large that talk of insolvency or forced selling, in his framing, misunderstands the company’s actual financial position.

He has emphasized that Strategy has raised more than $60 billion in additional capital since 2022 and invested it in Bitcoin, building the largest corporate stockpile in the world.

He points to that track record as evidence of a model that works through cycles rather than one on the verge of collapse.

His most pointed argument is historical.

Saylor has reminded the market that Strategy faced a far worse situation in the 2022 bear market, when Bitcoin fell below $16,000 and the company’s debt actually exceeded the combined value of its Bitcoin and cash reserves, with the stock falling roughly from the mid-$20s to the low teens on a split-adjusted basis.

Strategy survived that, he notes, by staying focused and continuing to execute its strategy, and went on to raise tens of billions more and add hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin.

The implication is clear: the company has been underwater before, in a deeper hole than today’s, and not only survived but expanded dramatically once Bitcoin recovered.

That makes the current stress, in Saylor’s framing, a familiar test rather than an existential threat.

Defenders have echoed and extended this case, with some arguing that Bitcoin’s market value cannot be pinned on any single individual and dismissing the comparisons between Strategy and collapsed crypto projects.

Others have praised STRC as a genuinely innovative instrument that strips volatility from Bitcoin exposure and could serve an enormous market.

Notably, Saylor has not publicly addressed the fraud investigation or the CryptoQuant warning directly, choosing instead to make the broad case for the company’s strength.

His defense, in essence, is that the fundamentals dwarf the fears, that the company has weathered worse, and that the panic reflects a temporary loss of confidence instead of a real flaw.

The hard choices Whatever the rhetoric on either side, Strategy now faces a set of truly difficult choices, and laying them out shows why the situation is more than a passing scare even if it is not a collapse.

The company needs cash to fund STRC’s growing dividends and to rebuild the reserve that supports confidence in those dividends, and every available path to that cash carries a cost.

It can issue more common stock, but with MSTR trading below the value of its Bitcoin, doing so means heavy dilution that further erodes the reason to hold the stock, weakening the engine.

It can issue more preferred stock or raise STRC’s dividend rate to attract buyers, but more preferred means more dividend obligations and a higher rate deepens the cash drain, worsening the very problem it is trying to solve.

Each financing lever, in other words, tightens one part of the structure while loosening another.

That leaves the option the entire model was built to avoid: selling Bitcoin.

Selling would refill the reserve quickly and could even let Strategy buy back STRC below par, retiring a $100 claim for around $80, which on a spreadsheet is rational.

But it is precisely the move that would confirm the market’s deepest fear, because the whole proposition of the company is that its Bitcoin stack is permanent, a leveraged bet that never sells.

Strategy has already cracked that door open.

Earlier in June it sold 32 Bitcoin, a trivial amount against its holdings, to help fund preferred distributions, in what was its first net Bitcoin disposal since 2022.

The sale was tiny, but its symbolism was enormous, because it showed the treasury could become a funding source for the structure built on top of it, which reframes every future shortfall.

If a small sale was acceptable once, a larger one is no longer unthinkable, and selling near current levels would also turn paper losses into realized ones.

Strategy appears to have absorbed the warnings to some degree, slowing its Bitcoin buying sharply and routing fresh stock-raise proceeds into its cash reserve instead of into more Bitcoin.

That is a sensible defensive move, but it is also an admission that the relentless accumulation defining the company has had to pause.

That is a meaningful change in posture for a firm whose identity is built on never stopping.

Is the model breaking? So is Saylor’s model actually breaking, or merely being tested?

The honest answer is that it depends almost entirely on one variable the company does not control: the BTC price the model depends on.

Both the bull and bear readings are internally coherent.

The case that it is not breaking rests on Saylor’s strongest point: there is no immediate crisis.

Strategy is not required to sell Bitcoin, faces no margin call, and holds Bitcoin worth far more than its debt, with a cash reserve it has just moved to strengthen.

STRC holders cannot redeem their shares against the treasury, which removes the run-on-the-bank dynamic that destroys leveraged structures.

The company has survived a deeper hole before. And a Bitcoin recovery would reset the entire picture, lifting the value of the holdings, reviving the premium in MSTR, restoring confidence in STRC, and turning today’s stress into a footnote.

On this reading, the model is bending under a cyclical downturn, exactly as it is designed to, and will spring back when Bitcoin does.

The case that it is breaking, or at least structurally strained, is subtler and does not depend on imminent collapse.

It is that the model’s efficiency, not its solvency, is the real casualty.

The flywheel worked because of the premium and the perpetual buying, and both have been compromised: the premium has inverted into a discount, making new stock issuance dilutive instead of accretive, and the buying has had to pause.

Meanwhile the cost of maintaining the structure keeps rising, with dividend obligations that have quadrupled and a coverage cushion that has thinned to little more than a year.

That means the company must now spend real resources just to hold the structure together until Bitcoin recovers.

This is why how treasury firms are valued matters. A Bitcoin treasury company can look simple when its stock trades above NAV; it looks very different when the premium becomes a discount.

The deeper worry is reflexive: the cleanest fix for the cash problem, selling Bitcoin, is also the action that would most damage the premium and the narrative that the stack is permanent.

That leaves the company caught between a cash squeeze and an identity it cannot abandon without undermining itself.

In this reading, the machine does not break in a single dramatic event. It grinds less efficiently, costs more to run, and depends ever more heavily on a Bitcoin recovery that may or may not come on the needed timeline.

The truest synthesis is that Strategy is not facing insolvency but is facing the first serious test of whether its financing model can function when its core assumptions, a rising Bitcoin and a premium stock, both fail at once.

The answer will be written by Bitcoin’s price over the coming months.

Until then, the model is neither clearly broken nor clearly fine, but visibly, and for the first time in years, under genuine strain.

Frequently asked questions How much is Strategy underwater on its Bitcoin? Strategy holds 847,363 Bitcoin, bought for roughly $64 billion at an average cost near $75,650 per coin. With Bitcoin trading below $60,000, that position is underwater by approximately $12 billion, meaning the coins are worth that much less than the company paid. Every Bitcoin purchased in 2024, 2025, and 2026 is now below its purchase price. Importantly, this is an unrealized loss: it does not force Strategy to sell, does not trigger a margin call, and would only become a realized loss if the company actually sold coins at current prices. A Bitcoin recovery would reduce or erase it.

What is STRC and why is it crashing? STRC is Strategy’s variable-rate perpetual preferred stock, designed to trade near its $100 stated value, held there by a variable dividend mechanism, recently yielding around 11.5%. It crashed to a record low near $74, roughly a quarter below par, because confidence in the dividend behind it has weakened. As Strategy issued more STRC to fund Bitcoin buying, its annual dividend obligations quadrupled to about $1.2 billion while its cash reserves fell 38%, causing dividend coverage to collapse from over seven years to about 14 months. A preferred stock trading far below par signals the market demands much more yield before trusting the instrument.

Is Strategy going bankrupt or being forced to sell Bitcoin? Not imminently. Strategy holds Bitcoin worth far more than its debt, faces no margin call, is not required to sell, and recently moved to strengthen its cash reserve. Michael Saylor has said the company’s Bitcoin and cash exceed its debt by roughly $48 billion. STRC holders also cannot redeem their shares against the treasury, which removes the run-on-the-bank dynamic. The real pressure is not insolvency but the rising cost of maintaining the structure: funding growing dividends and rebuilding cash while its stock trades at a discount. Selling Bitcoin is one option the company has tested in tiny amounts, but it is not being forced into a large sale at this time.

What is the fraud investigation about? A plaintiff law firm announced a securities-fraud investigation into Strategy and Michael Saylor, examining whether the company may have issued materially misleading business information to investors, covering all five of its publicly traded securities. It is important to be precise: this is an investigation announcement, not a lawsuit. No class action has been filed, the allegations are unproven, and Strategy has not publicly responded. Announcements like this are common in volatile sectors and do not establish wrongdoing. However, it adds legal uncertainty and reputational pressure at a difficult moment, and it has been amplified by critics suggesting Saylor may have crossed marketing rules in how he promoted the preferred stock.

What does Michael Saylor say about all this? Saylor has been defiant, arguing the fears misunderstand the company’s position. His central points are that Strategy’s Bitcoin and cash exceed its debt by roughly $48 billion, that it has raised more than $60 billion since 2022 and built the largest corporate Bitcoin stockpile in the world, and that it survived a worse situation in the 2022 bear market. Back then, its debt briefly exceeded its Bitcoin and cash, but the company stayed focused and continued to execute. The implication is that the current stress is a familiar cyclical test instead of an existential threat. He has not directly addressed the fraud investigation or the analyst warnings, choosing instead to make the broad case for the company’s strength.

Is Saylor’s model actually breaking? It depends heavily on Bitcoin’s price, and both readings are coherent. The case that it is fine: there is no immediate crisis, no forced selling, Bitcoin worth far more than the debt, and a Bitcoin recovery would reset everything, so the model is bending under a downturn as designed. The case that it is strained: the model’s efficiency has been compromised because the stock premium that made buying accretive has become a discount, the buying has paused, and the cost of maintaining the structure keeps rising. The cleanest cash fix, selling Bitcoin, would also damage the permanent-stack narrative the company is built on. The honest verdict is that the model is not broken but is facing its first serious test of whether it works when both a rising Bitcoin and a premium stock fail at once.

This article is information, not investment advice. Financial figures, securities prices, the status of legal investigations, and company actions reflect reporting available as of June 28, 2026, and can change quickly. The securities-fraud investigation referenced is unproven and has not resulted in a filed lawsuit. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell MSTR, STRC, Bitcoin, or any security. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

TL;DR

Bitcoin slipped below the $60,000 area and continued defending the broader $59,000 to $60,000 support band. Bitcoin and Ethereum were both on track to finish Q2 in the red, creating pressure around quarterly market structure. Risk note: Do not call the move a confirmed bear market or use panic language around the support zone. For more details, visit the official Tradingview platform.

Bitcoin’s quarterly structure is weakening, but the immediate test is still the $59,000 to $60,000 zone Bitcoin Defends $59K Support as Q2 Closes With Rare Back-to-Back Loss is a timely crypto-market story because it gives readers a clear signal to watch without leaning on hype or unsupported price targets.

The important point is not just the headline number or technical level. It is the way that signal fits into the wider market: liquidity is thinner, Bitcoin direction is fragile, and traders are paying closer attention to flows, wallet activity, derivatives positioning, and official ecosystem updates.

What the verified setup shows Bitcoin slipped below the $60,000 area and continued defending the broader $59,000 to $60,000 support band. Bitcoin and Ethereum were both on track to finish Q2 in the red, creating pressure around quarterly market structure.

Back-to-back quarterly weakness in the first half of the year is uncommon enough to make the close worth watching.

That makes this a useful setup for readers who want to understand what is actually changing beneath the surface. It also helps separate measurable market data from the more speculative narratives that often appear during volatile weekends.

Why this matters for the market For Bitcoin quarterly loss, the signal matters because it offers a specific lens for the current market rather than a vague bullish or bearish call. In a weak or uncertain tape, traders tend to focus on the data points that can be checked directly: flows, wallet routes, support zones, funding, moving averages, official technical updates, or security disclosures.

This is especially important in the current environment. Bitcoin has been trading near important support, altcoins remain sensitive to broader risk appetite, and institutional or on-chain activity can quickly become part of the market narrative.

What traders should avoid assuming Do not call the move a confirmed bear market or use panic language around the support zone.

That caution matters because many of these signals can be misread. ETF outflows do not automatically mean permanent institutional retreat. Wallet transfers do not automatically mean selling. Technical support does not guarantee a bounce. Developer updates do not immediately translate into price action.

What to verify next The next validation path is: TradingView price charts plus Coinbase and Binance historical market data. This is the key step before treating the setup as anything more than a developing market or ecosystem signal.

Weekend rates can move sharply, so spot and quarterly figures should be checked live before upload.

This report is based on publicly available market data.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Bitcoin’s most polarizing governance battle of 2026 is heading toward a quiet defeat. BIP-110, the proposal designed to restrict non-financial data on Bitcoin’s blockchain, has mustered roughly 0.31% of total hashrate support as of late June, with major mining pools conspicuously absent from the signaling effort.

The mandatory signaling phase is projected to begin around block height 961,632, somewhere between August 7 and August 15. The proposal needs 55% of miners to signal support for an early lock-in. It currently has 0.31%.

What BIP-110 actually tries to do In technical terms, the proposal caps transaction output data at 34 bytes and restricts OP_RETURN usage to 83 bytes. It would make it significantly harder to embed images, tokens, and other non-monetary content directly on Bitcoin’s base layer.

The proposal was originally introduced as BIP-444 back in October 2025 before being formally reassigned. Its author, Dathon Ohm, designed it as a temporary measure, a one-year consensus soft fork that would essentially give Bitcoin a trial period of tighter restrictions on data usage.

Advertisement

Proponents argue that protocols like Ordinals and Runes have driven up transaction fees and placed unnecessary strain on node operators.

The numbers tell a bleak story Node support for BIP-110 sat at 2-3% in early 2026. That translated to roughly 583 out of approximately 24,481 nodes in January, with much of that support attributed to Bitcoin Knots software rather than deliberate ideological alignment.

Miner support is even thinner. The 0.31% hashrate figure translates to about 5 EH/s out of a total network hashrate of approximately 940 EH/s.

The first block signaling support for BIP-110 was mined by Ocean pool back in March 2026. Since then, no major mining pool has followed suit. Ocean, run by Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr, has long been an outlier in the mining world, known for filtering certain transaction types that larger pools process without hesitation.

Why the big pools aren’t biting Critics of the proposal have been vocal. Blockstream CEO Adam Back and well-known Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp have both raised concerns about the risks involved. Their objections center on several points: the potential for a chain split if enforcement is inconsistent, reputational damage to Bitcoin from a contentious fork attempt, and the fundamental enforcement problem that only nodes running the new rules would actually uphold the restrictions.

Even if BIP-110 somehow activated, its restrictions would only apply to nodes that chose to enforce them. Miners and nodes that didn’t upgrade would continue processing the transactions BIP-110 seeks to block.

What this means for investors The near-certain failure of BIP-110 carries implications beyond the technical debate. For market participants, the immediate takeaway is that Ordinals, Runes, and similar protocols aren’t going anywhere. The economic incentives for miners to process these transactions remain intact, and the political will to restrict them doesn’t exist at the hashrate level where it matters.

Bitcoin’s upgrade mechanism requires overwhelming consensus. BIP-110’s failure to gain traction shows that even proposals with passionate grassroots support can stall completely if they don’t align with miner economics.

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

M continues to drop hard, while VELVET has entered the top 100 alts after a 30%+ surge today.

Bitcoin’s price has remained relatively stable at around $60,000 over the weekend despite the new attacks in the Middle East and the broken ceasefire.

Most altcoins have marked minor losses on a 24-hour scale, while ZEC has dropped the most from the larger caps. AAVE has also slipped below $90 after a massive correction today.

BTC Stagnant Around $60K The primary cryptocurrency has a strong start to the business week by surging to $65,500 after it had recovered the $64,000 support over the weekend. However, that was short-lived, and the next several days were extremely painful. At first, the bears drove it south to under $62,400, before the next two leg downs brought multi-year lows.

The cryptocurrency plummeted on Wednesday to $59,000 as the FUD around Strategy kept increasing. After a dead-cat bounce to $62,000 on Thursday, BTC experienced another massive decline. This time, it plunged to $58,000, its lowest price since late 2024.

The bulls were finally able to reemerge at this point and didn’t allow another breakdown. Instead, BTC rebounded by a couple of grand and has remained at around $60,000 for most of the past 36 hours.

This calmness now is rather surprising, given what happened in the Middle East. The US and Iran started exchanging blows and blaming each other for breaking the ceasefire.

Bitcoin’s market capitalization stands above $1.2 trillion on CG, while its dominance over the alts has neared 56% once again.

BTCUSD June 28. Source: TradingView ZEC, M Drop Although the chart below will show that most altcoins are in the red today, their declines are rather negligible compared to what transpired during the week. Ethereum continues to stand inches below $1,600, XRP is at $1.05, SOL is above $70, and HYPE is at $63. BNB has dropped slightly more, while DOGE is down by over 2.3%.

ZEC has dumped the most from the larger-cap alts today, struggling at $385. AAVE has lost much of the traction from yesterday as it’s back below $90 now. M continues to dig new lows, as another 13% decline has pushed it to $0.68. In contrast, VELVET has risen by 30% and has entered the top 100 alts by market cap. PUMP follows suit with a 15% surge.

The total crypto market cap has lost around $20 billion daily and is below $2.160 trillion on CG.

Cryptocurrency Market Overview June 28. Source: QuantifyCrypto

Michael Saylor, founder of MicroStrategy, has once again shared updates on Bitcoin Tracker, remarking, “We are gonna need more charts.” Per historical trends, MicroStrategy typically announces increases to its Bitcoin holdings the day after such statements.

Relevant content

Marc Andreessen: Zhipu AI’s GLM-5.2 Rivals Top U.S. Open Models, Large Language Model Capabilities Gradually Move Toward a Multipolar Competitive Landscape

According to monitoring by Beating, a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen noted that many AI practitioners and industry insiders consider Zhipu GLM-5.2 to be the first Chinese AI model that can match or even outperform open models from leading U.S. labs on most tasks, while also being balanced across multiple capability dimensions. This development carries "extremely critical timing significance" amid accelerating global AI competition, as large model capabilities are gradually shifting from being dominated by a small number of U.S. labs to a multipolar competitive landscape. Click the original link below to join Beating’s Feishu AI News Channel, which provides 24/7 uninterrupted monitoring of global AI hotspots and news.

12 minutes ago

Bank of America: Three key thresholds for US stocks to trigger a "full risk-off" this summer, with signals for these conditions already building up.

BofA Securities chief strategist Michael Hartnett outlined three thresholds for a "full risk-off" trigger this summer in his latest Fund Flow Report: the Mag7 ETF falling below $60, USD/JPY dropping below 110, and the yield curve inverting again. None of these conditions have been met yet, but related signals are building. U.S. stock funds posted a net outflow of $8.5 billion, the first such outflow since March, following a historic $119.2 billion net inflow. The divergence where hyperscale cloud providers continue to underperform chip stocks has pushed the sustainability of AI capital spending to the core of market debate: Apple’s MacBook price hikes and Microsoft’s Xbox price increases are both directly tied to rising memory costs. Rack memory prices at Vera Rubin have surged by 435% cumulatively, and Goldman Sachs forecasts AI capital spending could reach as high as $1.4 trillion by 2027. Hartnett’s core ongoing question is: How much further do cloud providers need to fall before the market starts pricing in capital spending cuts? U.S. equity funds have shifted ahead of the curve, with liquidity flowing out of tech giants and into cyclical assets including semiconductors, small-caps, housing, and REITs — a move the market interprets as a front-run bet on a policy shift toward "affordability". For asset classes, Hartnett believes gold remains highly valuable for allocation below $4,000, and going long on long-dated U.S. Treasuries is currently the most contrarian long-term trade. The U.S. dollar is only suitable for short-term holding rather than long-term allocation, while going long on emerging markets over the long term is his strategic stance. Since Fed Chair Waller took office on May 22, U.S. Treasuries have risen by 3.2% cumulatively, while stocks have fallen by 1.6%, with bonds outperforming significantly.

12 minutes ago

Bank of America: There are three key thresholds for US stocks to trigger a full-scale risk-off move this summer; none of the conditions have been triggered yet, but relevant signals are accumulating.

Bank of America Securities chief strategist Hartnett outlined three triggers for a "full risk-off" environment this summer in his latest Fund Flow Report: Mag7 ETF falling below $60, USD/JPY dropping below 110, and the yield curve inverting again. None of these conditions have been met yet, but signals are building. U.S. equity funds have posted a net outflow of $8.5 billion, the first such outflow since March, following a historic $119.2 billion net inflow. The divergence where hyperscale cloud providers continue to underperform chip stocks has put the sustainability of AI capital expenditure at the center of market debate: Apple’s MacBook price hikes and Microsoft’s Xbox price increases are both directly tied to rising memory costs. Vera Rubin rack memory prices have surged 435% cumulatively, and Goldman Sachs projects AI capital expenditure could reach as high as $1.4 trillion by 2027. Hartnett’s core ongoing question is: How much further do cloud providers need to fall before the market begins pricing in capital expenditure cuts? U.S. equity funds have already shifted ahead of time; liquidity flowing out of tech giants is pouring into cyclical assets like semiconductors, small-caps, housing, and REITs, a move the market interprets as a front-run bet on policy shifting toward "affordability." At the asset class level, Hartnett believes gold still holds strong allocation value below $4,000, and going long on long-dated U.S. Treasuries is the most contrarian long-term trade right now. The U.S. dollar is only suitable for short-term holding rather than long-term allocation, and his strategic view is to go long on emerging markets over the long term. Since Fed Chair Waller took office on May 22, U.S. Treasuries have risen 3.2% cumulatively, while stocks have fallen 1.6%, with bonds significantly outperforming.

12 minutes ago

Samsung Electro-Mechanics plans to sign a 500 billion won large order for AI server MLCCs, and will partner with Sumitomo Chemical to develop glass substrate business.

Samsung Electro-Mechanics is in final negotiations with a major U.S. tech firm over a supply contract for MLCCs (multi-layer ceramic capacitors) for AI servers. Worth around 500 billion won, the deal equals 10% of its component division’s annual revenue last year, making it an extremely large-scale order. Industry sources speculate the client is a leading player with significant clout in the data center sector. Each AI server requires 15,000 to 25,000 MLCCs—over 10 times the number used in a smartphone—with a unit price more than triple that of smartphone-grade MLCCs, earning the component the nickname "golden rice of the AI industry". Samsung Electro-Mechanics currently holds the No.2 position in the global MLCC market with a 20%+ share. The contract is expected to significantly boost its standing in the AI server MLCC market. Industry observers note the deal essentially secures quality validation from a global "big buyer", which will prompt other major tech firms to follow suit. Turning to its glass substrate business, Samsung Electro-Mechanics will formally sign a joint venture agreement with Japan’s Sumitomo Chemical this week. The two firms will invest a combined 500 billion won to set up a glass substrate JV, with Samsung holding a majority stake and contributing around 300 billion won. The JV will be based at the Pyeongtaek plant of Sumitomo Chemical’s South Korean subsidiary Dongwoo Fine-Chem, with production scheduled to launch in early next year. Glass substrates, which offer superior heat resistance to traditional plastic substrates and can accommodate more HBM (high-bandwidth memory) and GPUs, are hailed as "rule changers" for AI semiconductor packaging. Samsung Electro-Mechanics aims to lock in a high-quality supply chain in advance for mass production, while Sumitomo Chemical is using this partnership to enter the next-generation packaging materials market.

12 minutes ago

Crypto KOL Ansem has continued pumping his eponymous meme coin, with ANSEM’s market cap briefly surging past $78 million.

According to GMGN data, Solana ecosystem meme coin ANSEM briefly hit a market cap of over $78 million before pulling back to $74 million. It has seen a 356x price surge in 24 hours, with 24-hour trading volume reaching $49.4 million. Today, crypto KOL Ansem announced on social media that, due to Pump.fun’s refusal to distribute airdrops, he is issuing a “stimmy” (stimulus fund) to “the trenches” — a term referring to on-chain meme coin traders. As of press time, Ansem has been posting buy calls continuously to stoke community sentiment. BlockBeats reminds users: Most meme coins lack real-world use cases and are highly volatile; please protect your assets and avoid FOMO.

12 minutes ago

Serenity: Automotive and robotics supply chains are converging, positioning Germany’s Schaeffler – a key player in core components – for a pricing revaluation.

Serenity has released an analysis on whether automotive and robotics supply chains are converging, taking Germany’s Schaeffler (market cap ~€7.47 billion) as a key case study. Schaeffler has partnered with 45 humanoid robot firms, with its product portfolio covering core components including bearings, gearboxes, sensors/ECUs, actuators, and power electronics. The company estimates its products make up roughly 50% of a humanoid robot’s bill of materials, and targets 10% of the segment’s market share. However, Schaeffler’s 2030 robotics revenue forecast is only in the hundreds of millions of euros—far lower than Elon Musk’s optimistic outlook for the market. Serenity dubs this a typical "sandbagging forecast," a deliberate understatement. Serenity also highlighted other notable targets, such as Nabtesco (focused on joint reducers) and Sanhua Intelligent Controls, which supplies components for Tesla’s Optimus robot. On the investment front, Serenity argues these traditional auto parts firms are currently undervalued due to drag from their core automotive businesses, while humanoid robots and AI-powered vehicles will serve as key growth vectors. The chairman of TSMC recently also cited AI vehicles as a growth vector. But a critical prerequisite is the emergence of killer apps and leading downstream players—similar to ChatGPT or Anthropic—to truly drive the entire upstream supply chain ecosystem. Currently, robotics business accounts for only ~1% of these firms’ total revenue, so the market remains focused on immediate bottlenecks like memory chips and MLCCs in the short term. Serenity predicts that as humanoid robots evolve along different architectural routes, future "unexpected supply chain bottleneck surprises"—akin to HBM or MLCC—will emerge, bringing pricing power and revaluation opportunities for early-positioned companies. In terms of timing, post-2027 is likely to act as a clear catalyst.

12 minutes ago