Market Signal Briefing

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP is investigating potential claims against ADMA Biologics, Inc. (“ADMA” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ADMA). The investigation concerns whether the Company and/or members of its senior management may have violated federal securities laws or engaged in other unlawful business practices. [LEARN MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION] What Happened? On March 24, 2026, Culper Research published a report on ADMA alleging “Channel Stuffing, an Undisclos.

, /PRNewswire/ --

Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Paysafe Limited (NYSE: PSFE) between March 4, 2025 and November 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important April 7, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.

So What: If you purchased Paysafe securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

What to do next: To join the Paysafe class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2745 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 7, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Details of the case: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Paysafe's ecommerce business had significant exposure to a single high risk client; (2) as a result, Paysafe's credit loss reserves and/or write-offs were understated; (3) Paysafe had an undisclosed issue with higher risk Merchant Category Codes, making its client services difficult to bank; (4) the foregoing issues were likely to have a material negative impact on Paysafe's revenue growth and overall revenue mix; (5) as a result, Paysafe was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance for fiscal year 2025; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Paysafe's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Paysafe class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2745 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:
     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     [email protected]
     www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P. A.

NEW YORK, March 27, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --

WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Lufax Holding Ltd (NYSE: LU) between April 7, 2023 and January 26, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 20, 2026 in the securities class action first filed by the Firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Lufax securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Lufax class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53703 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 20, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lufax lacked adequate internal controls; (2) certain of Lufax’s financial results were materially misstated; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Lufax’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Lufax class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53703 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
[email protected]
www.rosenlegal.com

SAN DIEGO, March 27, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Oracle Corporation (NYSE: ORCL) securities between June 12, 2025 and December 16, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”), have until April 6, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Oracle class action lawsuit. Captioned Jackson County Employees’ Retirement System v. Oracle Corporation (M.D. Tenn.), the Oracle class action lawsuit charges Oracle and certain of Oracle’s top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A previously filed case captioned Barrows v. Oracle Corporation, No. 26-cv-00127 (D. Del.), is also pending.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Oracle class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-oracle-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-orcl.html

You can also contact attorneys Ken Dolitsky or Michael Albert of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected]

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Oracle is a multinational technology company.

The Oracle class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Oracle’s revenue and remaining performance obligations (“RPO”) growth related to its provision of AI-related infrastructure and related services would cost tens of billions of dollars more than revealed to investors and require Oracle to take on hundreds of billions of dollars in additional long-term lease commitments; (ii) as a result, Oracle would need to raise tens of billions of dollars in additional capital, thereby diluting Oracle investors, increasing Oracle’s borrowing costs, and degrading its balance sheet; (iii) consequently, Oracle’s AI-related infrastructure business had materially lower profit margins and was substantially more risky, with a materially lower likelihood of success, than defendants had portrayed to investors.

The Oracle class action lawsuit further alleges that on December 10, 2025, Oracle issued a release disclosing its financial results for its second fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2025, and revealing that Oracle’s capital expenditures had ballooned to $35.5 billion over the trailing four quarters, more than three times greater than Oracle’s $10.7 billion in capital expenditures in the comparable prior year period. Meanwhile, Oracle’s four-quarter trailing negative free cash flow had more than doubled sequentially to negative $13.2 billion. During the related earnings call, defendant Douglas Kehring revealed that Oracle actually expected capital expenditures far greater than previously revealed to meet demand for its AI-related infrastructure services – including $50 billion in fiscal 2026 alone, an amount roughly double the $25 billion benchmark provided to investors at the beginning of the Class Period.

On December 11, 2025, Oracle filed a quarterly report for its second fiscal quarter of 2026 revealing that Oracle’s additional lease obligations had also risen dramatically, the complaint further alleges. Specifically, the report disclosed that Oracle “had $248 billion of additional lease commitments, substantially all related to data centers and cloud capacity arrangements, that are generally expected to commence between the third quarter of fiscal 2026 and fiscal 2028 and for terms of fifteen to nineteen years that were not reflected on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of November 30, 2025.” The price of Oracle common stock fell 15% over two trading days in response to this news and continued to fall in subsequent days as more adverse news entered the market, according to the complaint.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Oracle securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Oracle class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Oracle investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Oracle shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Oracle class action lawsuit.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors – $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs’ firms in the world, and the Firm’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. 

Contact:
        Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
        Ken Dolitsky
        Michael Albert
        655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
        800-449-4900
        [email protected]

In a year marked by volatility and uncertainty, Lockheed Martin (LMT 1.83%) has been a bright spot in the market thus far. Shares of Lockheed are up over 26% in 2026, far outpacing the broader market indexes.

Today's Change

(

-1.83

%) $

-11.49

Current Price

$

615.84

With Lockheed's valuation rising, is the stock still a buy?

Lockheed's financials have been somewhat of a mixed bag, but there are several positive signs in the latest quarterly report. The company's backlog is a massive $194 billion, sales grew 6% year over year, and free cash flow exceeded expectations.

The bull case for Lockheed depends on military spending steadily increasing. The Trump administration has proposed a defense budget of up to $1.5 trillion for 2027, a marked increase from the $900 billion appropriated for 2026. This policy shift could generate a substantial number of new contracts for Lockheed.

Image source: Getty Images.

Unfortunately, Lockheed's valuation metrics have risen to the point where the stock is teetering on the edge of overvaluation. The stock's trailing P/E ratio is nearing 30. In the past 12 months, the company's market capitalization has increased from $104 billion to $144 billion.

If you're taking a long-term view, though, the current share price shouldn't scare you away. Lockheed's guidance for 2026 maintains a sales growth rate of 5% and segment operating growth of 25%.

Lockheed's dividend yield is fairly strong at 2.2%. This stock has a lot to offer investors seeking stable growth and income, even though its recent run has made shares more expensive.

Catie Hogan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 27, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Miata Metals Corp. (CSE: MMET) (FSE: 8NQ) (OTCQX: MMETF) (“Miata” or the “Company”) wishes to announce that its Board of Directors has approved a grant of an aggregate of 450,000 stock options (“Options”) to certain employees and consultants of the Company, in accordance with Miata’s Omnibus Incentive Equity Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”).

The Options vest 50% at six months and 50% at twelve months and have a three-year term from the date of grant, at an exercise price of $0.50 per common share. All the foregoing Options are subject to the terms of the Omnibus Plan, the applicable grant agreement, and the requirements of the Canadian Securities Exchange (the “CSE”). The Options and the underlying shares are subject to a four month hold period in accordance with applicable Canadian securities laws and the policies of the CSE.

About Miata Metals Corp.

Miata Metals Corp. (CSE: MMET) is a Canadian mineral exploration company listed on the Canadian Securities Exchange, as well as the OTCQX (OTCQX: MMETF) and Frankfurt (FSE: 8NQ) Exchanges. The Company is focused on the acquisition, exploration, and development of mineral properties. The Company holds a 70% interest in the ~215 km2 Sela Creek Gold Project with an option to acquire a full 100% interest in the Project, and a 70% beneficial interest in the Nassau Gold Project with an option to acquire 100%. Both exploration properties are located in the greenstone belt of Suriname.

On Behalf of the Board

Dr. Jacob (Jaap) Verbaas, P.Geo | CEO and Director

For Further Information, please contact:

Nikki McEachnie
Director of Investor Relations
[email protected]
+1778.488.9754

The Canadian Securities Exchange has not reviewed this press release and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

Energy Holding Corp, a 10% owner of Tecnoglass (TGLS +0.59%), reported the purchase of 306,666 shares of Common Stock in multiple open-market transactions from March 9, 2026 through March 11, 2026, as disclosed in a SEC Form 4 filing.

Transaction summaryMetricValueShares traded306,666Transaction value$13.1 millionPost-transaction shares (direct)20,516,756Post-transaction value (direct ownership)~$918.3 millionTransaction value based on SEC Form 4 weighted average purchase price ($42.84); post-transaction value based on March 11, 2026 market close ($44.76).

Key questionsHow does this purchase compare to Energy Holding Corp's historical trading activity?
This transaction is materially smaller than the recent median sell transaction size of 1,492,949 shares, representing a 1.52% increase in direct holdings versus a historical median of 6.66% for single trades.What is the impact on Energy Holding Corp's ownership of Tecnoglass?
The direct Common Stock position rose to 20,516,756 shares after the transaction.Were any derivative securities or indirect ownership entities involved in this transaction?
No; all shares were acquired directly, and there were no option exercises, indirect holdings, or transactions through trusts or other entities.Company overviewMetricValueRevenue (TTM)$983.61 millionNet income (TTM)$159.57 millionDividend yield1.20%Price (as of market close 3/11/26)$42.84* 1-year performance is calculated using March 11, 2026 as the reference date.

Company snapshotTecnoglass offers architectural glass, aluminum products, curtain wall systems, windows, doors, and related components for commercial and residential construction.It generates revenue through the design, manufacturing, and direct sale or installation of building materials, leveraging proprietary brands and integrated production capabilities.The company serves construction firms, developers, distributors, and end-users primarily in Colombia, the United States, Panama, and select international markets.Tecnoglass is a leading manufacturer of architectural glass and aluminum systems, operating at scale with nearly 10,000 employees and a diversified international customer base. The company’s vertically integrated business model enables efficient production and customized solutions for the construction materials industry.

Tecnoglass leverages its proprietary brands and advanced manufacturing to maintain a competitive edge in both commercial and residential building segments.

What this transaction means for investorsThe March purchase of more than $13 million in Tecnoglass stock by Energy Holdings suggests the investment company has a bullish outlook towards the manufacturer. Tecnoglass shares have dropped substantially from the 52-week high of $90.34 reached in 2025, hitting a low of $39.53 in March not long after Energy Holdings’ buy.

The decline was due in part to Tecnoglass badly missing Wall Street’s expectation of $0.84 per share in its fourth quarter earnings results, delivering $0.57 instead. However, Q4 revenue was up year over year to $245.3 million compared to $239.6 million in the previous year.

In fact, full-year revenue rose 11% year over year to a record $983.6 million as the company achieved market share gains. These results are excellent, and with the share price drop, its stock’s price-to-earnings ratio is at a multi-year low of 12. This combined with growing sales suggests now is a good time to buy Tecnoglass.

Robert Izquierdo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Carnival (CCL 4.45%) shares were heading lower on Friday, even though the world's largest cruise operator beat estimates in its fiscal first-quarter earnings report.

In the last quarter before the war in Iran roiled the global travel market, Carnival reported revenue of $6.17 billion, up 6.1% from the quarter a year ago and ahead of estimates of $6.14 billion.

Management noted record net yields, or revenue per passenger cruise day, and strong close-in demand, or bookings made shortly before departure, showing strong demand to start the fiscal year.

Profits also improved with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) operating income increasing from $543 million to $607 million, and adjusted earnings per share rising from $0.13 to $0.20, beating the consensus at $0.18.

Carnival continues to make progress with paying down the large debt balance it acquired during the pandemic, and it reduced its interest expense from $377 million to $291 million. Booking trends remain strong, hitting a new record, a positive leading indicator for future revenue.

However, investors were more focused on Carnival's guidance, given the upheaval in the Middle East. For the full year, management still expects solid growth, calling for net yields to rise 2.75% on a constant currency basis, noting higher ticket prices and strength in onboard spending, but sees cruise costs before fuel up 3.1% in constant currency.

Higher fuel costs are expected to eat into the bottom line as the company lowered its full-year adjusted earnings per share guidance from $2.48 down to $2.21, which it attributed to a headwind of $0.38 due to the spike in oil prices. Notably, Carnival does not hedge on fuel prices, and the company said that a 10% change in fuel cost impacts its bottom line for the year by $160 million, or $0.11 share.

Similarly, it cut its adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) from $7.63 billion to $7.19 billion.

Image source: Carnival.

Carnival's long-term goals Carnival also unveiled a new set of long-term targets after the company beat its previous SEA Change targets nearly twice as fast as it expected.

Its new program PROPEL calls for:

Greater than 16% return on invested capital More than 50% adjusted EPS growth from 2025 More than 40% of cash from operations distributed to shareholders (approximately $14 billion) Management is aiming to achieve all of those goals by 2029 and get to a 2.75 net debt/adjusted EBITDA ratio. To achieve that, the company plans to refurbish its fleet and destinations in the Caribbean and Alaska, and leverage scale and technology.

Today's Change

(

-4.45

%) $

-1.13

Current Price

$

24.16

Where Carnival goes from here Predicting where oil prices go or what happens with the war isn't a smart way to invest. The conflict could cause a global recession, or it could be over in a few weeks with the Strait of Hormuz back open.

Carnival's forecast for the year assumes Brent crude prices will average $90 in April and May, $85 in the third quarter, and $80 for the fourth quarter, so if oil falls below those marks, it should benefit the company's bottom line.

Like other companies in the travel space, Carnival's financial results are exposed to factors beyond its control, but management's execution over the past few years, as it's rebuilt the business following the pandemic, paid down debt, and delivered record results, has been phenomenal. It also speaks to the ongoing demand for cruises even in a volatile discretionary spending environment.

CEO Josh Weinstein noted, "We have managed through so many challenges, 9/11, the global financial crisis, the Arab Spring, COVID-19, and the Ukraine War," and the company has managed to grow its business and come back stronger.

2026 seems likely to be a volatile year for Carnival, but the business is solid enough to recover over the long term, especially given the stock's attractive valuation at a forward P/E of just 11 now. Investors may have to be patient, but the long-term future still looks bright for Carnival.

Cruise stocks have pulled back sharply as investors weigh the risk of travel disruptions stemming from the war in Iran, which has largely spilled over into the broader market outside of the transportation sector.

Optimistically, Carnival Corporation (CCL - Free Report) ) reported favorable Q1 results on Friday, highlighting record revenue and bookings, stronger-than-expected yields, and the launch of its long-term PROPEL Strategy (“Powering Growth and Returns, Responsibly”).  

Although Carnival is off to a strong start to the year, the company acknowledged that rising fuel costs and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are starting to lead to softer booking confidence.

This makes it a perplexing topic of whether cruise stocks are do for a rebound or if there is still more downside risk ahead, with Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Line (NCLH - Free Report) ), and Royal Caribbean Cruises (RCL - Free Report) ) stock all plummeting more than 10% in the last month.   

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Impacts from the War in IranAlthough the war in Iran is affecting the cruise industry, the impact varies by region and is driven mostly by fuel cost, itinerary disruptions, and booking volatility. Higher fuel costs are pushing cruise prices up, which may soften demand, as crude oil prices have traded over $100 a barrel amid production disruptions in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Only Royal Caribbean actively markets and operates Arabian Gulf itineraries that may be impacted directly, including in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman, and Doha. However, Carnival is most exposed to the spike in crude as it doesn’t hedge its fuel costs, meaning it doesn’t lock in the price of fuel in advance through contracts, making it vulnerable to sudden spikes in oil prices.

Carnival’s Favorable Q1 Results & PROPEL PlanCarnival's Q1 sales increased 6% year over year to a record $6.16 billion and slightly edged estimates of $6.1 billion. On the bottom line, Q1 EPS rose to $0.20 compared to $0.13 per share a year ago and topped expectations of $0.18.

More intriguing, Carnival stated its 2026 bookings were up double digits from the same period last year, with 85% of its capacity already sold out.

Other highlights included Carnival introducing PROPEL, its strategic plan targeting higher shareholder returns leading up to 2029, including 50% EPS growth, ROIC above 16%, and the goal of returning more than 40% of its operating cash flow to shareholders via an estimated $14 billion in dividends and stock buybacks.

Lowered EPS Guidance & Growth ComparisonAttributed to higher fuel costs, Carnival lowered its full-year FY26 EPS guidance from $2.48 to $2.21, with the current Zacks Consensus at $2.37 or 5% growth.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

As the most profitable cruise line, Royal Caribbean’s FY26 EPS is currently expected to rise 15% to $18.09, with Norwegian’s FY26 EPS projected to increase 11% to $2.35.

Carnival does remain the largest cruise line in terms of its fleet and revenue, with its top line expected to expand 4% in FY26 to $27.81 billion, although this acceleration trails Royal Caribbean’s projections of 10% growth ($19.77B) and Norwegian’s 7% ($10.56B).

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Valuation & Dividend ComparisonNorwegian stock stands out the most in terms of valuation, trading at just 8X forward earnings, compared to Carnival’s 10X and Royal Caribbean’s 15X. Carnival and Norwegian stock also trade well under the often preferred level of less than 2X forward sales, with Royal Caribbean at 4X.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Bolstering Carnival and Royal Caribbean's value to shareholders is that both offer annual dividend yields above 2%, while Norwegian doesn’t offer a payout despite its cheaper valuation.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Bottom LineCarnival’s Q1 results were favorable, but its lowered EPS guidance does leave concerns for the broader cruise industry. Investors won’t get an in-depth look at how Norwegian and Royal Caribbean are being affected by geopolitical tensions in the Middle East until their next quarterly reports in late April and early May, respectively.

For now, these cruise stocks all land a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). Various reasons may be attracting investors to each of these cruise stocks for a potential rebound, but they all share inherent risk right now, and more attractive entry points may still emerge.

(All dollar amounts are expressed in Canadian dollars, unless stated otherwise)

HIGHLIGHTS

Q4 2025 (at December 31, 2025)

Financial: ~$422.3 million in cash and cash equivalents; sold 3,970 ounces of gold from small-scale mining activities at the Tintic ProjectFinancing: Completed a private placement financing for ~$82.5 million in gross proceedsCariboo Gold Project: Released new infill drill results from the ongoing program in the Lowhee Zone and commenced a multi-faceted surface exploration program targeting new discoveries; pre-construction activities continued to advance, including the water treatment plant, underground development waste rock storage facility, sediment control pond, site camp upgrade and other critical infrastructureCorporate: Announced sale of the San Antonio Gold Project; Appointed Scott Smith as VP, Exploration Subsequent to Q4 2025

Financial: Received ~$24.9 million in proceeds from a warrants exerciseFinancing: Completed prospectus offering of common shares for ~US$143.8 million in gross proceedsCariboo Gold Project: Resumed planned site activities in accordance with a phased reopening plan following a temporary suspension due to a fatal incident that occurred on January 22, 2026; entered into a project and construction management services agreement with JDS Energy & Mining; released new infill drill results from the ongoing Lowhee Zone (aggregate total 11,025 metres, or ~80% of planned program)Corporate: Completed sale of the San Antonio Gold Project; appointed Sarah Harrison as VP, Permitting & Compliance; announced the Company's inclusion in the VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) MONTREAL, March 27, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Osisko Development Corp. (NYSE: ODV, TSXV: ODV) ("Osisko Development" or the "Company") reports its financial and operating results for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 ("Q4 2025" and "2025", respectively).

Q4 2025 HIGHLIGHTS

Operating, Financial and Corporate Updates:

As of December 31, 2025, the Company had approximately $422.3 million in cash and cash equivalents. Approximately $145.8 million (US$106.4 million), inclusive of accrued interest, is outstanding under the initial draw of the US$450 million senior secured project loan credit facility (the "2025 Financing Facility") with funds advised by Appian Capital Advisory Limited ("Appian") for the development and construction of the Cariboo Gold Project.$24.2 million in revenues (nil in Q4 2024) and $6.8 million in cost of sales (nil in Q4 2024) generated from the sale of 3,970 gold ounces from small-scale activities including heap leaching of certain tailings and stockpile material and selective mining at the Tintic Project, generating operating income of $8.7 million ($19.8 million loss in Q4 2024).During the quarter, the Company released new infill drilling results from its ongoing 13,000-metre underground infill drilling program in the Lowhee Zone of its Cariboo Gold Project. An aggregate total of 5,983 metres of drilling results was released, representing approximately 44% of the total planned program.On October 29, 2025, the Company completed a private placement offering of 15,409,798 common shares of the Company for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $82.5 million comprised of: LIFE Offering ($50 million): (i) 2,990,000 common shares that qualified as "flow-through shares" ("FT Shares") within the meaning of subsection 66(15) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the "Tax Act") at a price of $6.69 per FT Share for gross proceeds of approximately $20.0 million; (ii) 1,444,000 common shares to certain eligible British Columbia resident subscribers (the "BC FT Shares") that qualified as "flow-through shares" within the meaning of subsection 66(15) of the Tax Act at a price of $6.93 per BC FT Share for gross proceeds of approximately $10.0 million; and (iii) 4,182,000 common shares at a price of $4.78 per common share for gross proceeds of approximately $20.0 million.Private Placement ($32.5 million): 6,793,798 common shares at a price of $4.78 per common share for gross proceeds of approximately $32.5 million pursuant to exemptions available under NI 45-106. On November 3, 2025, the Company announced the appointment of Mr. Scott Smith as Vice President, Exploration effective November 1, 2025.On November 24, 2025, the Company announced that it entered into a securities purchase agreement with Axo Copper Corp. ("Axo") to sell its 100% interest in the San Antonio Gold Project located in Sonora State, Mexico. The transaction closed on January 27, 2026 (refer to section entitled Discontinued Operations – San Antonio Gold Project).On December 8, 2025, the Company announced the launch of a fully-funded 70,000-metre exploration drilling campaign aimed at targeting new discoveries at the Cariboo Gold Project.
Cariboo Gold Project – British Columbia, Canada (100%-owned)

Infill Drilling Program. The ongoing 13,000-metre infill drill program within the Lowhee Zone is being undertaken as part of the Appian 2025 Financing Facility obligations, from existing underground development infrastructure. The infill program is expected to provide a comprehensive data set that will inform resource modeling, mine planning and production stope design procedures and parameters. It will also support the development of a systematic approach to infill drilling for the underground mining operation.In 2025, a total of 5,983 metres of drilling was released, representing ~44% of the planned program. To date, 11,025 metres of drilling have been released, representing ~80% of the planned program, with 96% of the total planned drilling completed. Assay results and associated quality assurance and quality control reviews are pending for unreleased holes. The Company anticipates completing the 13,000-metre infill drill program in the second quarter of 2026. Pre-Construction Activities. The Company continues to advance pre-construction activities, including certain surface infrastructure and underground development. Water treatment plant: Upgrades to the Bonanza Ledge water treatment plant are in the final stages of commissioning and the facility is anticipated to be fully operational in the second quarter of 2026.Underground development: To date, approximately 2.1 kilometres of underground development has been completed from the existing Cow Portal into the Lowhee Zone, and along the main access ramp, through the Lowhee fault, towards the Cow Mountain Zone. Development progress has been below plan while encountering challenging ground conditions in and around the Lowhee fault, requiring enhanced ground support. Development rates are expected to improve as the ramp advances beyond this zone.Surface infrastructure: Construction of the waste rock storage facility, the sediment control pond, early works in the mine site complex ("MSC") area and other critical infrastructure continues.Camp upgrade: The upgrade and expansion of the site camp to 266 rooms is complete and is expected to provide accommodation capacity aligned with peak construction manpower requirements for the project. Exploration & Conversion Drilling Programs. In the quarter, the Company commenced a multi-faceted exploration drilling campaign across the Cariboo Gold Project and regional targets. Together with planned infill conversion drilling, up to 20 drill rigs are expected to be active at times throughout 2026, as the various programs overlap and advance, for a combined total of approximately 160,000 metres of planned drilling across all targets. A total of six drill rigs are currently operating on two surface exploration programs, including three surface drill rigs targeting exploration below the current extent of the Cariboo Gold deposit to depths of up to 1,000 metres.To date, approximately 6,000 metres of drilling have been completed, with assays pending. A second surface exploration program on the adjacent Proserpine regional target has also commenced and ramped up to three drill rigs, with approximately 1,500 metres completed to date.Infill and conversion drilling is planned for 2026 to upgrade inferred resources to higher level confidence resource categories with potential to be converted into mineral reserves. The initial targets are within and below the current Cariboo Gold deposit. Figure 1: Waste rock storage facility (WRSF) aerial overview.

Figure 2: Sediment control pond (SCP) spillway pipe encasement.

Figure 3: BL water treatment plant commissioning in progress.

Figure 4: Lowhee Zone ventilation raise foundation drilling.

Figure 5: Active surface exploration drill rig on Cow Mountain targeting areas below the Cariboo Gold deposit.

Tintic Project – Utah, U.S.A. (100%-owned)

Small-Scale Heap Leach Project and Selective Mining. In the quarter, the Company continued small-scale heap leaching of certain tailings and stockpiled material, generating sales of 1,992 ounces of gold. In addition, small-scale selective mining activities in the quarter resulted in the sale of 1,978 ounces of gold. In total, these activities resulted in the sale of 6,240 gold ounces in 2025 from the cumulative processing of 22,668 metric tonnes at an average grade of 11.17 grams per tonne gold and average recoveries of approximately 80%, generating revenue of $35.5 million ($4.6 million in 2024) and cost of sales of $13.9 million ($4.8 million in 2024). While management continues to evaluate options for the next steps at the Tintic Project, it is expected that limited activities beyond care and maintenance may occur on the Tintic Project from time to time.
Figure 6: Gold bar (~276 troy ounces) poured from small-scale activities at the Tintic Project (March 2026).

2026 OBJECTIVES

Activity Expected Timing
of Completion2 Anticipated 
2026 Cost1Cariboo Gold Project    Underground Development (including production drilling) Q4 2026 $40.2 millionUnderground infill drilling (13,000 metres)3 Q2 2026 $0.6 millionRegional surface exploration drilling Q4 2026 $6.8 millionMine design, processing, water management, infrastructure and other Q4 2026 $9.9 millionUnderground Infill Drilling to Convert Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves Q4 2026 $1.8 millionSurface (Directional) Drilling to expand Mineral Resource Estimate at depth (up to 300 metres below current Mineral Resource Estimate) Q4 2026 $2.5 million Note:
  (1)The expenditures disclosed in this table include amounts approved by the Board of Directors as at March 2026. Additional expenditures will be required to complete certain of the objectives and are subject to approval by the Board of Directors.
(2)For the portion of activities to be incurred in 2026.
(3)Underground expenditure which contributes towards satisfying one of the conditions to the subsequent draw under the 2025 Financing Facility.

DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS – SAN ANTONIO GOLD PROJECT

On November 24, 2025, the Company entered into an agreement to sell its 100% interest in the San Antonio Gold Project located in Sonora State, Mexico, through the sale of all of the issued and outstanding equity interests of Sapuchi Minera S. de R.L. de C.V. ("Sapuchi Minera") which held a 100% interest in the mineral concessions comprising the San Antonio Project, to Axo Copper Corp. The transaction closed on January 27, 2026.At closing, the Company received 15,325,841 common shares of Axo, representing 9.99% of Axo's outstanding shares on a non‑diluted basis. The Company is also entitled to certain contingent deferred payments in connection with the sale, as well as an anti-dilution provision whereby a qualifying financing triggers the issuance of Axo shares to the Company. Subsequent to closing, the Company received an additional 2,363,516 Axo common shares pursuant to the anti‑dilution provision triggered by a qualifying financing. In addition to the shares received, the Company is entitled to certain contingent deferred payments, including: (i) a cash payment equal to 70% of any Mexican VAT refund relating to periods ending on or before closing; (ii) US$2 million payable in cash or Axo shares upon Axo's filing of a NI 43‑101 compliant feasibility study; and (iii) US$2 million payable in cash upon the project's first gold pour. SUBSEQUENT TO Q4 2025

On January 22, 2026, a contractor working on surface activities suffered a fatal injury following an isolated incident at the Cariboo Gold Project. The Company promptly notified appropriate authorities, and an investigation of the incident was initiated. Activities at the project site were temporarily suspended to allow for completion of an investigation. On March 2, 2026, resumption of planned site activities was announced, following the successful implementation of a phased gradual reopening plan of surface and underground activities over several preceding weeks, in coordination with and approval from the relevant regulatory authorities, and with a focus on ensuring the health and safety of all employees and contractors.On February 2, 2026, the Company appointed Ms. Sarah Harrison as Vice President, Permitting and Compliance.On February 3, 2026, the Company completed its previously announced (on January 26, 2026) prospectus offering of common shares of the Company, issuing an aggregate of 40,607,650 common shares at a price of US$3.54 per common share for aggregate gross proceeds of US$143.8 million ($196.2 million).On February 9, 2026, the Company entered into a definitive Project and Construction Management Services Agreement with JDS Energy & Mining Inc. for the development of the Cariboo Gold Project.On March 9, 2026, the Company announced receipt of approximately $24.9 million from the exercise of 5,625,031 common share purchase warrants of the Company, held by certain funds advised by Appian Capital Advisory Limited.On March 16, 2026, the Company announced inclusion in the VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF ("GDXJ") announced on March 13, 2026, which became effective at the close of markets on March 20, 2026.On March 27, 2026, Osisko Development's Board of Directors approved certain minor administrative amendments to the Company's omnibus equity incentive plan to facilitate plan administration. The omnibus incentive plan was last approved by shareholders on May 7, 2025. In accordance with the terms of the omnibus equity incentive plan and applicable TSX Venture Exchange policies, shareholder approval is not required for these amendments. The amended omnibus equity incentive plan remains subject to final acceptance by the TSX Venture Exchange.
2025 Year-End Disclosure Documents

The Company's annual information form ("AIF") for the year ended December 31, 2025, audited consolidated financial statements (the "Financial Statements") and related management's discussion and analysis ("MD&A") for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 have been filed with Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Osisko Development has also filed its Annual Report Form 40-F consisting of its AIF, Financial Statements and MD&A for the year ended December 31, 2025 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

These filings are available on the Company's website at www.osiskodev.com, on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov) under Osisko Development's issuer profile. Hard copies of these documents are available to shareholders of the Company upon written request to the Company's Investor Relations department, 1100, Av. des Canadiens-de-Montreal, Suite 300, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3B 2S2 or to [email protected].

Qualified Persons

The scientific, geological and technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Scott Smith, P. Geo., Vice President, Exploration of Osisko Development, who is considered a "qualified person" within the meaning of National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101").

Technical Reports

Scientific and technical information relating to the Cariboo Gold Project and the 2025 Feasibility Study on the Cariboo Gold Project is supported by the technical report titled "NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study for the Cariboo Gold Project, District of Wells, British Columbia, Canada" and dated June 11, 2025 (with an effective date of April 25, 2025) (the "Cariboo Technical Report").

Scientific and technical information relating to the Tintic Project and the current mineral resource estimate for the Trixie deposit (the "2024 Trixie MRE") is supported by the technical report titled "NI 43-101 Technical Report, Mineral Resource Estimate for the Trixie Deposit, Tintic Project, Utah, United States of America" and dated April 25, 2024 (with an effective date of March 14, 2024) (the "Tintic Technical Report" and, together with the Cariboo Technical Report, the "Technical Reports").

For readers to fully understand the information in the Technical Reports, reference should be made to the full text of the Technical Reports in their entirety, including all assumptions, parameters, qualifications, limitations and methods therein. The Technical Reports are intended to be read as a whole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The Technical Reports were prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and are available electronically on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov) under Osisko Development's issuer profile and on the Company's website at www.osiskodev.com.

ABOUT OSISKO DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Osisko Development Corp. is a continental North American gold development company focused on past producing mining camps with district scale potential. The Company's objective is to become an intermediate gold producer through the development of its flagship, fully permitted, 100%-owned Cariboo Gold Project, located in central British Columbia, Canada. Its project pipeline is complemented by the Tintic Project located in the historic East Tintic mining district in Utah, U.S.A., a brownfield property with significant exploration potential, extensive historical mining data, and access to established infrastructure. Osisko Development is focused on developing long-life mining assets in mining-friendly jurisdictions while maintaining a disciplined approach to capital allocation, development risk management, and mineral inventory growth.

For further information, visit our website at www.osiskodev.com or contact:

CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS

Cautionary Statement Regarding Financing Risks

The Company's development and exploration activities are subject to financing risks. As of the date hereof, the Company has exploration and development assets which may generate periodic revenues through test mining but has no mines in the commercial production stage that generate positive cash flows. The Company cautions that test mining at its operations could be suspended at any time. The Company's ability to explore for and discover potential economic projects, and then to bring them into production, is highly dependent upon its ability to raise equity and debt capital in the financial markets. Any projects that the Company develops will require significant capital expenditures. To obtain such funds, the Company may sell additional securities including, but not limited to, the Company's shares or some form of convertible security, the effect of which may result in a substantial dilution of the equity interests of the Company's shareholders. Alternatively, the Company may also sell a part of its interest in an asset in order to raise capital. There is no assurance that the Company will be able to raise the funds required to continue its exploration programs and finance the development of any potentially economic deposit that is identified on acceptable terms or at all. The failure to obtain the necessary financing(s) could have a material adverse effect on the Company's growth strategy, results of operations, financial condition and project scheduling.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Test Mining Not Supported by a Feasibility Study

Certain operations of the Company including prior test mining activities at the Tintic Project's Trixie test mine, have operated without the benefit of a feasibility study including mineral reserves, demonstrating economic and technical viability, and, as a result, there may be increased uncertainty of achieving any particular level of recovery of material or the cost of such recovery. The Company cautions that historically, such projects have a much higher risk of economic and technical failure. There is no guarantee that commercial production will commence, continue as anticipated or at all or that anticipated production costs will be achieved. The failure to commence or continue production would have a material adverse impact on the Company's ability to generate revenue and cash flow to fund operations. Failure to achieve the anticipated production costs would have a material adverse impact on the Company's cash flow and potential profitability.

Cautionary Statement to U.S. Investors

As a foreign private issuer under U.S. securities laws that files reports under the Canada-U.S. multijurisdictional disclosure system, the Company is permitted to prepare and report information regarding mineral properties, mineralization and estimates of mineral reserves and mineral resources, including the information in its technical reports, financial statements and MD&A, in accordance with Canadian reporting requirements, which are governed by NI 43-101. As such, such information concerning mineral properties, mineralization and estimates of mineral reserves and mineral resources, including the information in its technical reports, financial statements and MD&A, is not comparable to similar information made public by most companies subject to U.S. mineral property disclosure requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").

Further to recent amendments, U.S. mineral property disclosure requirements (the "SEC Rules") are now governed by subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K under the U.S. Securities Act. Under the SEC Rules, the SEC now recognizes estimates of "measured mineral resources", "indicated mineral resources" and "inferred mineral resources." In addition, the SEC has amended its definitions of "proven mineral reserves" and "probable mineral reserves" to be "substantially similar" to the corresponding standards adopted by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, adopted by the CIM Council ("CIM Standards"), which is the required definition standard adopted by NI 43-101. While the SEC will now recognize "measured mineral resources", "indicated mineral resources" and "inferred mineral resources", U.S. investors should not assume that any part or all of the mineralization in these categories will ever be converted into a higher category of mineral resources or into mineral reserves. Mineralization described using these terms has a greater amount of uncertainty as to its existence and feasibility than mineralization that has been characterized as reserves. Accordingly, U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any measured mineral resources, indicated mineral resources, or inferred mineral resources that the Company reports are or will be economically or legally mineable. Further, "inferred mineral resources" have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined legally or economically. Therefore, U.S. investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of the "inferred mineral resources" exist. Under NI 43-101, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies or economic studies except for preliminary economic assessments. While the above terms are "substantially similar" to CIM Standards, there are differences in the definitions under the SEC Rules and the CIM Standards. Accordingly, there is no assurance any mineral reserves or mineral resources that the Company may report as "proven mineral reserves", "probable mineral reserves", "measured mineral resources", "indicated mineral resources" and "inferred mineral resources" under NI 43-101 would be the same had the Company prepared the reserve or resource estimates under the SEC Rules.

Risks related to the development of the Cariboo Gold Project

The development of a new mining operation, including the construction of processing facilities, tailings storage infrastructure, access roads, power supply and other supporting infrastructure, is a complex and costly undertaking. The Cariboo Gold Project remains in the development stage and there is no certainty that it will be brought into commercial production within anticipated timelines, at anticipated costs, or at all. The results of the Cariboo Technical Report are based on a number of assumptions, including, among others, geological interpretations, estimated mineral resources and mineral reserves, metallurgical recoveries, construction schedules, capital and operating costs, labour and equipment availability, transportation and energy costs, regulatory requirements, and projected commodity prices. These assumptions are inherently uncertain and may prove to be inaccurate.

Actual results, costs and development timelines may differ materially from those currently anticipated due to factors such as: unforeseen geological conditions; changes to mine plan optimization; equipment failures; shortages of skilled labour and contractors; increases in the cost of materials, equipment or energy; design modifications; delays related to permitting or receipt of government approvals; adverse weather or climate conditions; and community and/or Indigenous opposition. In addition, the development of mining projects often requires substantial capital expenditures, and delays or cost overruns may require the Company to seek additional financing, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all. If the Company is unable to complete construction and development of the Cariboo Gold Project on a timely and cost-effective basis, or if operating performance following commissioning is materially lower than expected, the project may fail to achieve anticipated economic results. Any such events could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.

CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This news release contains "forward-looking information" (within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws) and "forward-looking statements" (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended) (collectively, "forward-looking statements"). Such forward-looking statements, by their nature, require Osisko Development to make certain assumptions and necessarily involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance and are identified with words such as "may", "will", "would", "could", "expect", "believe", "plan", "anticipate", "intend", "estimate", "potential", "propose", "project", "outlook", "foresee", "continue", "objective", "strategy", variants of these words or the negative or comparable terminology, as well as terms usually used in the future and the conditional. Information contained in forward-looking statements is based upon certain material assumptions that were applied in drawing a conclusion or making a forecast or projection, including statements pertaining to: the availability and use of proceeds of the 2025 Financing Facility (including the ability and timing to satisfy conditions precedent to subsequent draws under the 2025 Financing Facility (if at all)); continued advancement and de-risking of the Cariboo Gold Project (if at all); the ability to develop the Cariboo Gold Project; the exploration potential and prospectivity (if any) of its properties; expectations regarding the Company's capital requirements to advance the Cariboo Gold Project to production; the ability of the Company to raise or arrange for the remaining funding required to complete the construction of the Cariboo Gold Project; the Company's strategy and objectives relating to the Cariboo Gold Project as well as its other projects; the impact of the 2025 Financing Facility, private placement financings, prospectus offerings, or proceeds of warrant exercises on the Company and its financial position and allocation; the ability of the Company to service and repay principal related to the 2025 Financing Facility whether from the operation of Cariboo or other sources of funds; the assumptions, qualifications and limitations relating to the Cariboo Gold Project being fully permitted and the advancement of pre-construction and early works activities; the ability, progress and timing in respect of pre-construction activities at Cariboo including the 13,000-metre infill drill program, and other surface infrastructure works; the ability, progress and timing in respect of exploration and infill drilling activities planned in 2026 at the Cariboo Gold Project and on regional targets; the ability of exploration work to support new discoveries at the Cariboo Gold Project (if at all); the utility and significance of the infill drill program and its ability to inform resource modeling, mine planning and stope design procedures and parameters (if at all); the contemplated work plan and activities at the Cariboo Gold Project and the timing, scope and results thereof and associated costs thereto; the resumption and continuation of planned site activities at the Cariboo Gold Project following the January 2026 fatal incident; the anticipated timing for the Bonanza Ledge water treatment plant to become fully operational in the second quarter of 2026; expectations regarding the improvement of underground development rates as the ramp advances beyond the Lowhee fault zone; the continuation of surface exploration drilling activities and receipt of assay results; the continuation of surface infrastructure construction, including the waste rock storage facility, sediment control pond, mine site complex early works and other critical infrastructure; expectations that the expanded camp will provide accommodation capacity aligned with peak construction manpower requirements; the ability and expectations of infill conversion drilling to upgrade inferred resources to higher level confidence resource categories with potential to be converted into mineral reserves (if at all); the utility and significance of the 2026 infill drill program; the anticipated benefits (if any) of the inclusion in the GDXJ resulting in enhanced market visibility, trading liquidity and broader investor access; the duration of the Company's inclusion in the GDXJ; any future potential rebalances and levels of exposure over which the Company has no discretion and any impacts to trading volumes as a result thereof; assumptions, qualifications and parameters underlying the Cariboo Technical Report (including, but not limited to, the mineral resources, mineral reserves, production profile, mine design and project economics); the results of the Cariboo Technical Report as an indicator of quality and robustness of the Cariboo Gold Project, as well as other considerations that are believed to be appropriate in the circumstances; the ability of the Company to achieve the estimates outlined in the Cariboo Technical Report in the timing contemplated (if at all); the ability to achieve the capital and operating costs outlined in the Cariboo Technical Report (if at all); the ability of the Company to sustain ongoing small-scale processing and mining activities at the Tintic Project (if at all); the continuation of limited activities beyond care and maintenance continuing at the Tintic Project; the significance and impact of the definitive project and construction management services agreement with JDS Energy & Mining Inc. on the development of the Cariboo Gold Project; that the Company will receive deferred consideration payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the relevant agreements, on a basis consistent with our expectations in relation to the divestment of the San Antonio Gold Project; in the event any deferred payment is not paid to Osisko Development, it will be able to enforce its rights under the relevant agreements in a manner consistent with its expectations in relation to the divestment of the San Antonio Gold Project; the potential impact of tariffs and other trade restrictions (if any); mineral resource category conversion; the future development and operations at the Cariboo Gold Project and the Tintic Project; the results of ongoing stakeholder engagement; the capital resources available to the Company; the ability of the Company to access capital as and when required and on terms acceptable to the Company; the ability of the Company to execute its planned activities, including as a result of its ability to seek additional funding or to reduce planned expenditures; management's perceptions of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments; future mining activities; the ability and timing for Cariboo to reach commercial production (if at all); sustainability and environmental impacts of operations at the Company's properties; the results (if any) of further exploration work to define and expand mineral resources; the ability of exploration work (including drilling and sampling) to accurately predict mineralization; the ability of the Company to expand mineral resources beyond current mineral resource estimates; the ability of the Company to complete its exploration and development objectives for its projects in the timing contemplated and within expected costs (if at all); the ongoing advancement of the deposits on the Company's properties; future gold prices; the costs required to advance the Company's properties; the ability to adapt to changes in gold prices, estimates of costs, estimates of planned exploration and development expenditures; the profitability (if at all) of the Company's operations; regulatory framework remaining defined and understood as well as other considerations that are believed to be appropriate in the circumstances, and any other information herein that is not a historical fact may be "forward looking information". Osisko Development considers its assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available but cautions the reader that their assumptions regarding future events, many of which are beyond the control of Osisko Development, may ultimately prove to be incorrect since they are subject to risks and uncertainties that affect Osisko Development and its business. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: the absence of further work stoppages or suspensions at the Cariboo Gold Project; risks relating to third-party approvals, including the issuance of permits by governments, favourable regulatory conditions and approvals, capital market conditions and the Company's ability to access capital on terms acceptable to the Company for the contemplated exploration and development at the Company's properties; the absence of unforeseen ground conditions or other geological challenges; the ability to continue current operations and exploration; regulatory framework and presence of laws and regulations that may impose restrictions on mining; errors in management's geological modelling; the timing and ability of the Company to obtain and maintain required approvals and permits; the results of exploration activities; the availability of necessary equipment, supplies and infrastructure; risks relating to exploration, development and mining activities; the global economic climate; fluctuations in metal and commodity prices; fluctuations in the currency markets; dilution; environmental risks; and community, non-governmental and governmental actions and the impact of stakeholder actions. Osisko Development is confident a robust consultation process was followed in relation to its received BC Mines Act and Environmental Management Act permits for the Cariboo Gold Project and continues to actively consult and engage with Indigenous nations and stakeholders. While any party may seek to have the decision related to the BC Mines Act and/or Environmental Management Act permits reviewed by the courts, the Company does not expect that such a review would, were it to occur, impact its ability to proceed with the construction and operation of the Cariboo Gold Project in accordance with the approved BC Mines Act and Environmental Management Act permits. Readers are urged to consult the disclosure provided under the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2025 as well as the financial statements and MD&A for the year ended December 31, 2025, which have been filed on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) under Osisko Development's issuer profile and on the SEC's EDGAR website (www.sec.gov), for further information regarding the risks and other factors facing the Company, its business and operations. Although the Company believes the expectations conveyed by the forward-looking statements are reasonable based on information available as of the date hereof, no assurances can be given as to future results, levels of activity and achievements. The Company disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, except as required by law. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance and there can be no assurance that these forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release. No stock exchange, securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained herein.

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/32e7a39a-2b45-4518-bf95-8793e37c0f57
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/b61d3aee-a39f-46cc-8a72-368d2d88b7a0
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/c9441604-6681-461f-9562-b1a3574bb9d0
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/12848490-345b-4ccc-9cae-4ac7a8800da9
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/467a8a89-f454-418e-bcc5-404f79550a38
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/529fae59-f14f-4b1b-915d-3d75869a1e87

SAN FRANCISCO, March 27, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Investors in ADMA Biologics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADMA) saw the price of their shares slide over 16% on March 24, 2026 on short seller Culper Research’s report, “ADMA Biologics Inc. (ADMA): Channel Stuffing, an Undisclosed Related Party Distributor, and -3.5% Real Growth in 2025 vs. +20% Reported.”

The developments have prompted national shareholders rights firm Hagens Berman to investigate whether ADMA may have violated the federal securities laws.

The firm urges investors in ADMA who suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages witnesses who may be able to assist in the firm’s investigation to contact its attorneys.

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/adma
Contact the Firm Now: [email protected]
                                       844-916-0895

ADMA Biologics, Inc. (ADMA) Investigation:

ADMA Biologics is a U.S. based, end-to-end commercial biopharmaceutical company that manufactures, markets, and develops specialty biologics for the treatment of immunodeficient patients at risk for infection and others at risk for certain infectious diseases.

One of the company’s main products is ASCENIV, a product indicated for the treatment of Primary Humoral Immunodeficiency.

The investigation is focused on ADMA’s repeated assurances that its financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and that its internal control over financial reporting is effective.

Investors’ expectations were dashed on March 24, 2026, when Culper published its findings. Among the matters Culper reported was ADMA’s skyrocketing days sales outstanding (“DSO”), which Culper reported as 113 days as of December 31, 2025 compared to 43 days at the prior year end.

Culper explained the DSO spike, saying “[w]e spoke with two high-level employees at one of ADMA’s two largest distributors, each of whom told us independently that starting in 2025, ADMA induced the distributor to stock excess ASCENIV by offering rebates and extended payment terms in order to meet order expectations[]” and explained that “[d]istributors take unwanted product without having to pay for it, ADMA books the revenues, and reports growth that was never there.”

Culper also said “[w]e believe that, had ADMA held payment terms steady rather than extending terms to inflate reported revenues, the Company would have reported year-over-year revenue declines of 3% in 2025[,]” concluding that “more than the entirety of ADMA’s reported growth is explained by channel stuffing.”

Lastly, Culper accused ADMA of concealing sales to an undisclosed related party.

The market swiftly reacted, sending the price of ADMA shares down over 16% that day, and reportedly drawing a prominent analyst downgrade from overweight to neutral.

“We’re investigating Culper’s claims and, if true, whether ADMA may have violated applicable accounting rules including revenue recognition rules,” said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm’s investigation.

If you invested in ADMA and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm’s investigation, submit your losses now »

If you’d like more information and answers to frequently asked questions about the firm’s ADMA investigation, read more »

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding ADMA should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email [email protected].

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs’ rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman’s team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. 

Contact: 
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895

Rain Protocol [RAIN], a decentralized prediction markets protocol, has lost more than 17% in the past 24 hours as of writing. This was the case even though the protocol was supported by Enlivex [Nasdaq: ENLV] as the Digital Asset Treasury (DAT), which aided in the shift to capital markets.

Historical performance of RAIN crypto While the overall market fell by around 3%, RAIN fell by double digits. The altcoin fell by 9.5% in Q1 2026, after rising in the third and fourth quarters of 2025.

In Q3, the altcoin rose by more than 378% as Q4 closed 112% higher. For the first quarter of 2026, only January has been bullish, where RAIN recorded 23% in gains, as February and March lost 6.41% and 21.6%, respectively.

Source: CryptoRank While the altcoin’s price continues to crash, it still commands a significant market cap of around $3.89 billion. Will the market cap continue to fall as sell volume rises to $46 million?

RAIN price loses a KEY support level  On the charts, the altcoin has been trading inside a consolidation since the beginning of February. The Bollinger Bands (BB) had been tight during this period and expanded upon breakdown below $0.0082.

The Balance of Power indicator was choppy and in the negative territory with a reading of 0.96. This reading was an indication that sellers were the stronger force at the time of writing.

Now, holding below the key support level at $0.0082 while volatility stays high would push the cap toward $3.5 billion.

Conversely, a reclaim of this level alongside the middle band of the BB would invalidate the outlook. Therefore, it would be deemed a fakeout, turning the structure bullish if RAIN breaks above $0.0092.

Source: RAIN/USDT on TradingView This is because bulls rejected the breakdown, resulting in a strong green candle. However, RAIN had to maintain the rebound momentum to invalidate the structure break.

What accelerated selling pressure? Meanwhile, it’s worth noting what was behind this sharp drop that was swiftly recovered. For instance, the daily token volume has been rising for the past week, with the high being $28.84 million.

The data showed that the volume came from sellers as the price dropped. For its Total Value Locked (TVL), it remained flat around $4 million since the start of February.

Source: DefiLlama To be specific, the selling of tokens was driven mainly by the Token Millionaire wallet. As per Nansen AI, more than $10 million in RAIN was offloaded as the portfolio’s valuation dropped from $80 million to $69 million.

Source: Nansen AI The volume data showed that the selling pressure came from big holders and retailers. However, institutions like Enlivex were buying, even reporting profits of $1.23 billion following their treasury around the Rain Protocol.

Final Summary RAIN loses 17% of its market cap, but price action recovers swiftly shortly after. The next price move for RAIN depended on its reaction around $0.0082 and $0.0092. 

A veteran Bitcoin evangelist who entered the market when most people had never heard the word “blockchain” is now pointing the finger at the Trump family, not a crypto exchange, as many think, for the liquidation chaos that shook the crypto industry last October. 

Davinci Jeremie, one of the earliest known Bitcoin adopters, recently shared his unfiltered take on what he believes caused the October 10, 2025, crash.

What Davinci Jeremie Actually Believes The October 10, 2025, crypto market crash is one of the most debated events of the current cycle, with traders still split over what really triggered the sudden collapse in price. In the months since, several theories have surfaced, ranging from Binance-led liquidations to coordinated sell attacks.

Speaking on The Sujal Show, Jeremie offered a perspective that was politically charged. In his view, the Trump family’s financial interests provide a simpler explanation for what happened to the crypto market on that day.

“I think obviously the Trump family. It’s clear right now that the Trump family wants to push crypto down so that they can get as much as they want,” Jeremie said.

According to the early Bitcoin believer, wealthy participants approach markets differently. In his words, short-term thinking dominates retail behavior, with many looking for quick gains or rapid wealth creation. Large players, however, operate on extended timelines, often spanning five to ten years. “If you’re wealthy, you don’t think in short terms as most people do; you think in long terms,” he said.

The Binance Theory That Took Over Crypto Jeremie’s take stands in opposition to the explanation that dominated industry discourse in the months following October 10. 

The October 2025 crypto crash, primarily on October 10, saw over $19 billion in leveraged positions liquidated within 24 hours. The sell-off began shortly after Donald Trump signaled plans to impose an additional 100% tariff on Chinese imports. That caused traders to dump risky investments, from stocks to Bitcoin. However, that crash was much more pronounced on the crypto market than expected.

After the immediate aftermath of the crash, much of the attention was directed to crypto exchange Binance. The exchange quickly became the focal point of speculation, with many pointing to liquidation cascades on its derivatives platform as the primary reason for the crash.

The theory was amplified after OKX CEO Star Xu went public with his criticisms, which were based on Binance’s promotional campaign that offered 12% APY on USDe. 

According to Star Xu, the campaign by Binance blurred the line between USDe and stablecoins like USDT and USDC, and retail investors were not aware of the systemic risks relating to the synthetic stablecoin ecosystem.

Davinci Jeremie is known as one of the earliest Bitcoin adopters, having entered the market when BTC was trading around $1. His reputation grew significantly years later when an old YouTube video resurfaced of him urging viewers to buy at least $1 worth of Bitcoin. The clip has since become one of the most referenced moments in crypto history.

BTC trading at $67,760 on the 1D chart | Source: BTCUSDT on Tradingview.com Featured image from Pngtree, chart from Tradingview.com

TL;DR:

Bittensor (TAO) records an 86% monthly increase following endorsement from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, reaching a market cap of $3.55 billion. Hyperliquid (HYPE) consolidates its position in the global top 10 with a price of $38.79 and three spot ETF applications filed with the SEC. The CLARITY Act is shaping up to be the definitive catalyst in April, allowing U.S. banks to hold digital assets on their balance sheets. In the last few hours, a “smart money” accumulation centered on Hyperliquid and Bittensor has been observed. Financial entities have positioned themselves aggressively ahead of the implementation of the CLARITY Act, seeking assets with solid technological fundamentals and backing from major funds.

During the first quarter of 2026, Bittensor generated more than $43 million in revenue from AI services, while Hyperliquid recorded a record 229,818 active traders. In the case of value locked within TAO subnets, it went from just thousands of dollars to exceeding $620 million in a single year.

Institutional impact of Grayscale and U.S. regulation Recent ETF filings are synonymous with big capital confidence. The undisputed leader of this movement is Grayscale, with filings for TAO and HYPE exchange-traded funds, followed by firms like Bitwise and 21Shares seeking to capture the value of these emerging ecosystems.

Furthermore, the integration of traditional financial products within decentralized platforms is attracting Wall Street investors. Hyperliquid already offers S&P 500 perpetuals with open interest exceeding $100 million, allowing for constant exposure to equity markets.

The sector expects the approval of the CLARITY Act in the Senate Banking Committee to release a massive flow of capital that currently remains on the sidelines. Analysts like Tim Warren suggest that this legal framework will permanently transform the structure of the altcoin market.

Figures like Jensen Huang and the burgeoning ETF infrastructure place TAO and HYPE as the preferred choices for institutions ahead of the imminent regulatory change in the United States.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) faced a deadline on Friday, March 27, to decide on several applications for spot XRP ETFs.

The agency was expected to rule on 91 pending crypto ETF applications spanning 24 tokens, including XRP.

Several spot XRP ETFs, including those from Canary Capital, Bitwise, and 21Shares, are already live and trading. These launched between September and December 2025 and now account for $1.44 billion in crypto inflows.

Among the pending filings is Grayscale’s, which seeks to convert its $2.1 billion XRP Trust into a spot ETF. Franklin Templeton awaits a ruling on its sport XRP fund while WisdomTree awaits a ruling on a batch of filings.

Online speculation points to institutional inflows of up to $8 billion following approval of the XRP-related investment products.

XRP price action and predictionTen days ago, the SEC and CFTC (Commodities and Futures Trading Commission) jointly classified XRP as a digital commodity, placing it on the same legal footing as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Community buzz around the recent SEC deadline saw XRP open interest (OI) spike 14.8% in 24h – the highest in a week. Historically, OI lows such as those in April 2025 have preceded a triple-digit percentage rally, a pattern March 2026 is mirroring.

Source: CoinGlass

On the other hand, XRP’s perpetual funding rate recently surged 158.19% to reach 0.0028. This indicates that long positions are overpowering short positions, implying bullish sentiment among derivative traders.

Nonetheless, XRP traded at $1.32 at the time of writing, having dipped 2.95% alongside the broader crypto market’s reaction to geopolitical and macroeconomic events and the Friday $13.5 billion options expiry.

Source: CoinMarketCap

Ripple developments Ripple has integrated artificial intelligence (AI) into its network, which recently helped it capture 10 bugs on the XRP Ledger. 

Further improvements to the ledger are intended to enhance consistency, strengthen security, and reinforce predictability amid rising complexity. This will hopefully address the recent rise in gas fees due to network congestion.

Furthermore, a Senate Banking Committee markup of the CLARITY Act in late April is expected to etch XRP’s status as a commodity into federal law.

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.

XRP continues to trade within a dominant bearish structure, sitting below its 50, 100, and 200 exponential moving averages — all of which are sloping downward. Every recent attempt at recovery has been rejected quickly, keeping the pattern of lower highs intact. On the surface, this looks like a textbook environment for aggressive short sellers, especially as price gravitates toward what appears to be a fragile support zone.

However, a closer look at the developing price action tells a more nuanced story. Despite the broader downtrend, selling momentum appears to be fading. XRP has quietly formed a rising local trendline while continuing to hold above its yearly low. Notably, the most recent leg down came on relatively low volume — a signal that bearish conviction may not be as strong as the chart structure implies. Repeated defenses of the current price range suggest that passive accumulation could be taking place rather than widespread capitulation.

This combination of weakening sell pressure and stubborn support creates the conditions for a classic bear trap. If XRP dips briefly below the 2026 yearly low, it could trigger a wave of short entries from traders expecting a further breakdown toward the $1.20 level or even lower. But if that breakdown fails to hold and price rapidly reclaims the range, those short positions become dangerously exposed.

A failed breakdown in a heavily shorted market can trigger rapid short covering, which in turn fuels sharp upside moves. For XRP, this means a swift reversal could catch bearish traders off guard and generate significant upward momentum. Traders and investors should watch volume and price reaction closely near current support, as the next move could be decisive for XRP's short-term direction.

<Copyright ⓒ TokenPost, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited>

TL;DR:

Decision Zone: SOL’s price sits on an upward trendline started in February; losing it could trigger massive sell-offs. Persistent Resistance: Multiple rejections in the $90 zone confirm a solid ceiling defended by sellers in the SOL/USDT pair. Downside Targets: Technical analysts point out that a confirmed breakout would pave the way toward the support range between $85 and $82. During Friday’s session, Solana managed to break a critical support in short-term timeframes after unsuccessfully attempting to clear its technical ceiling. With this market action, the asset sits at an inflection point where buyer exhaustion is evident against bearish pressure.

Currently, the divergence between trading volume and previous recovery attempts is concerning. With market capitalization under pressure and an RSI starting to lean toward oversold territory on the 6-hour chart, the probability of a bearish resolution increases if the current dynamic support level fails to attract new institutional demand.

Technical weakness and liquidation levels on the radar On the Bybit chart, Solana became trapped in a narrowing structure. Despite maintaining a series of higher lows since late February, it was unable to flip the $90 resistance into support, which weakened investor confidence.

Furthermore, the loss of momentum is reflected in smaller-bodied candles hovering dangerously close to the ascending trendline. Recent reports from Crypto Chiefs reveal that the margin of error for bulls has been reduced to a minimum, suggesting that any sustained close below the current trend would invalidate the existing consolidation structure.

Consequently, the market is closely watching the $82 zone, a level that has historically served as a base during previous pullbacks. If supply continues to outweigh demand at these levels, Solana could lead a deeper correction across the Altcoin ecosystem.

Solana is moving in an “all or nothing” scenario. While the trendline holds, there is a slight hope for a bounce; however, current technical indicators suggest that the break of critical support is the most likely scenario to play out in the short term

Bitcoin has never finished a year positive after a start this badBitcoin seasonality is one of those market narratives that stays alive because the average is easy to screenshot. The problem is that the average often hides the only thing that matters: the state.

A strong “Uptober” inside a healthy bull trend is not the same trade as a strong October after a year that spent the first quarter underwater. A positive December mean is not an edge if the median month is still negative. And a hot Q1 is not automatically a continuation signal if the market has already pulled forward most of its upside.

That is the core result here. The useful part of Bitcoin price seasonality is not the calendar alone. The interaction between month, regime, and path is far more important.

Heatmap of Bitcoin monthly returns by year from 2016 to 2026, with green gains and red losses.The first problem with the seasonality story is that averages flatter the distributionIf you only look at mean monthly returns, Bitcoin appears to offer a menu of recurring bullish windows. In the modern sample, October stands out with a mean return of 17.8%, a median of 12.7%, and an 80% win rate. July also holds up well, with a 9.1% mean return, a 12.4% median, and a 70% win rate. February and April look reasonably constructive, too.

But once you move beyond averages, the picture changes fast.

August is the cleanest example. The mean return is slightly positive at 1.9%, which sounds benign until you look underneath it: the median is -7.3%, the win rate is just 30%, and the distribution is positively skewed.

In plain English, August has not been a dependable “up month.” It has been a low-hit-rate month, occasionally rescued by a few large upside outliers.

December has the same problem in a softer form. The mean is positive, but the median is negative and the win rate is only 40%. November is similar: a headline-positive average, but a distribution with enough variance and downside tail to make the average far more flattering than the lived experience of holding risk through it.

May is another trap. The average return looks healthy, but dispersion dominates the month. The upside tail is large, the downside tail is large, and the standard deviation is high enough that “May is positive on average” tells you very little about what kind of risk you are actually taking.

Box-and-whisker chart of Bitcoin monthly returns from 2016 to 2025, showing the distribution for each month with mean and median lines.Scatter plot titled showing each month’s mean Bitcoin return versus standard deviation; October has the highest average return, while September is the only month with a negative average return.Some months are drift-dominant, where the mean, median, and win rate broadly line up. Others are variance-dominant, where the average is doing more storytelling than forecasting.

The months that look most usable are not the ones most people talk aboutThe cleanest month is October. Not because it always works (it does not), but because its average, median, and win rate all point in the same direction.

July is the next-best example. Those are the closest things in the data to stable seasonal windows.

By contrast, some of the more familiar seasonal talking points look fragile.

August’s positive mean is mostly an artifact of skew. November and December can work, but they are not clean trend months in the statistical sense. They are conditional months that need confirmation from regime and path.

That is the first big line between edge and illusion. A month with a positive average is not necessarily a month with a repeatable edge.

If the median is negative and the win rate is weak, what you have is not seasonality. What you have is optionality disguised as consistency.

Regime changes the sign of the seasonal signalThe next step was to split years into objective regimes: bull years with annual returns above 50%, bear years below -20%, and neutral years in between.

Once you do that, unconditional seasonality starts to look less like structure and more like a blended average of opposite states.

Several months flip sign depending on regime, including January, March, May, June, August, November, and December.

In other words, the same month that looks constructive in the full sample can turn negative once you isolate a weaker macro backdrop.

That is exactly what you would expect if seasonality is downstream of market state rather than independent of it.

Line chart comparing Bitcoin’s average monthly returns across bull, bear, and neutral yearly regimes, showing stronger gains in September to December during bull years and weaker late-year performance in bear years.There are only a few months that look relatively resilient across regimes. July is the strongest candidate. April is somewhat constructive as well, though less cleanly. September, meanwhile, stays weak enough across major regimes that it deserves respect as a recurring soft patch rather than a one-off anomaly.

The caveat is obvious: the bear sample is small. But that is also the point. If a seasonal claim falls apart the moment you ask whether it survives different states of the world, it was probably never a robust claim to begin with.

The real edge is path dependency, not calendar mythologyThe strongest signals are not monthly averages at all. They are state variables tied to the year’s path.

Heatmap showing probability of a positive year-end return for Bitcoin by month and whether the year is currently up or down YTD, with higher probabilities concentrated when BTC is already positive YTD.In the 2016–2025 sample, if Bitcoin was positive year-to-date after February, it finished the year positive seven out of seven times.

If it was negative year-to-date after February, it finished positive zero out of three times.

After March, the split was still material: positive YTD years finished positive five out of five times, while negative YTD years only finished positive two out of five times.

That is not a trivial distinction. It suggests that by late Q1, Bitcoin’s seasonal profile is already being filtered by whether the year is in a healthy trend or in repair mode.

The market is not simply entering “good” or “bad” months. It enters them from a specific state, which changes the forward distribution.

Heatmap showing Bitcoin month-to-month sign transitions, with the next month more likely up than down after both up and down months.Just as important, simple month-to-month sign momentum does not hold up. After an up month, the next month was positive 57.1% of the time. After a down month, the next month was positive 55.3% of the time. That is not a serious edge.

Heatmap showing Bitcoin’s probability of a positive next month by month and whether year-to-date performance is positive or negativeThe useful signal only emerges once you condition on the broader path, the YTD trajectory, the Q1 outcome, and whether the year is repairing or breaking.

A strong Q1 helps the year, but often hurts the next quarterOne of the more interesting findings is that strong early-year performance is not a clean continuation signal.

Years with Q1 returns above 20% did go on to finish positive every time. But Q2 in those years was weak on average, with a mean decline of 15.1%.

That's important because it separates direction from timing.

A hot Q1 improved the odds of a positive full-year outcome, but it also tended to pull forward returns and raise the probability of spring digestion.

In other words, the market could remain structurally constructive while still becoming tactically harder to own into Q2.

The data here does not support the leap that a positive year-level tendency is a positive entry signal for the next month or quarter.

June looks like the real decision nodeIf there is a practical seasonal checkpoint in the data, it is not a single month but the year’s condition by midyear. Years with first-half returns at or below zero never finished positive. Years with positive first-half returns finished positive seven times out of eight, with 2025 as the notable exception.

The same logic shows up in negative-Q1 years. If a weak first quarter was followed by a Q2 rebound greater than 20%, the full-year outcome improved materially.

CryptoSlate Daily Brief

Daily signals, zero noise.Market-moving headlines and context delivered every morning in one tight read.

5-minute digest 100k+ readers

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.

You’re subscribed. Welcome aboard.

If the rebound failed to clear that threshold, the year did not finish positive. That does not make Q2 destiny, but it does make it the most useful repair window in the annual path.

The implication is straightforward. Once a year opens damaged, the burden of proof shifts to Q2.

If the market cannot meaningfully repair by June, the case for leaning on second-half seasonal optimism becomes much weaker.

Why 2026 matters nowThat framework is especially relevant for 2026 because the year has already broken one of the cleaner modern path templates.

Every year, a negative January has been followed by a positive February — until now.

2026 opened with a 10% decline in January, fell another 14.8% in February, and then rebounded 6% by mid-March, leaving Q1 down around 19%.

That negative-negative-positive sequence is unusual in the modern sample, and it places 2026 in what is best described as a repair-or-failure state.

Cluster analysis maps the current year closest to a group that includes 2016, 2018, 2022, and 2025.

Scatter plot clustering Bitcoin year archetypes from 2016 to 2025 by normalized intra-year price paths, with 2021, 2023, and 2024 in the trend-bull cluster, 2016, 2018, 2022, and 2025 in repair-failure, and 2017 in an explosive supercycle outlier.Line chart comparing normalized yearly Bitcoin price trajectories with a projected 2026 path, showing 2026 sharply accelerating into year-end far above prior years and historical median trends.The correct frame for 2026 is one successful repair year, two failure years, and one rebound-without-trend year. Not “Bitcoin is usually good in Q4,” and not “the worst is over because March bounced,” but rather: can Q2 do enough work to move the year out of a damaged state?

The 2026 scenario tree is a repair test, not a seasonal layupThe most bullish likely direction from here is a genuine repair regime. That would look like a forceful Q2 recovery, some summer digestion, and then renewed upside into the back half of the year.

Historically, the closest analog is 2016, with 2020 as a more explosive upside outlier.

To even get the first half of 2026 back above flat from current levels, Bitcoin would need to compound by over 20% in Q2. To make the year look like a strong repair rather than a partial bounce, it would need substantially more.

The bearish path is a continuation failure, with 2018 and 2022 as the obvious reference points. In that path, spring strength proves tactical rather than structural, the market reopens downside later in Q2 or Q3, and the usual “good months” fail to do the heavy lifting investors expect of them.

2026 is not in a state where unconditional seasonality should be trusted. The year needs to earn a better seasonal profile through repair.

Today's sell-off is not helping the case for a bullish rebound, suggesting the potential ceiling for Bitcoin in 2026 is around $88,000.

So where is the edge?Bitcoin seasonality provides the most value in a narrow set of situations. It is useful when a month already has a strong historical distribution and the year enters that month from a healthy state. October and July are the best examples in the modern sample. They look more like genuine drift windows than variance accidents.

Seasonality is also useful as a filter on damaged years. If Bitcoin is still negative year-to-date into spring, the calendar by itself is not enough. What matters is whether Q2 can repair the year’s path. If it can, the second half becomes materially more credible. If it cannot, the market’s more optimistic seasonal narratives start to look like wishful extrapolation.

Where seasonality becomes illusion is in regime-blind averages and outlier-driven means. A positive average month with a negative median and weak win rate is not a clean edge.

A favorable calendar month inside a damaged annual path is not a setup on its own. And a strong Q1 is not a license to assume uninterrupted continuation through Q2.

The bottom lineThe market moves through January, July, and October, not in a vacuum, but in different regimes, with different YTD trajectories, after different types of first-quarter behavior.

Once you account for that, most of the broad seasonal story gets weaker, but the parts that survive become more actionable.

Bitcoin seasonality is not dead. It is just mostly conditional. The real edge is not in memorizing the “best months.” Recognizing when the market has earned the right for those months to matter is the real skill.

For 2026, that means one thing above all else: Q2 is the test.

If Bitcoin can repair enough damage by June, the second half deserves the benefit of the doubt. If not, then whatever the calendar says, the path is telling you something else.

Posted in

The market is irrevocably rattled after another delay in the Clarity Act, but Cardano has got an ace.

Market Sentiment:

Bullish Bearish Neutral

Published: March 27, 2026 │ 8:25 PM GMT

Created by Kornelija Poderskytė from DailyCoin

Cardano’s persistent bid in the $0.26 area is challenged once again: despite being under pressure, ADA’s market value kept above the key support of $0.25 for the most part of the month. However, the delays in Clarity Act & geopolitical uncertainty had taken its toll on ADA’s price this Friday, plummeting the popular altcoin to $0.24.

Cardano’s Black Horse Confronts Bearish Market TrendCardano’s (ADA) price dropped by 3.83% in the latest 24-hour period, mimicking the broader market downturn, as the top largest assets Bitcoin (BTC) & Ethereum (ETH) took in similar deficits. At the same time, Cardano untiring devs have been developing a separate private chain known as the Midnight Network, counting on interoperability between 80 blockchains.

Sponsored

The bifurcation from a highly-bearish momentum towards a neutral one occurred right after the Midnight Kūkolu completion week had begun. To further buttress the emerging liquidity shift, Cardano recently introduced the USDCx stablecoin, which is a wrapped USDC version of the regular stablecoin. This has considerably improved the chain’s total value locked (TVL).

Real-time TVL data from DefiLlamaThe USDC stablecoin is crowned Cardano’s DeFi king, capturing 36% of the stablecoin market capitalization. On the other hand, the cumulative TVL has taken a considerable hit since the late 2024 peak. Nearing nearly $1 billion then, Cardano’s DeFi now sports $171 million, losing nearly 80% of the ecosystem’s value since the pinnacle.

Fibonacci Circles Depict a Bi-Fold Scenario For CardanoThe stablecoin-driven DeFi renaissance, along with Cardano’s Midnight chain nearing a gradual mainnet launch this year, the potential for ADA price appreciation is still there. In the near term, Cardano’s (ADA) price needs to clear the $0.256 level, representing the Smoothed Moving Average (purple line).

Fibonacci Circles, a key financial instrument determining the boundaries of a downturn or a potential next leg-up, insists the $0.27 resistance level is key. Sustaining above it on a daily time-frame could align with Ali Martinez’s historical price-movement based ADA analysis.

The seasoned trader explained two different occasions when Cardano (ADA) bounced back 85% and 200%, respectively. This weekly chart analysis is based on the condition that Cardano (ADA) staysabove $0.25.

In a bearish projection, Cardano’s support at $0.235 remains critical, so closing the day outside of the lower Fibonacci Circle region could spell more trouble for ADA.

Discover DailyCoin’s hottest crypto scoops today:
97% of DeFi Projects Fail to Generate Revenue, Data Shows
Analyst: XRP’s Price Structure Is ‘Greater Than Noise’

People Also Ask:Why is $0.25 such an important level for Cardano?

It has acted as major historical support. Whenever price has dropped to this zone in past cycles, buyers have stepped in hard and sent ADA significantly higher. Right now ADA is once again testing that same area.

What does your Fibonacci Circles analysis show?

With Fibonacci Circles, the major support floor stretches down to $0.235 — this is the key zone where price could find strong buying interest. Above that, the next big resistance sits at $0.27. A clean break above $0.27 would be a bullish signal that the bounce is underway.

Could we actually see another big bounce like before?

If the $0.235–$0.25 support holds and price pushes through $0.27 resistance, the historical pattern suggests another strong move higher (potentially 80–200%+). However, if support breaks, the chart could head lower before finding new buyers.

What should newbies watch for?

Keep an eye on whether ADA holds the $0.235 Fibonacci support floor and if volume picks up on any move toward $0.27. Big bounces in the past happened when buyers defended this zone aggressively — the same setup is establishing itself again right now.

DailyCoin's Vibe Check: Which way are you leaning towards after reading this article?

Market Sentiment

100% Neutral

This article is for information purposes only and should not be considered trading or investment advice. Nothing herein shall be construed as financial, legal, or tax advice. Trading forex, cryptocurrencies, and CFDs pose a considerable risk of loss.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) price is trading at $38.27, down 2.31% on the day, as a completed double top pattern and a dense liquidation cluster at $35.03 raise the odds of an accelerated leg lower.

The token has failed to hold gains above $42.67, and the price is now consolidating. Two independent signals now define the near-term trend line.

HYPE Long Traders Should Be WorriedThe HYPE liquidation heatmap shows a dense band of leveraged long positions clustered around $35.03. Cumulative long liquidation leverage at that level totals $27.36 million. 

A move below $35.03 would trigger the forced closure of those positions in rapid succession. This would create mechanical selling pressure that could accelerate any decline well beyond the initial breakdown.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

HYPE Liquidation Heatmap. Source: CoinglassThe heatmap shows relatively thin liquidation stacking between $38 and $35, suggesting the price could slice through that range with limited friction. The absence of significant long-side leverage above $39 further limits the likelihood of a demand-driven reversal before the $35.03 test arrives.

Selling Pressure Set Dominates HYPEThe Klinger Oscillator (KVO) is currently reading 8.09K on the daily chart, sitting just above the zero line with a clear downward trajectory. The signal line (green) has already turned lower, and the KVO (blue) is converging toward a bearish crossover. 

The Klinger Oscillator measures the difference between two volume-weighted EMAs of price to gauge whether money is flowing into or out of an asset. When it rises above zero, buying pressure dominates; when it falls below zero, selling pressure takes control.

The indicator peaked near 25K in early March, coinciding with HYPE’s rally to $43.76. Since then, momentum has declined in three successive lower highs, a pattern of deteriorating buying pressure that mirrors the price action. 

HYPE KVO. Source: TradingViewA confirmed cross below zero on the KVO would shift volume-weighted momentum from bullish to bearish. Historically, on the HYPE daily chart, both prior KVO zero-line breaks preceded drawdowns. 

The 0.382 Fibonacci retracement level sits at $36.83, offering the first meaningful demand zone before price reaches the $35.03 liquidation cluster. Should the KVO break below zero while the price is below $36.83, the path to $32.33 — the 0.618 Fibonacci level — becomes the primary scenario.

HYPE Price Levels To WatchThe daily chart shows HYPE has completed a double top breakdown, now underway. Price is currently sitting at $38.27, hovering around the support at the same level. 

The pattern’s full downside projection is calculated from the breakdown point at the $35.03 neckline. This points HYPE to $21.64 on a confirmed breakdown, matching the 37.49% decline annotated on the chart.

HYPE Price Analysis. Source: TradingViewHolding $35.03 is therefore non-negotiable for bulls. Only a daily close below it would confirm the double top and open the door to $32.33 first, then $28.69. 

For the bearish thesis to be invalidated, HYPE would need to reclaim $38.80 and then push through $42.67 with conviction. A break above $42.67 would negate the double top structure entirely, shifting the bias back toward the $47.15 resistance.

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

The broader crypto space has continued to believe that Bitcoin (BTC) is in a bear market. This narrative is fueled by its recent price crash to $60,000 in February this year, reflecting a 45% decline from its all-time high above $126,000 in October 2025. However, technical analyst Crypto Patel boldly debunks this narrative. He has stated that the bear market “is not coming,” suggesting that the current market drop might be a temporary dip or “liquidity grab,” before a sharp reversal to the upside. 

Crypto Patel stated on X that the Bitcoin bear market is not coming because everyone appears to be waiting for it to happen while relying on the four-year cycle theory. The analyst explained his unique thesis by outlining a key price level on his accompanying price chart that could signal a shift in Bitcoin’s trajectory.

Crypto Patel noted that if Bitcoin can close a week above $76,000, it would suggest the current market decline was nothing more than a liquidity grab. He referred to this potential movement as an “expanded fiat deviation,” emphasizing that similar patterns have historically trapped bearish traders at every major cycle low. According to him, once this deviation begins, it could signal that the market is preparing for a major bullish reversal.

Notably, the analyst criticized those who compare the current cycle to the 2018 bear market or the 2022 market crash. Crypto Patel pointed out that, unlike the current market, in 2018, there were no spot ETFs, no Sovereign Wealth Funds accumulating BTC, no public companies holding BTC on their balance sheets, and no states building strategic Bitcoin reserves.

Source: Chart from Crypto Patel on X Similarly, in 2022, the analyst highlighted that the market collapse was entirely driven by structural failures rather than a natural cycle top. He stated that the period was marked by widespread leverage fraud, the Luna crash, the FTX collapse, and the meltdown of Celsius and Three Arrows Capital.

In contrast, Crypto Patel noted that the current cycle presents a fundamentally different macro backdrop. He emphasized that institutional inflows are surging as exchange supply hit multi-year lows. Additionally, he noted that the halving-induced supply shock is yet to be priced in. Based on these trends, the analyst suggests that today’s market dynamics are the polar opposite of past cycles.  

Analyst Outlines BTC’s Roadmap Toward $200,000 In his post, Crypto Patel shared a second level after $76,000, which he believes could propel Bitcoin to a new all-time high of $200,000 this cycle. The analyst described the $98,000 resistance area as a trigger, suggesting that a weekly close above this level would not only confirm Bitcoin’s strength but also completely invalidate its bear market thesis.

According to his bullish roadmap, once Bitcoin breaks $98,000, the market could experience a second wave of panic-driven momentum. At this point, he expects the BTC price to start pushing toward $150,000 with no pullbacks before potentially skyrocketing to $200,000.

BTC trading at $68,261 on the 1D chart | Source: BTCUSDT on Tradingview.com Featured image from Pixabay, chart from Tradingview.com

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Over the past few days, Ethereum developers and researchers have been debating whether someone can autonomously sign a contract under coercion.

Earlier this month, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) published a 38-page mandate outlining the organization’s guiding principles. This included the non-profit’s commitment to prioritizing Censorship-resistance, Open source, Privacy, and Security, or "CROPS," on Ethereum. 

While few EF employees would object to championing Ethereum as a tool for user self-sovereignty, it soon surfaced that the organization was allegedly asking employees to sign a loyalty pledge and to affirm CROPS or, reportedly, face expulsion. 

Last week, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin posted to X: "I affirm the direction set out in the mandate will help translate it into thoroughly reasoned strategies for my domain, and will maintain an exclusive and energetic focus on the mission-critical tasks necessary for its implementation, from today until my last day at the EF."

"The EF mandate text itself is a fine document with a lot of great concepts, including CROPS," former EF exec and longtime Ethereum communicator Hudson James told The Block. "Clearly there are people at the EF upset with being made to internally sign a mandate or have 'forced severance.' I support those people who don't want to be forced to sign a mandate."

"Loyalty pledges are really unhealthy, and that is what has got people worked up a lot more than The Mandate itself," EarlyDaysOfEth.org founder and STRATO Head of Ecosystem Bob Summerwill said. 

It is unclear whether the EF officially asked employees to pledge fealty or threatened termination. The Block reached out to EF representatives for confirmation.

However, like many sprawling debates on social media, the conversation quickly went meta, including concerns about whether the EF undercut the principles of CROPS, whether it needed to publish a mandate at all, and why the document featured graphic design elements seemingly inspired by the controversial Miladys NFT series. 

"I don't think that the issue is whether or not people support CROPS and going in that direction, I think that the issue is how the EF is going about it," Optimism co-founder Mark Tyneway told The Block. "The conflict is framed as 'being true to OG crypto ideals' vs 'selling out to corporate tradfi' which I believe is happening because there is no way to measure Ethereum's success."

Paul Dylan-Ennis, a lecturer at the University of Dublin and Ethereum historian, noted that "The EF Mandate has created an unnecessary cultural schism given that the people it involves - EF employees and core developers - are already aligned around CROPS values."

"The intent to reaffirm cypherpunk values is admirable, but the execution is puzzling," Dylan-Ennis said.

Cultural context The EF has long faced criticism over its communications strategy. For years, Ethereum’s branding conjured up images of rainbows and unicorns, which made for an idyllic view of the internet as a shared commons, but stood in stark contrast to the cutthroat and increasingly competitive world of crypto capitalism. 

Calls to reform the EF reached a crescendo early last year after Buterin made a comment seemingly in support of communism. Amid community backlash, the EF reorganized to pursue a more competitive agenda, with Buterin, often accused of navelgazing, announcing he would take on a larger leadership role. 

Indeed, last year the EF pushed out two major protocol upgrades — Pectra and Fusaka — and took steps to actively engage with the Ethereum ecosystem, including backing app developers and investing resources in privacy tech.

A sister organization, Etherealize, was spun up to communicate Ethereum’s utility to Wall Street. 

To some extent, Ethereum’s more competitive positioning could be seen as part of a wider realignment within the U.S. tech sector, which began to embrace "accelerationism," a philosophy perhaps best summed up by a16z’s Marc Andreessen’s techno-optimist essay "It's Time to Build," which argued for fewer regulations and more innovation.

It’s in this same cultural current that the Milady NFT series — those "neochibi" anime girls on X — was launched. Distilling Milady culture is no easy task, but a few terms supporters might use are: internet native, cypherpunk, and anti-woke. The group often espouses belief in "network spirituality," the belief that they're part of a collective, digital organization that is chaotic and creative.

Elon Musk posted a Milady meme on Twitter. Detractors, however, have described Miladys as weird, racist, and unsettling. Charlotte Fang, the pseudonymous creator of Miladys, has been linked to previous internet "performance art" projects that have been described as bigoted. 

Buterin, for reasons he has yet to fully explain, began sporting a Milady profile pic earlier this year. Many took it as a shorthand to express the pro-growth and cypherpunk elements within the Milady community, given their full-throated support for privacy, pseudonymity, censorship-resistance, self-sovereignty, and other cypherpunk principles. 

"Milady is seriously committed to free speech and free association," Ethereum commentator Tim-Clancy.ETH told The Block. "They genuinely love Ethereum as the uncensorable forever computer."

Miladys mishmash? But Buterin’s support for — and now the EF’s tacit endorsement of — Miladys has also rankled many. 

Commenting on both the EF Mandate’s pledge and Milady design elements, Lightclients, a core developer behind the widely used Ethereum client Go Ethereum (Geth), reposted this message: 

"Milady's core product is larp with the goal of growing the cult; it's entirely inward-facing. The entirety of the lore is self-referential and the gap between self-ascribed importance and actual influence is vast. The philosophy hasn't traveled any serious distance."

Many took a more pointed line against the group, noting that the Milady brand is toxic and not something that will increase mainstream adoption, while others searched for a middle ground.

"I don’t think most people have a real issue with Miladies existing or doing their thing," DCBuilder.eth told The Block, arguing against any top-down culture directive from the EF. "I just also don’t think they’re nearly as relevant or central to Ethereum culture as some people make them out to be. They’re there, but they’re not some defining force. A lot of the backlash seems more about some Ethereum or EF-adjacent people trying to push memes or aesthetics onto others who just don’t care."

It was a point echoed by Alchemix’s Scoopy Trooples, who said in a direct message, "The true spirit of crypto is anarcho-voluntarism and no one should be compelled to do anything they don’t wish to, especially milady purity tests."

Dylan-Ennis noted the ongoing debate is just another expression of Ethereum’s "cultural pluralism," and perhaps a result of Buterin trying to articulate a mission statement for Ethereum after so many years of simply implying a clear endgame. "It's being formed now, quite late into the game, as CROPS (rooted in a longer story of Make Ethereum Cypherpunk Again) and so I think it's more frantically contested, since there is much at stake, power-wise," he said. 

For others, the situation is less philosophical, though equally as emblematic of how the EF has historically operated. "EF adopting Milady culture via committee 5 years after it was cool is the most EF thing to ever happen," Joseph Delong, founder of Colossus, said. 

Disclaimer: The Block is an independent media outlet that delivers news, research, and data. As of November 2023, Foresight Ventures is a majority investor of The Block. Foresight Ventures invests in other companies in the crypto space. Crypto exchange Bitget is an anchor LP for Foresight Ventures. The Block continues to operate independently to deliver objective, impactful, and timely information about the crypto industry. Here are our current financial disclosures.

© 2026 The Block. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

XRP is under selling pressure. Weeks of consolidation below $1.50 have given way to a test of critical support. And quietly, an indicator that most traders are not watching has just flipped in a direction they should care about.

An Arab Chain report tracking risk-adjusted performance data on Binance has identified a shift that the price chart is not yet reflecting: XRP’s Sharpe Ratio has moved into positive territory at 0.0267, while the 30-day average return has climbed to 0.00063 — a modest but meaningful reading that marks the first sustained improvement in risk-adjusted returns following months of negative and near-zero readings.

These are not large numbers. That is precisely the point. The Sharpe Ratio does not need to be high to be significant — it needs to be moving in the right direction after an extended period of moving in the wrong direction. For XRP, that directional shift is new, it is recent, and it is happening while the price is still under pressure.

That divergence — between what the risk-adjusted data is signaling and what the spot market is doing — is where the most important market information tends to live. The price reflects the present. The indicator is measuring something further out.

The Indicator Spent Four Months in the Red. March Changed That Arab Chain’s historical read of the data places the current positive reading in its proper context. From October through late December, the Sharpe Ratio remained in negative or near-zero territory — a sustained period in which XRP holders were bearing risk that their returns were not compensating them for. That is not a temporary fluctuation. That is a regime, and it lasted the better part of a quarter.

Binance: XRP Sharpe Ratio | Source: CryptoQuant The February capitulation marked the low point of that regime. When XRP’s price collapsed sharply in early February, the indicator registered its most negative reading of the entire period — the moment when risk was highest, and returns were most punishing simultaneously. What followed was not an immediate recovery but a gradual one: the Sharpe Ratio began climbing as price stabilized, and March delivered the decisive shift, with the 30-day average return rising enough to push the indicator into positive territory for the first time since the cycle began deteriorating.

Arab Chain frames the forward scenario with appropriate precision. If the Sharpe Ratio continues climbing — if returns improve while volatility stays contained — the data supports a progressively more stable bullish setup. If it reverses into negative territory, the stress regime returns.

The indicator has crossed. The price has not followed yet. One of them will move toward the other.

The XRP Support That Was Holding Is Now Being Tested XRP is trading at $1.3365, down 1.79% on the day. The session opened at $1.3608, reached $1.3726, and has sold off to a session low of $1.3340 — a candle that opened, rejected immediately, and has spent the remainder of the day pressing toward levels not seen since the February capitulation floor. Today’s price action is not ambiguous. It is a breakdown attempt.

XRP consolidates around the $1.33 support | Source: XRPUSDT chart on TradingView The daily chart context makes today’s move consequential rather than routine. XRP has been in a confirmed downtrend since November 2025, producing a sequence of lower highs without exception — the January rally to $2.40, the post-capitulation bounce to $1.65, the March recovery attempt to $1.55, each one sold into at a lower level than the one before. The structure has not produced a single higher high in five months.

All three moving averages are declining in sequence, and the price trades beneath all of them. The 50-day MA has crossed below the 100-day MA, confirming the death cross on the intermediate timeframe. The 200-day MA descends from approximately $2.20, so far above the current price that it offers no near-term reference point.

The February capitulation wick to $1.15 is the last meaningful support on this chart. Today’s close at $1.3365 is pressing toward the lower boundary of the post-capitulation range. A daily close below $1.33 puts $1.15 back in play — not as a prediction, but as the next structural level the chart exposes if the current floor gives way.

Featured image from ChatGPT, chart from TradingView.com 

US lawmakers on Friday unveiled the Digital Asset PARITY Act — a wide‑ranging draft bill that would reshape tax and regulatory treatment for digital assets while drawing immediate criticism for excluding Bitcoin (BTC). 

Introduced by Representatives Max Miller and Steven Horsford, the measure would, among other changes, create a narrow tax exemption for small stablecoin transactions and alter how staking income is treated. 

Key PARITY Act Provisions Under the PARITY proposal, regulated payment stablecoins used in transactions worth less than $200 would be exempt from recognizing gains or losses, provided the stablecoin’s price remains within 1% of its dollar peg at the time of payment. 

The bill also contains several other notable provisions, on staking for example, as it seeks to change the tax timing for income earned by passive participants in proof‑of‑stake (PoS) networks, permitting those “passive stakers” to defer the immediate tax consequences of staking rewards. 

Yet the bill’s approach to staking and mining has become a focal point for criticism. The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) has been one of the most vocal opponents, arguing that PARITY’s staking deferral provisions create an uneven, technology‑biased tax regime that disadvantages proof‑of‑work (PoW) networks such as Bitcoin. 

BPI Objection Over Bitcoin Exclusion The Bitcoin Policy Institute contends the draft perpetuates the “phantom income” problem that both miners and stakers previously acknowledged needed legislative relief, but solves it only for stakers. 

The organization warned that by offering deferral to staking participants while leaving miners outside the relief, the bill effectively penalizes mining and undermines technological neutrality.

BPI called the imbalance “a two‑tier tax regime,” and urged lawmakers to remedy it by restoring a broader de minimis exemption that is not limited to stablecoins and by extending the deferral election to all block‑reward recipients — miners as well as stakers — or otherwise explicitly including mining in the relief. 

The Bitcoin Policy Institute argued these fixes are minimal but necessary steps if Congress truly intends to maintain US leadership in Bitcoin and digital asset innovation. Left unchanged, the group warned, the draft could disadvantage proof‑of‑work systems and shift innovation offshore.

The daily chart shows BTC’s price retrace to $66,000. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView.com At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at roughly $66,000, representing a 4% and almost 6% loss in the 24-hour and seven-day time frames, respectively, as the broader crypto market wraps up the week to the downside. 

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com 

Siren (SIREN), a Binance-based memecoin, is in the headlines once again after a sustained price dump saw it fall by over 62% in the past two trading days. Is this normal though? Well, a look at its price chart would suggest yes, especially since it has recorded similar moves in the past.

Valued at $0.875 at press time, as expected, the memecoin’s market cap fell significantly too – From $1.835 billion to $637.42 million in just 24 hours.

Upon examining the price and market cap, it would seem that market participants may be hesitant to engage with the token. Especially since the trading volume also declined by 14.81% to $90.87 million.

Hence, the question – What is potentially driving SIREN’s price lower?

Why is SIREN’s price falling? The broader market sentiment has been bearish due to the ongoing war between the U.S, Israel, and Iran. Thanks to the same, major assets including Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Solana (SOL) have all fallen on the charts lately. However, it would seem that the crypto meme sector is facing the strongest share of selling pressure so far. 

Another factor that has the potential to drag SIREN’s price down is its concentration. According to Arkham Intelligence, for instance, a single entity now holds approximately 88% of the circulating supply. This significantly increases the risk of price manipulation for SIREN.

Meanwhile, SIREN’s recent breakdown below the key support level at $0.99 has further strengthened the selling pressure.

Price action and key levels to watch  On the daily chart, SIREN turned bearish after it lost control of a key support level at $0.9952. The chart showed that the memecoin had held this level since 22 March, with the price testing it multiple times. However, it lost its hold today.

Source: TradingView If SIREN closes a daily or four-hour candle below this level, it could continue its downtrend and may reach the next support at $0.78 in the coming days.

Additionally, the technical indicator Average Directional Index (ADX)—which measures trend strength—hit 53.65, well above the key threshold of 25. This hinted at strong directional momentum for SIREN.

SIREN – Derivatives data signal bearish sentiment According to Coinglass, bulls were hit the hardest during this decline. $2.94 million worth of leveraged positions were liquidated over the past 24 hours, with $1.96 million coming from long positions, while only $982.83K in short positions were liquidated during the same period.

Source: Coinglass At press time, traders were continuing to eye short-leveraged positions, with $0.8217 and $0.9515 emerging as two key levels where traders seemed to be over-leveraged.

At these levels, traders built $891.08K worth of long positions and $1.79 million worth of short positions. This suggested that bullish interest in SIREN might be fading as bears continue to dominate the memecoin.

Source: Coinglass Final Summary  SIREN plummeted by 54% over the past 24 hours, with price action suggesting that the $0.78-level could be the next support for the memecoin. In the memecoin market, sellers have remained dominant, with $1.79 million in short-leveraged positions compared to $891.08K in long positions.