Market Signal Briefing

Innovations often (but not always) drive life-changing returns for the companies that engineer them and the people who get in on the ground floor. That's why investors should sometimes look toward smaller, innovative companies, as some have highly attractive upside potential.

One such corporation to consider is TransMedics Group (TMDX +7.78%), which is helping revolutionize the organ transplant market. For those with $5,000 to spare (outside of your emergency fund), here's why investing that money in TransMedics Group could lead to monster returns.

Image source: Getty Images.

TransMedics' breakthrough Storing organs for transplants isn't easy. The traditional cold storage method has significant drawbacks. Many (in some cases, most) organs that are kept and transported that way end up deteriorating and becoming unusable for transplant. That's a problem, considering there aren't enough organs available for transplants.

TransMedics developed its Organ Care System (OCS), devices that mimic the physiology of the human body to help keep organs in good-enough shape for longer. The result? Fewer organs deteriorate, and more of them are saved for patients. The OCS is approved for heart, lung, and liver transplants.

Today's Change

(

7.78

%) $

10.46

Current Price

$

145.03

How does it compare to cold storage? The OCS's utilization for livers, hearts, and lungs is 98%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. In cold storage, utilization for these three organs is 61%, 24%, and 20%, respectively. TransMedics Group has created a better mousetrap, and the company has been rewarded for it. The company's revenue and earnings have increased rapidly in recent years.

TMDX Revenue (Quarterly) data by YCharts

It has encountered some issues, including problems with organ transport. TransMedics' reliance on third-party charter aircraft came with a host of headwinds, including delays, pilot shortages, and others. However, the medical device manufacturer has since built its own dedicated transportation network that has helped it address these problems.

What's next for TransMedics Group? TransMedics could see its revenue and earnings continue moving in the right direction, along with the organ transplant market. And if it captures a higher share of that space, its stock price could soar. Further, it is developing newer versions of its OCS for the heart, liver, and lungs, aiming to eventually target other organs.

However, there are some risks. For instance, developing these organ transplant systems isn't easy and requires jumping through regulatory hoops. Setbacks here could sink the stock, especially since the company will need to stay innovative to remain competitive in this niche of the healthcare industry.

TransMedics' fleet of aircraft also isn't easy or cheap to maintain -- while it now has more control over its transportation network, that comes with its own set of risks. Investors should monitor these (and other) potential challenges. But if TransMedics can manage them while increasing its market share, the stock could skyrocket in the next decade or so.

Trust Stamp Inc (NASDAQ:IDAI, ISE:AIID) President Andrew Gowasack talked with Proactive about the company’s major new partnership with IDetect Inc., bringing real-time DMV data verification into physical security environments for the first time at scale.

Gowasack described the agreement as “a massive win” for Trust Stamp, explaining that IDetect serves over 70 industries, including major hospitality brands and casinos.

Through this partnership, Trust Stamp’s technology will now be integrated directly into existing entrance security infrastructure, significantly expanding its real-world footprint.

IDetect CEO Michael Sengstaken added that after 26 years of validating IDs, the company sees this as a major evolution in entrance security.

Proactive: Welcome back inside our Proactive newsroom, and joining me now is Andrew Gowasack, President of Trust Stamp. Andrew, it's great to see you again. How are you?

Andrew Gowasack (AG): I'm doing well. Good to see you again.

Also joining us today is the CEO of IDetect Inc., Michael Sengstaken. Michael, it's good to see you as well.

Michael Sengstaken (MS): Good to see you too.

Andrew, you’ve made a significant announcement regarding a partnership with IDetect. Tell me about this deal and what it means for Trust Stamp.

AG: This is really a massive win for Trust Stamp. IDetect is a leader in entrance security and serves over 70 industries, ranging from companies like Marriott to major casinos like Harris. Our technology will impact the physical world at a massive scale. We aren’t just adding a customer — we’re integrating data verification into the security infrastructure of some of the most recognized brands in the world.

You mentioned moving from authentication to data verification. What’s the difference, and why is it significant?

AG: A traditional ID scanner looks at the physical card, analyzing holograms or barcodes — that’s authentication. But today’s fake IDs are so sophisticated that some can pass optical scans. Through the AAMVA DLDV service, we provide data verification by pinging AAMVA to verify information against official DMV records in real time. Basically, we can ask, does this ID actually exist in your database?

Michael, tell us about IDetect and the work you do.

MS: We’ve been validating IDs for 26-plus years, and the landscape constantly evolves. Our clients have been asking for this type of solution. Instead of authenticating IDs and sometimes detecting fakes, this is black or white. It either exists in the AAMVA database and they’re allowed in, or it does not and it’s a fake ID.

What kind of adoption are you anticipating?

MS: I think it’s going to be a quick uptick. If a business allows in an ID that’s not authentic, it can cost a lot of money in fines. Three fines and they could lose their license — whether it’s a casino, bar, nightclub, or restaurant. For them, this is a layup. They really have to do it.

Andrew, combining the reputations of both companies must be powerful.

AG: Totally agree. Being able to provide our technology in the physical world for the first time at this massive scale is a huge win for us.

Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and style

AT&T Today

T

AT&T

$27.97 +0.51 (+1.85%)

As of 02/27/2026 03:59 PM Eastern

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

52-Week Range$22.95▼

$29.79Dividend Yield3.97%

P/E Ratio9.17

Price Target$29.93

On paper, a company that just turned 141 years old and increased its net income from $10.7 billion in 2024 to $21.9 billion in 2025 may not seem like a likely sell candidate. 

That argument gets even harder to make when considering that its stock is up nearly 12% this year, its forward price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple is 12.88, its net profit margin is more than 17%, and it's operating at a beta of 0.39—making it nearly 61% less volatile than the broad market.  

But when it comes to communication services mainstay AT&T NYSE: T, it might be time for swing traders and momentum traders to consider locking in profits as a regression to the stock’s moving averages could very likely be in the cards.

Get AT&T alerts:

A Combination of Short-Term Technical Indicators Are Flashing Warning Signs In November 2025, the moving averages on AT&T’s one-year chart formed a bearish death cross. However, rather than plummeting when the 200-day moving average (MA) crossed over the 50-day MA, the stock mostly traded in a range. 

That was until Jan. 27, when shares of T shot up more than 25% through Feb. 12 in defiance of both the 50- and 200-day MAs. At the time of that run-up in price, the stock’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) reading pushed as high as 81.89. 

The catalyst for that defiant run-up was the telecom company’s full-year and Q4 2025 earnings report on Jan. 28, when AT&T announced earnings per share (EPS) of 52 cents, which beat analyst expectations of 46 cents, and quarterly revenue of $33.47 billion, which beat analyst expectations of $32.91 billion.

But the rally was propelled by earnings season fervor more than it was by sound fundamentals. And when a stock’s RSI pushes that far above 70, it is typically indicative of being overbought and therefore due for a bearish price reversal. 

That is exactly what happened on the days that followed, with AT&T’s RSI being pushed down to its present 56.06. Over the same period, shares have lost nearly 5%, and there could be more than 7% additional downside potential until the stock tests its 50-day moving average around $25.46. 

For short-term traders who saw the pullback materializing, most of those earnings-induced profits could have been locked in. For those who ignored it, the company’s financials could spell more trouble ahead.

Uninspiring Revenue Growth and a Stagnant Dividend Are Cautionary Tales Beyond technicals, the company's financial metrics are failing to inspire hope for those reading between the lines. As previously mentioned, AT&T’s P/E multiple of 12.88 suggests value, but not necessarily in the short term. 

The telecom firm’s nearly 105% increase in year-over-year net income growth—from $10.7 billion in 2024 to $21.9 billion in 2025—is a bit of an outlier. Excluding 2025’s performance, AT&T’s five-year average net income is $6.14 billion, which is more than 72% lower than 2025’s net income. 

The same can be said for AT&T’s stagnant revenue growth. Over the past five years, that figure stands at -2.83%, including contractions in three out of five years (2021, 2022, and 2024).

The stock’s stagnant dividend is also a warning. AT&T cut its payout by nearly 50% in 2022, when it was yielding 7.65%. On a quarterly basis, that cut took the per-share payout from 52 cents to 27 cents. That has mostly held steady as the company’s management has prioritized debt reduction and balance sheet repair.

Long term, AT&T may find the right balance to enable it to once again increase its payout. But for the purpose of this analysis, its dividend—which has an annualized five-year growth rate of -11.80%—is less of a warning to income investors as it is a symptom of financial stress that short-term traders should continue to monitor. 

Even with the yield reduction, AT&T’s net cash from financing activities has been negative for several quarters, including -$8.78 billion in Q4 2025, underscoring the company’s ongoing struggle with substantial cash outflows for dividends, debt service, and other financing activities.

Meanwhile, in its recent earnings call, the company disclosed that near-term leverage will cause adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) to decline more than threefold by year’s end after the acquisition of Lumen Technologies’ NYSE: LUMN mass market fiber business closes—the fruits of which will not positively affect EBITDA until around 2028. 

Wall Street’s Sentiment Remains Positive Overall MarketRank™92nd Percentile

Analyst RatingModerate Buy

Upside/Downside7.0% Upside

Short Interest LevelHealthy

Dividend StrengthStrong

News Sentiment0.92 Insider TradingN/A

Proj. Earnings Growth6.07%

See Full Analysis

Despite the company’s ongoing issues, Wall Street remains mostly bullish on the stock. Of the 23 analysts currently covering T, 15 rate it Buy. Overall, it receives a Moderate Buy rating with a consensus one-year price target of $29.93.

The current short interest of 1.60%, or just over 11 million shares of the 7 billion shares outstanding, is more than 14% lower than a month ago. And despite institutional ownership of 57.10% lower than the average for large-cap stocks, inflows of more than $24 billion over the past 12 months have more than doubled outflows of just over $10 billion. 

Still, institutional selling in Q4 was higher than it has been at any point over the past three years. 

Should You Invest $1,000 in AT&T Right Now?Before you consider AT&T, you'll want to hear this.

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

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

View The Five Stocks Here

Click the link to see MarketBeat's list of seven best retirement stocks and why they should be in your portfolio.

Get This Free Report

Q4: 2026-02-25 Earnings SummaryEPS of $1.21 beats by $0.25

 |

Revenue of

$129.87M

(32.22% Y/Y)

beats by $2.28M

Sezzle Inc. (SEZL) Q4 2025 Earnings Call February 25, 2026 5:00 PM EST

Company Participants

Charles Youakim - Co-Founder, Executive Chairman & CEO
Lee Brading - Chief Financial Officer

Conference Call Participants

Mike Grondahl - Northland Capital Markets, Research Division
Rayna Kumar - Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Research Division
Harold Goetsch - B. Riley Securities, Inc., Research Division
Hoang Nguyen - TD Cowen, Research Division
Kyle Peterson - Needham & Company, LLC, Research Division

Presentation

Operator

Good day, and welcome to the Sezzle Inc. Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Charlie Youakim, CEO and Executive Chairman. Please go ahead.

Charles Youakim
Co-Founder, Executive Chairman & CEO

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to Sezzle's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Call. I'm Charlie Youakim, CEO and Executive Chairman of Sezzle. I'm joined today by our new CFO, but a familiar face and voice for you all, Lee Brading. In conjunction with this conference call, we filed our earnings announcement with the SEC and posted it along with our earnings presentation on our investor website at sezzle.com. To retrieve the documents, please go to the Investor Relations section on our website. Please be advised of the cautionary note on forward-looking statements and the reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP measures included in the presentation, which also covers our statements on today's call.

Before diving into our prepared slides, I'd like to take a step back and put 2025 in context. 2025 brought a shifting landscape for BNPL and for fintech more broadly. We continue to see the sector mature within the broader U.S. financial ecosystem as BNPL became more embedded in everyday commerce and more firmly established within the financial ecosystem. One notable development this year was the

After Nvidia (NVDA) dominated attention of the AI trade this week, George Tsilis turns to a stock that has fallen under many investors' radars: Supermicro (SMCI). As George notes, the company beat its most recent earnings but faces steepening competition against peers.

This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

© Song_about_summer / Shutterstock.com

In a move that didn’t surprise investors who had been paying attention, Duolingo (NASDAQ:DUOL) fell roughly 24% in after-hours trading on February 26 after Q4 2025 results and 2026 guidance rattled investors. Reddit sentiment collapsed from a neutral 54.6 over the past month to a bearish 25.2 this week. The stock sits at $117.45, down 33% year-to-date.

This 24/7 Wall St. infographic shows Duolingo’s (DUOL) social sentiment score has plummeted to a bearish 25.2 this week, reflecting concerns over its latest earnings and strategic direction. The catalyst is a deliberate strategic pivot as Duolingo closed 2025 with Q4 revenue of $282.9 million, up 35% year over year and ahead of estimates, but CEO Luis von Ahn was direct about what comes next: “In 2026, we are deliberately prioritizing user growth and teaching better. We’ll focus on improving the free learner experience to grow word of mouth and feed our next user growth engines like chess, math and music, even though that moderates near-term financial growth.” The company is targeting 100 million DAUs by 2028, up from 50 million today.

The financial trade-off here is notable as Q1 bookings are projected at $301.5 million, below the $329.7 million consensus estimate, and full-year bookings guidance of $1.27 to $1.30 billion trails the $1.39 billion estimate. Investors also can’t ignore that the adjusted EBITDA margin is expected to compress to roughly 25% from 29.5% in 2025.

Why Reddit Turned Bearish Overnight Duolingo earnings: Prioritizes user growth over monetization, forecasts softer bookings. Plummets -22% in after hours.
by u/Ramwen in r/stocks A single r/stocks thread accumulated 307 upvotes and 100 comments within 24 hours. The post’s title captured the community’s core frustration directly: “Duolingo earnings: Prioritizes user growth over monetization, forecasts softer bookings. Plummets -22% in after hours.” The comments split cleanly between investors who see the pivot as disciplined capital allocation and those who view it as management trading revenue quality for user count optics, with one commenter writing: “Is this disciplined long-game strategy or a sign management is sacrificing revenue quality for vanity metrics?” Three factors are driving the bearish lean:

Duolingo is voluntarily sacrificing roughly $50 million in bookings to reduce free-tier friction DAU growth is expected to decelerate to roughly 20% in 2026, down from 36% Analysts expect earnings to decline 18.5% annually over the next three years, despite an 18% revenue growth forecast Wall Street Is Less Convinced the Selloff Is Deserved Strong Buy ratings are holding steady in February, with 6 analysts viewing the company’s pivot as a medium-term setup. For the moment, the average price target of $245.40 sits 109% above the current share price, just as Needham maintained its Buy rating on February 27 while also trimming its target.

The bull case rests on AI cost economics, as Von Ahn noted, the AI video call feature is now more than ten times cheaper to run than at launch. Duolingo also authorized a $400 million share repurchase program, while holding $1.04 billion in cash and no debt. Whether the DAU growth Duolingo buys with this sacrifice converts to revenue at scale is the question the 2028 target will ultimately answer.

This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

© Wolterk / iStock Editorial via Getty Images

A household name in kitchens around the country and the world, General Mills (NYSE:GIS) shares trade at $44.93, down 24% over the past year and just $2.14 above the 52-week low of $42.79. The catalyst: a guidance reset that cut full-year organic sales by 1.5% to 2% and adjusted EPS by 16% to 20% for fiscal 2026, steeper than the prior 10% to 15% guide. CEO Jeff Harmening has rightfully acknowledged that affordability pressures are “not temporary,” as lower-income consumers shift toward private-label alternatives.

The Headline Beat Masked a Profitability Collapse If you took just a quick look at Q2 FY2026 results, everything looks fine on the surface as the company reported revenue of $4.90 billion against a $4.83 billion estimate and adjusted EPS of $1.10 versus the $1.03 consensus. Underneath, operating income fell 32% year-over-year to $728 million, net income dropped 48% to $413 million, and North America Retail saw net sales fall 13% to $2.9 billion. Management is deliberately trading near-term margin for volume recovery through promotional pricing and media spend. Harmening framed it on the Q4 FY2025 call: “For a long-term algorithm to work in the food space, about half of your growth should come from volume and half from pricing. In recent years, we witnessed record inflation, relying heavily on pricing with little volume growth.”

Reddit Is Watching, Not Buying In Retail sentiment on Reddit slipped from a quarterly average of 61 to a current weekly score of 58. Discussion is concentrated in r/investing and r/stocks, with GIS surfacing as a passive portfolio holding rather than an active thesis. One commenter in the r/stocks thread asked, “Are there any stocks hovering near their 52-wk low you’re closely watching right at the end of year, expecting selling pressure to lift?” — illustrating how retail investors are eyeing GIS near its 52-week low but remaining on the sidelines.

Are there any stocks hovering near their 52-wk low you’re closely watching right at the end of year, expecting selling pressure to lift?
by u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 in stocks Three reasons retail investors remain hesitant:

General Mills (GIS) stock has fallen 20.5% over the past year, with social sentiment drifting bearish due to collapsing net income, reduced guidance, and ongoing affordability pressures. Analyst consensus forecasts an 8.1% annual earnings decline over the next three years, with Bank of America downgrading to Neutral at $48 and Mizuho trimming its target from $52 to $47. University of Michigan consumer sentiment sits at 56.4, down 12.8% year-over-year, directly pressuring the volume recovery General Mills is banking on. CIO Donald Monk’s departure to Hormel Foods creates execution risk at a critical moment for supply chain and promotional decisions. A Low Bar With Shrinking Room for Error As of late February 2026, General Mills trades at a trailing P/E of 9.71x and yields 5.3%, metrics that have historically attracted value-oriented investors to the stock. But the analyst target range tells the real story: $42 to $60, averaging $48.16, with the stock at $44.93 sitting barely above the low end. Zacks assigned a Strong Sell this week, calling it “Bear of the Day.” The next meaningful catalyst for investors to watch is the company’s Q3 FY2026 report, where investors will look for evidence that North America Retail volumes are stabilizing. Until then, this is a show-me story in a sector where the macro backdrop is not cooperating.

This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

© Alexander Supertramp / Shutterstock.com

Richtech Robotics (NASDAQ:RR), a company that specializes in developing, manufacturing, and deploying robotic solutions for automation, is currently trading at $2.74, down 28% over the past month after a January scandal exposed what multiple law firms allege was a misrepresentation of the company’s relationship with Microsoft. Retail sentiment on Reddit has climbed from a quarterly average of 77.6 to 84.8 in the past week, a split that captures the central tension: does the post-crash price reflect a genuine reassessment of fundamentals, or does the stock reflect a business that was always more narrative than substance?

On January 29, 2026, Hunterbrook Media alleged Richtech mischaracterized what Microsoft called a “standard, non-commercial customer program” as a close commercial collaboration. Shares fell by more than 29% over two days on the news, and at least eight law firms have since filed class-action suits, with a lead plaintiff deadline of April 3, 2026.

Retail Traders Are Betting on a Squeeze, Not the Business Discussion is concentrated in r/options, driven by a thread about a trader who purchased 11,470 $3 call options expiring Friday, which has accumulated 50 upvotes and 57 comments over 48 hours. The original post read: “11470 $3 calls expiring this Friday bought today on $RR Richtech Robotics.”

This infographic details Richtech Robotics’ (RR) current social sentiment, which is rated ‘Very Bullish’ at 84.8, primarily driven by options squeeze speculation around 11,470 call options expiring today, February 27, 2026. 11470 $3 calls expiring this Friday bought today on $RR Richtech Robotics
by u/[OP] in r/options One commenter framed the bull case: “Richtech currently has approximately $330M in cash, virtually no debt, and a market capitalization near $612M, with short interest exceeding 25%.” That is a short-squeeze setup, not a fundamental thesis.

Revenue has fallen 42% from its FY2023 peak of $8.76M to $5.05M in FY2025, while SG&A tripled to $17.5M, producing an operating loss of $17.9M. The three-pillar model (hardware, RaaS, data services) generates only $0.3M in RaaS revenue per quarter, with no disclosed figures for data services. Short interest sits at 25.28% of float, roughly 4.6 times the peer group average of 5.43%. Strong Balance Sheet, Unsustainable Burn Looking at the numbers as the company moves deeper into 2026, Richtech closed Q1 FY2026 with $328.5M in liquid assets and just $730,000 in total debt. The problem is that the cash funds: Q1 FY2026 SG&A alone hit $11.8M against $1.1M in revenue. HC Wainwright maintains a Buy rating with a $6 price target, implying over 100% upside, but that call predates the Microsoft dispute. The April 3 lead plaintiff deadline is the next meaningful catalyst, as consolidated litigation could pressure the stock regardless of the business trajectory.

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - February 28, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of common stock of Vistagen Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VTGN) between April 1, 2024 and December 16, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important March 16, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Vistagen common stock 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 Vistagen class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50827 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 March 16, 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 litigate 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 provided investors with material information concerning Vistagen's plan to develop and commercialize its drug fasedienol, an investigational pherine candidate in development for the acute treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD). Defendants' statements included, among other things, Vistagen's positive assertions of fasedienol's future trial success based on the prior positive results associated with the PALISADE-2 clinical trial, in addition to notable enhancements and operational changes made to the execution of the PALISADE-3 clinical trial supported a strong likelihood of Phase 3 success and positioned it as a confirmatory study.

According to the lawsuit, defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning its Phase 3 PALISADE-3 trial study of fasedienol. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Vistagen class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50827 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.

-------------------------------

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/285670

Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA

Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

Bloomberg Economics Chief Emerging Markets Economist Ziad Daoud, PhD, talks about how energy and oil prices will be impacted by the attacks on Iran. -------- More on Bloomberg Television and Markets Like this video?

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - February 28, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Ardent Health, Inc. (NYSE: ARDT) between July 18, 2024 and November 12, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important March 9, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Ardent Health 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 Ardent Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50392 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 March 9, 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 misrepresentations regarding Ardent Health's accounts receivable. Defendants publicly reported Ardent Health's accounts receivable on a quarterly basis. They further stated that Ardent Health employed an active monitoring process to determine the collectability of its accounts receivable, and that this process included "detailed reviews of historical collections" as a "primary source of information." Further, defendants represented that Ardent Health considered "trends in federal and state governmental healthcare coverage" and that its "management determines [when an] account is uncollectible, at which time the account is written off." When defendants began to reveal increased claim denials by third-party payors, they downplayed the issue, stating that the increased payor denials were "turning [] more into a slow pay versus not getting paid," and did not write-off the uncollectible accounts. In addition, defendants represented that Ardent Health maintained professional malpractice liability insurance in amounts "sufficient to cover claims arising out of [its] operations[.]" In truth, Ardent Health did not primarily rely on "detailed reviews of historical collections" in determining collectability of accounts receivable nor did "management determine[] [when an] account is uncollectible." Instead, Ardent Health's accounts receivable framework "utilized a 180-day cliff at which time an account became fully reserved." This allowed Ardent Health to report higher amounts of accounts receivable during the Class Period, and delay recognizing losses on uncollectable accounts. And Ardent Health did not even maintain professional malpractice liability insurance in amounts "sufficient to cover claims arising out of [its] operations[.]" In truth, Ardent Health's professional liability reserves were insufficient to cover "significant social inflationary pressure in medical malpractice cases the past several years," which had been an "increasing dynamic year-over-year" in Ardent Health's New Mexico market. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Ardent Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50392 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.

-------------------------------

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/285759

Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA

Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

The former chief executive of Mt. Gox, Mark Karpelès, has proposed a Bitcoin hard fork to recover nearly $5.2 billion in stolen funds. The plan targets about 79,956 BTC linked to the exchange’s 2011 hack. The proposal has reopened debate about Bitcoin’s core rules and governance.

Source: Mempool

Mark Karpelès published the draft on GitHub on February 27, 2026. He asked the Bitcoin community to consider a one-time consensus change. The change would allow the locked coins to move without the original private key.

Mt Gox Ex-CEO Proposal Targets 2011 Hack AddressThe draft focuses on a single address known as 1Feex...sb6uF. That wallet received nearly 80,000 BTC after Mt. Gox suffered a system breach in June 2011. The coins have not moved for more than 15 years.

Under current Bitcoin rules, only the holder of the private key can spend those funds. Karpelès proposed adding a special consensus rule for that address. The rule would allow spending the outputs using a signature from a designated recovery address.

The draft states that the recovered funds would enter the existing court-supervised rehabilitation process. Creditors would then receive distributions under Japan’s civil rehabilitation framework. Karpelès described the draft as “an attempt to start a discussion” about an exceptional case.

He also wrote that the change would apply only to that specific address. The rule would activate at a future block height if adopted by the network.

Hard Fork Mechanics and Network RisksThe proposal would require a coordinated hard fork. A hard fork changes consensus rules and makes previously invalid transactions valid. Node operators would need to upgrade before the activation block.

The draft acknowledges the risk of a chain split. Some network participants may refuse to adopt the change. That outcome could create two competing versions of Bitcoin.

Critics argue that altering ownership rules could weaken the network’s immutability. One forum user warned that special exceptions could invite similar requests after future hacks. Others questioned who would decide which cases qualify for protocol intervention.

Karpelès responded that this case is unique. He noted that the coins have remained inactive for 15 years. He also said law enforcement and many community members recognize the funds as stolen Mt. Gox assets.

Existing Mt Gox Repayments ContinueThe 79,956 BTC referenced in the proposal are not part of current creditor repayments. After the 2014 collapse, about 200,000 BTC were recovered. Those coins came under the control of trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi.

Repayments began in mid-2024 under a court-approved plan. As of early 2026, the estate holds about 34,689 BTC in its wallets. As we reported, the trustee has extended the final repayment deadline to October 31, 2026.

Past wallet movements have often preceded distribution rounds. In November 2025, the trustee moved more than 10,000 BTC between wallets. Analysts viewed that activity as internal preparation rather than market sales.

Repayments occur through partner exchanges, including Kraken, Bitstamp, and BitGo. Creditors receive Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, and some also receive fiat in Japanese yen.

Mt. Gox once handled around 70% of global Bitcoin trading. The exchange collapsed in 2014 after losing about 750,000 customer Bitcoin. More than a decade later, the case continues to shape debates around Bitcoin governance and recovery efforts.

YZi Labs has landed the latest punch in its public dispute with CEA Industries, aka BNC, as the investment firm backed by CZ publicly accused 10X Capital of hiding a significant ownership stake in BNC. 

According to a recent article circulated via X, YZi Labs has pointed out additional filing evidence suggesting that the stock holdings of 10X Capital, its affiliates, and certain related individuals have collectively crossed 5% of the firm’s outstanding shares of common stock.

Fresh round of accusations from YZi Labs In its statement, YZi Labs claims that the 2,376,236 shares recently exercised align mostly with the warrant holdings previously disclosed by 10X Capital’s affiliates. This has raised eyebrows because, under SEC rules, any entity or group acquiring over 5% of a company’s stock needs to file a Schedule 13D to let the public know.

As far as YZi Labs is concerned, 10X Capital and its affiliates are operating as a shadow group, wielding undisclosed influence to entrench the current board without giving in to the transparency required of major stockholders.

According to YZi Labs, if 10X Capital and these inside participants contend that no such “group” existed, they need to explain to stockholders how the tools used to deploy hostile entrenchment tactics do not constitute concerted action requiring SEC disclosure.

YZi Labs and CEA Industries continue to trade accusations CEA Industries was originally a cannabis-linked company, but it pivoted in the middle of 2025 to become the world’s largest publicly traded corporate treasury focused on BNB.

That pivot was facilitated by a $500 million private investment in public equity (PIPE) deal that closed in August 2025, led by 10X Capital as the asset manager, with backing from heavy hitters like YZi Labs.

It positioned BNC as an institutional gateway for US-based investors to gain access to the BNB ecosystem, and there were plans to allocate the majority of the funds to BNB holdings, subject to market conditions.

The partnership went sideways in late 2025, and around that time, we reported that YZi Labs had accused 10X Capital and BNC management of strategic drift. YZi Labs, in an official release, specifically alleged BNC’s CEO David Namdar had at a November 2025 industry conference claimed that BNC had contemplated switching to other crypto assets, like Solana.

“Ultimately, stockholders deserve to be represented by a Board that is committed to the token strategy in which they invested,” the official statement read.

As a result, YZi Labs tried to expand the board in an attempt to install its own directors as executives, but the BNC board launched a series of defensive measures, making that avenue difficult.

These included the infamous poison pill shareholder rights plan and bylaw amendments, moves YZi Labs tagged unfriendly to stockholders.

Secret side agreement compounds tensions CEA Industries has raised allegations of a secret side agreement between YZi Labs and 10X Capital drafted in 2025 to divert a portion of BNC’s asset management fees to YZi Labs without defined services.

YZi Labs reportedly terminated the agreement on December 11, 2025, waiving future fees; however, BNC’s board nevertheless blamed it for delaying AMA revisions and demanded full disclosure of its terms.

YZi Labs has denied the claims and labeled them a cheap PR smear campaign. The firm is reportedly treating it as an attempt by the board to hijack the narrative, hoping to hide their failure to properly manage the BNB treasury.

Journalist

Posted: February 28, 2026

The crypto market fell more than 3.5% after Israel’s strike on Iran sparked fresh fears.

At press time, Story[IP] was down over 12%. Daily trading volume also dropped 16% to $43 million, signaling weaker activity for the altcoin amid its two‑month price slump.

IP price action had lost more than 90% of its valuation from its highest cap. Will the altcoin’s price weakness continue?

Analyzing Story’s trend channel in February Story has been trading within a descending trend channel throughout February. However, since the middle of this month, the altcoin has been trading above the midpoint of the channel.

The altcoin initially showed signs of strength but eventually broke down below support. IP now appears headed toward $0.80, the lower boundary of its channel. 

At the time of writing, the MACD signaled growing seller momentum, with its lines trading below neutral. Meanwhile, the RSI registered an oversold reading of 17.29, underscoring the intensity of bearish pressure

Source: IP/USDT on TradingView

With the RSI oversold, bulls could return as the reading signaled potential bear exhaustion. However, the current fear in the markets could see IP prices continue to drop.

But from a technical perspective, the ideal reversal point was around the lower supports of the channel. Hence, IP price was more likely to reverse upon tapping the $0.80 zone if accompanied by buying activity.

In addition to the volume decline and tension from the Israel-Iran war, the altcoin was also experiencing a decline in chain activity.

Network activity extends IP’s overall weakness The protocol has been losing the number of active accounts since February began.

According to Storyscann, the number of accounts fell from 1,033 to 208 during this period. Projections indicate that this downward trend is continuing.

Source: Blockscout

Additionally, the sum of IP tokens spent on gas fees followed the same trend. The statistics indicated the sum was about 43 IP tokens on January 30th and 1.73 IP as this month came to an end.

Meanwhile, the number of cumulative transactions was rising, reaching 95.10 million at press time.

According to the price action, these transactions could be potential sales activities. Moreover, new transactions were up, suggesting new participants could be shorting the altcoin.

Therefore, the current outlook on the charts and on-chain puts IP on a path likely to hit $0.80. The reaction around this level would shape IP’s next move.

Final Summary IP falls 12% amid tensions from the Israel-Iran war and weak network activity. IP price trades toward $0.80, where its reaction would determine its next move.

Buterin proposes replacing consensus-layer BLS signatures with hash-based schemes, such as Winternitz variants.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has shared a quantum resistance roadmap for the ecosystem.

This follows the identification of post-quantum readiness as a critical consideration across several areas of development.

Quantum Security Upgrades In a post shared on social media, Buterin outlined specific parts of the network that could face vulnerabilities from advances in quantum computing, including consensus-layer BLS signatures, data availability systems using KZG commitments and proofs, externally owned account signatures based on ECDSA, and application-layer zero-knowledge proofs such as KZG or Groth16.

He went on to propose technical approaches to address these risk areas as part of a quantum resistance roadmap. For example, he suggested strengthening consensus-layer security by swapping BLS signatures for hash-based options like Winternitz variants, while using STARK-based aggregation to enable quick verification.

Buterin explained that this is because the transition toward lean consensus and finality could reduce the number of required signatures per slot, potentially eliminating the need for aggregation in early stages.

As part of this process, the network would also need to choose a long-term hashing method, selecting from several available options to ensure strong, reliable security in the future.

The Ethereum developer also suggested changing how the protocol stores and shares data across the system by introducing a newer method that is designed to improve long-term security. However, he noted that this adjustment would require additional technical work to handle larger verification processes.

You may also like: Vitalik Buterin Exceeds 16,384 ETH Selling Target with $38M in Total Disposals Ethereum Foundation Deploys 2,016 ETH as It Begins Large-Scale Treasury Staking Ethereum is Sitting at 5-year ‘Demand Zone’ According to Analysts Protocol-Level Adjustments For externally owned accounts, Buterin wants to introduce native account abstraction through EIP-8141, a change that would allow them to support multiple signature methods, including those designed to withstand quantum threats.

Current ECDSA signature verification costs about 3000 gas, while quantum-resistant alternatives are far more resource-intensive and could require around 200,000 gas. Despite being expensive, he believes that ongoing improvements are expected to make them more efficient.

Additionally, the protocol plans to use aggregation techniques that combine many signatures into a single verification step in the long term to reduce the overall network load.

The roadmap also discusses proof systems, which play a role in validating transactions and applications on Ethereum. Similarly, while existing ZK-SNARK verifications are relatively efficient, quantum-resistant STARK proofs come with much higher costs.

To address this, he outlined a solution under EIP-8141 that would allow multiple transaction checks to be bundled and verified through a single proof before reaching the blockchain, reducing on-chain computation and improving scalability.

Last month, the Ethereum Foundation announced that the ecosystem’s next phase will prioritize expanding network capacity while maintaining long-term security and resilience.

Tags:

Solana price analysis highlights a flag pattern with $76 as the key breakout level amid growing downside risk.

The United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran today, leading to dips across risk assets and lifting traditional hedges. After the attacks, the Gold vs. Bitcoin talks have increased as the bitcoin price today slipped below $64,000 while the gold price surged by 4% to $5,450. 

Gold vs. Bitcoin Reaction Splits After U.S.–Iran Strikes Cryptocurrencies erased nearly $70 billion in market value following the attacks, with the BTC price sliding toward $63,000. Meanwhile, gold-backed tokens gained more than 3% as traders sought safety. The difference increased the gold vs. Bitcoin contrast within hours.

As Coingape reported, Bitcoin’s panic selling increased as U.S.–Iran tensions rose. Derivatives markets absorbed $1.8 billion in aggressive sell volume within one hour. That surge in selling pressure deepened concerns of a broader Bitcoin crash.

The BTC price has recently been forming lower highs and lower lows on short-term time frames, as per TradingView data. A breakdown in early February pushed Bitcoin toward a capitulation zone near $60,000. 

Source: TradingView

However, recovery attempts remain weak below the $70,000 resistance range. Immediate support now is between $63,000 and $60,000. BTC price must reclaim $68,000 to $70,000 to shift near-term momentum. 

BTC-Gold Ratio Hits 14-Month Mark As volatility increases, analyst Crypto Tice noted a historical rhythm in the BTC/gold ratio. He noted that in 2014, 2018, and 2022, the ratio bottomed about 14 months after a peak. In 2026, that 14-month window has appeared again.

According to Crypto Tice, the BTC/Gold ratio tracks risk appetite versus safety demand. He stated that extended BTC price underperformance against gold often marks an exhaustion phase. However, he stressed that time alignment alone does not confirm a reversal.

He added that confirmation would require momentum divergence and structural higher lows. Without those signals, symmetry remains only a condition. For now, the gold vs. Bitcoin balance depends on whether relative strength shifts.

War Hedge Debate Intensifies Journalist Clem Chambers said gold continues grinding higher as a reliable war hedge amid U.S.–Iran tensions. He argued that gold acts as a clearer indicator of escalation than Bitcoin. He also noted that wild swings in Bitcoin reflect market fragility during conflict.

Data cited by Rand Group shows gold rising from $3,000 to $5,278 since the first Israel–Iran war in June 2025. Over the same period, Bitcoin crashed from its highs after these tensions. As a result, the gold price narrative strengthened.

However, Tolimanu on X warned that fear-driven rallies can fade. He referenced the Russia–Ukraine invasion, when the gold price surge reversed after a double top. In the current gold vs. Bitcoin standoff, both assets now face a decisive test under escalating tensions.

XRP Price Analysis: What To Expect In March 2026? Prefer us on Google

XRP remains in capitulation as holders endure mounting unrealized losses.March historically delivers average 18% returns for XRP performance.Holding $1.27 support remains critical for potential recovery attempt.XRP price has remained under pressure since the beginning of 2026, extending a steady downtrend that started in early January. The altcoin has repeatedly failed to reclaim major resistance levels.

Weak macro sentiment and geopolitical tensions have limited upside momentum across the broader crypto market. Despite the ongoing decline, several historical and on-chain indicators suggest XRP may be approaching a turning point.

XRP Holders’ Losses Near EndThe Net Unrealized Profit and Loss indicator shows XRP remains in capitulation territory. This phase reflects that a majority of holders are sitting on unrealized losses. Capitulation typically marks the late stage of a downtrend rather than the beginning.

Historically, XRP’s capitulation phases have lasted close to one month before reversing. The current stretch began at the start of February. If prior patterns repeat, this period could end for the XRP price in the first week of March. A reduction in panic-driven selling would allow price stabilization and open the door to recovery.

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

XRP NUPL. Source: GlassnodeThe Spent Output Profit Ratio, or SOPR, confirms that many XRP holders are still selling at a loss. A brief move above 1 occurred in mid-February, signaling temporary profitability. However, the metric quickly fell back below 1, showing renewed selling pressure.

SOPR approaching the 1 level again is significant. A sustained move above this threshold would indicate that coins are being sold at a profit. Historically, this shift often coincides with early recovery phases. If selling continues to saturate, the XRP price may gain room to rebound.

XRP SOPR. Source: GlassnodeWhat Does XRP’s Past Say?Seasonality data shows that over the past 12 years, March has delivered an average 18% return for XRP. This makes it statistically the strongest month in the first quarter.

While past performance does not guarantee future gains, historical trends matter. However, external risks remain. Escalating geopolitical tensions involving the US and Israel could affect risk appetite. Broader financial instability may delay seasonal bullish tendencies.

XRP Monthly Returns. Source: CryptoRankXRP Price Levels To WatchXRP is trading at $1.29 at the time of writing, holding above the critical $1.27 support level. This level aligns with the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement, often referred to as the bear market support floor. Maintaining this threshold is essential to prevent a deeper correction.

If capitulation ends and macro conditions stabilize, XRP could bounce from $1.27 and challenge the descending trendline active since January. A move above $1.51 would confirm a structural shift. This level also coincides with the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement, a key recovery benchmark.

XRP Price Analysis. Source: TradingViewOn-chain data suggests limited resistance until the $1.76 to $1.80 range. Approximately 1.85 billion XRP were accumulated within this zone, valued at nearly $2.83 billion. Holders who bought there may sell to break even, creating temporary resistance.

XRP CBD Heatmap. Source: GlassnodeHowever, failure to hold $1.27 would invalidate the bullish outlook. A breakdown below the bear market support floor could send XRP toward $1.11. Continued sideways consolidation remains possible if global uncertainty persists. For now, March presents both risk and opportunity for XRP price recovery.

Disclaimer

In line with the Trust Project guidelines, this price analysis article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial or investment advice. BeInCrypto is committed to accurate, unbiased reporting, but market conditions are subject to change without notice. Always conduct your own research and consult with a professional before making any financial decisions. Please note that our Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers have been updated.

Onchain analytics firm Bubblemaps flagged six Polymarket wallets on Saturday that profited a combined $1 million by betting on a U.S. military strike against Iran, with most accounts created and funded within 24 hours of the attack.

The wallets all purchased "yes" shares on the Polymarket contract "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026?" hours before the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes early Saturday morning. President Donald Trump confirmed "massive and ongoing" military operations against Iran, which the Department of War has dubbed "Operation Epic Fury."

Bubblemaps described the group as "suspected insiders" who made $1.2 million. The Block reviewed all six flagged Polymarket profiles, including their closed positions and per-trade profit-and-loss breakdowns. The wallets' combined net profit totals $989,191, according to the Profit/Loss figures displayed on each profile.

Winning wallets — and one big loser The largest wallet in the cluster recorded a net profit of $494,375 across four predictions. The account bought 560,680 "yes" shares on the Feb. 28 contract at 10.8 cents each, spending roughly $60,816 and earning a $499,864 profit when the contract resolved to "yes." It also won $11,286 on a March 1 contract. However, the wallet lost $13,515 on a bet that the strike would come by February 27, which did not resolve in its favor.

A second wallet, "Planktonbets," posted a net profit of $173,907 across seven predictions. Its main position was 200,747 "yes" shares on the Feb. 28 contract at 13.2 cents, which returned $174,234 in profit. The account also placed small losing bets on daily "next strike" contracts for Feb. 19 and 20, suggesting repeated attempts to time the exact date.

"Dicedicedice" placed a single bet and earned $119,964 in net profit. The account bought 149,955 "yes" shares on the Feb. 28 contract at 20 cents, a 400% return.

"Neodbs" also placed one bet and achieved the highest percentage return of any wallet in the group: 900%. The account bought 98,838 shares on the Feb. 28 contract at 10 cents, spending $9,884 and netting $88,954.

A wallet using the username "nothingeverhappens911" posted $66,436 in net profit across two bets, both winners. It held 40,000 "yes" shares on the Feb. 28 contract at 19 cents and 45,320 shares on the March 1 contract at 24.9 cents.

A sixth wallet, listed only as "Anon" on Polymarket, made a single bet: 55,556 "yes" shares on the Feb. 28 contract at 18 cents. It earned $45,556 in net profit, a 456% return. All six wallets now show $0 in positions value, indicating they have fully exited.

Some traders lost big on the announcement of the U.S. strikes against Iran. Trader "anoin123" profited $2 million in prior months from betting against strikes, Lookonchain said, but the account lost $6.5 million in one day following the strikes, "going from $2M+ in profit to $4.5M+ in losses."

"It’s almost impossible to be 100% certain [of insider knowledge] in these cases, but given the size of the bets, the freshly funded wallets, and the timing around the bets, it felt convincing enough for us to share," Bubblemaps CEO Nicolas Vaiman told The Block. 

A growing pattern of suspected insiders Suspected insider trading on Polymarket's geopolitical markets is not new. In January, a freshly created account wagered roughly $32,000 on the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, purchasing shares at around 7 cents before the U.S. military operation was publicly announced. That trade yielded more than $400,000 in profit within 24 hours, prompting Rep. Ritchie Torres to introduce the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026, which would bar federal officials from trading prediction market contracts tied to government policy.

Earlier this month, Israeli prosecutors filed indictments against an Israel Defense Forces reservist and a civilian for allegedly using classified military intelligence to bet on Polymarket. The pair reportedly wagered on the timing of Israel's strike on Iran during the June 2025 Twelve-Day War, earning over $150,000 in combined profits. They face charges of severe security offenses, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

Just days ago, suspected insiders made over $1 million betting on a Polymarket contract tied to blockchain investigator ZachXBT's probe into crypto trading platform Axiom, according to Lookonchain. The most profitable wallet in that case turned a five-figure bet into nearly half a million dollars.

Broader implications The Bubblemaps findings come as Polymarket faces mounting regulatory and political pressure over the integrity of its geopolitical markets. The "US strikes Iran by...?" family of contracts has generated over $529 million in total trading volume since December 2025, making it one of the most heavily traded markets on the platform.

Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan has previously defended the presence of informed traders on the platform, telling CBS News that insiders "having an edge on the market is a good thing" because it accelerates price discovery. The company secured CFTC approval to operate as a regulated exchange in the U.S. in late 2025.

Rival platform Kalshi has publicly endorsed the Torres bill and sought to distance itself from Polymarket's approach, with CEO Tarek Mansour noting Kalshi applies NYSE- and Nasdaq-style insider trading rules. Mansour said on X Friday that "regulated prediction markets are not allowed to do war markets" in response to Democratic Senator Chris Murphy's X post announcing he is "working on legislation to ban corrupt and destabilizing prediction markets." 

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.

A leading crypto fund executive is urging the industry to draw a hard line against centralized blockchain architectures, arguing that permissioned systems contradict the movement’s foundational ethos.

Blockchains generally fall along a decentralization spectrum, but a core difference is whether participation in consensus is permissionless. In fully decentralized networks, anyone can validate transactions under transparent rules, typically through Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake, which rely on token-based economic incentives.

By contrast, permissioned systems restrict validator participation to approved entities, often resembling Proof-of-Authority models that depend on trust in designated actors. Centralized designs can offer performance efficiencies and regulatory alignment, but critics argue they sacrifice censorship resistance, credible neutrality, and immutability.

Justin Bons, founder and CIO of Cyber Capital, insists that several prominent networks fall into the latter category and should be rejected by the crypto community.

Bons points to Ripple’s Unique Node List, which he says effectively makes validators permissioned, as divergence from the centrally published list risks network forks and concentrates influence with the Ripple Foundation and affiliated entities.

Advertisement  

The founder raises similar concerns about Stellar, where recommended Tier 1 organizations are published by the Stellar Development Foundation, leading to high validator overlap and placing practical authority in the hands of the list curator.

Bons also characterizes Canton and Hedera as fully permissioned at the validator level. Algorand retains centralized elements through its permissioned relay nodes, even though participation nodes have become more accessible after the implementation of a peer-to-peer transaction propagation alternative. In Bons’ view, the extent to which relay nodes remain structurally necessary is unresolved.

For the Cyber Capital CIO, the issue is binary. A blockchain is either fully permissionless or it is not, and any reliance on authority undermines crypto’s raison d’être.

Bons maintains that institutional discomfort with open networks is akin to early internet skepticism, predicting that native, decentralized platforms will ultimately prevail as the sector evolves and redistributes power away from centralized control.

Bitcoin price struggles persist as the premier cryptocurrency is yet to break above the key $70,000 resistance zone, suggesting the market remains at risk of a deeper correction. Notably, popular market analyst Yonsei_dent has shared an observation that backs these bearish investors’ expectations.

Bitcoin Supply In Profit Metric Shows Potential 75% Drawdown  In a Quicktake post on CryptoQuant, Yonsei_dent has identified a potential price bottom of the present market cycle, considering the meltdown in recent months. Since October, the leading cryptocurrency has lost over 45% of its market value, with prices dropping as low as $60,000 from an all-time high of $126,000.

Using the Supply In Profit on-chain indicator, Yonsei_dent maps out the possible extent of Bitcoin’s price decline when in the bottom zone, based on historical cycle drawdown periods. For context, the Supply in Profit measures the portion of the total circulating Bitcoin whose current market price is higher than the price at which those coins last moved.

Source: CryptoQuant It’s an important cycle indicator, as the Supply in Profit approaches extreme highs when near cycle tops, and compresses sharply when near cycle lows. Yonsei_dent explains that the duration of Bitcoin Supply in Profit in the bottom zone in 2022 was six months. During this market cycle, Bitcoin had initially hit an all-time high of $69,000 before crashing by 77% to around $15,500.

According to the market analyst, if the same length of the bottom phase was placed on the current price chart, it represents a 70%-75% drawdown price projection for the present market cycle. In this case, Bitcoin is expected to find a price low within a range of $31,500 – $38,000, suggesting a further potential 41%-51% decline from the current market prices.

Source: CryptoQuant Bitcoin Price Overview  At the time of writing, Bitcoin trades at $63,553 following a 5.84% loss in the last 24 hours. Meanwhile, its daily trading volume is up by a minor 0.54% and valued at $40.04 billion. The premier cryptocurrency also reports a negative performance on its weekly and monthly charts, with respective losses of 6.21% and 27.11%. Unless the market bulls convincingly reclaim the long standing $70k resistance, market sentiment is likely to remain fragile and prices vulnerable to additional downside or prolonged consolidation in the near term.

BTC trading at $63,560 on the daily chart | Source: BTCUSDT chart on Tradingview.com Featured image from Unsplash, chart from Tradingview

President Donald Trump has pulled the United States into military action against Iran, and the first consequence for crypto markets was another wave of selling rather than a rush into Bitcoin as a haven.

According to CryptoSlate’s data, BTC price dumped around 7%, erasing some of its weeklong gains to trade as low as $63,000 before recovering slightly.

This price action negates the popular argument that geopolitical turmoil should automatically favor Bitcoin because it exists outside the traditional financial system.

In practice, the flagship crypto usually trades first as a volatile risk asset during a macro shock, especially when investors are already cautious, leverage is elevated, or portfolio managers are trying to raise cash quickly.

That is why a US-Iran conflict would matter to crypto investors less as a story about ideology and more as a story about oil, inflation expectations, interest rates, and global liquidity.

This is because Bitcoin’s first move would probably not be driven by its long-term narrative as “digital gold.” Instead, it would be driven by how war changes the broader macro environment.

If Washington and Tehran were to enter direct conflict, the most immediate market response would likely be a classic risk-off move. Equities would probably come under pressure, gold could attract haven demand, and Bitcoin would remain exposed to the same de-risking that tends to hit other volatile assets during episodes of geopolitical stress.

The more important question would come after that initial reaction. If war were to send energy prices high enough to change inflation expectations and alter how investors think about monetary policy, then Bitcoin’s second move could look very different from the first.

Oil is the key transmission channelThe clearest way to understand how a US-Iran conflict could affect Bitcoin is to begin with the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints.

The Strait sits at the center of the global oil and gas trade, and any disruption there has consequences far beyond the Middle East.

A conflict between the United States and Iran becomes a Bitcoin story only if it first becomes an oil story. That is the main transmission mechanism through which military escalation in the Gulf would affect global markets.

The risk would not depend only on a full closure of the waterway. Markets can react sharply to partial disruption, intermittent attacks, shipping delays, or even the fear that flows could be interrupted.

This is because oil prices usually begin incorporating a geopolitical premium well before actual supply losses are fully realized.

Notably, the exposure to this Strait is global. Asian economies are especially vulnerable because a large share of the crude oil, condensate, and liquefied natural gas that moves through Hormuz is shipped to countries such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea.

While some producers in the region have limited alternative export routes that can bypass the strait, those alternatives are not large enough to eliminate the threat quickly.

In practical terms, markets cannot simply reroute their way out of a serious geopolitical shock in the Gulf.

That is why a US-Iran war could affect Bitcoin without any direct connection to crypto itself. If oil spikes, inflation expectations could rise, growth expectations could weaken, and investors would have to reassess the outlook for rates and liquidity.

As a result, Bitcoin would be pulled into a broader repricing of macro assets.

A higher oil price could hurt Bitcoin before changing the outlookThe most severe oil scenarios are large enough to matter far beyond the energy market.

Last year, analysts modeled outcomes in which Brent crude could move sharply higher if Hormuz were blocked or materially disrupted.

In such scenarios, the immediate impact on Bitcoin would depend less on the headline level of oil prices than on the macro regime that higher energy costs create.

If the result is a stagflationary environment, in which inflation expectations rise even as growth slows, Bitcoin could struggle alongside equities and other speculative assets.

That backdrop tends to keep real yields high and financial conditions tight, which usually creates a hostile setting for high-volatility markets.

If the oil shock eventually turns recessionary, however, the script can change.

A sharp rise in energy costs can damage growth so badly that markets begin to price in rate cuts, liquidity support, or some other form of policy easing.

In that kind of setting, Bitcoin could sell off hard at first and then rebound once investors begin to anticipate easier monetary conditions.

That is why war would not produce a single, straight-line outcome for Bitcoin. It would more likely produce a sequence.

The first phase would probably be mechanical and defensive. Oil rises, risk appetite falls, traders reduce exposure, and Bitcoin weakens with other risk assets.

The second phase would depend on whether the dominant outcome is persistent inflation, a broader slowdown in growth, or an eventual turn toward easier money.

That distinction matters because Bitcoin has often responded less to the geopolitical event itself than to how it reshapes expectations for rates, real yields, and liquidity.

The military conflict would start in the Gulf, but Bitcoin’s pricing would still be filtered through the same macro variables that drive broader investor behavior.

Bitcoin’s market structure already points to vulnerabilityThat sequencing is especially important because Bitcoin’s own market structure already appears fragile enough to amplify a geopolitical shock.

Recent trading conditions have suggested that, while volatility has eased from earlier extremes, market conviction remains weak.

CryptoSlate previously reported that BTC's Implied volatility is around 50%, indicating a market capable of large, abrupt price swings.

At the same time, derivatives positioning had shown a pronounced preference for downside protection, with traders paying up for puts and short-dated futures slipping into a discount to spot prices.

That combination matters because war headlines would not arrive in a calm, confident market. They would hit a market that is already defensive and already willing to pay for protection against downside risk.

In those conditions, the near-term danger for Bitcoin would be a liquidation-driven drop. Traders could cut leverage, unwind positions, rotate into cash, or increase hedges all at once.

That kind of move tends to reinforce itself, particularly in crypto, where leverage can magnify selling pressure and thin liquidity can produce outsized gaps.

Essentially, this is one of the strongest arguments against the idea that a US-Iran war would immediately benefit Bitcoin.

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.

The store-of-value narrative may remain attractive over the long run, but the first trading response during a sudden geopolitical escalation would more likely be shaped by positioning and risk management than by ideology.

Put simply, Bitcoin’s structure argues for weakness first.

ETF flows could worsen the selloff or help stabilize itThe next market variable that would determine Bitcoin's price performance in this period would be its exchange-traded funds (ETF) flows.

The US-listed investment vehicles have shown that fresh demand can return quickly when sentiment improves. But the recent picture has also shown that conviction remains unstable, with inflows on some trading days offset by outflows over a broader weekly period.

That matters because, in a war shock, ETFs could serve either as a stabilizing force or as an additional source of pressure.

If investors treat a selloff as a buying opportunity, ETF inflows could help absorb some of the downside and restore confidence.

But if advisers, institutions, and wealth managers respond to broader risk aversion by reducing crypto exposure, the ETF wrapper could amplify the move lower.

In that case, selling that begins in the derivatives market could be reinforced by cash-market outflows during US trading hours.

This is why the standard claim that geopolitical stress should help Bitcoin because it operates outside banks and sovereign currencies often fails in real trading conditions.

When the shock is sudden and large, investors frequently treat Bitcoin as something to sell first and reevaluate later.

The existence of ETF access does not eliminate that risk. It may, in fact, accelerate the speed at which capital moves out if broader portfolio de-risking takes hold.

Sanctions pressure may lift crypto activity without helping BitcoinMeanwhile, a US-Iran conflict would not be fought only through missiles and shipping lanes. It would almost certainly bring a tougher sanctions environment, and crypto would sit much closer to that pressure than before.

Recent enforcement actions have already signaled that US authorities are paying closer attention to digital asset platforms connected to Iranian networks.

In a wartime setting, that scrutiny would likely intensify across exchanges, intermediaries, and payment rails suspected of facilitating sanctioned transactions.

At the same time, conflict could increase the practical use of crypto-based payment systems in sanctioned or restricted environments.

However, the evidence has tended to point more strongly to stablecoins than to Bitcoin as the asset most likely to be used for transactional purposes under sanctions pressure.

That creates an ambiguous outcome for the broader crypto market. On one hand, conflict and sanctions could increase reliance on digital rails for cross-border value transfer.

On the other hand, those same developments would likely raise compliance risk, enforcement pressure and regulatory scrutiny across the sector.

Those two trends do not automatically translate into a higher Bitcoin price. In fact, they may do the opposite, especially if exchanges and institutional platforms respond by becoming more conservative.

Bitcoin’s verdict would come in two stagesTaken together, a US-Iran war would probably create a two-stage market for Bitcoin.

The first stage is the easier one to understand. Oil rises, investors de-risk, downside hedging intensifies, and Bitcoin trades like a high-beta macro asset. That likely means lower prices at the start.

The second stage is more complicated and more important. If the conflict produces only a temporary energy shock, Bitcoin could stabilize once investors regain confidence and flows return.

If the disruption is prolonged and inflation remains sticky, Bitcoin could stay under pressure alongside equities and other volatile assets.

However, if the oil shock proves severe enough to tip the macro outlook toward recession and policy easing, Bitcoin could eventually recover sharply after the initial selloff.

So the real answer is not that war would be good for Bitcoin or bad for Bitcoin in any simple sense. It is that war would probably hurt first, then force the market to decide what matters more: inflation, recession, or easier money.

Mentioned in this articlePosted in

3 mins mins

EIP-8141 makes smart accounts first-class via Frame TransactionsEthereum founders published an article introducing EIP-8141, marking a significant advancement in account abstraction technology, according to the Ethereum Foundation. The proposal formalizes native handling of smart accounts at the protocol layer.

The design centers on Frame Transactions, which let accounts define programmable validation frames. In practice, this elevates smart accounts to first-class status, enabling direct submission through the public mempool without extra intermediaries.

Why it matters: UX and Ethereum Foundation’s AA roadmapMaking smart accounts first-class targets concrete UX gains. Wallets can natively support multisig, social recovery, gas sponsorship, and flexible key rotation without wrappers or bespoke workflows.

“‘First-class citizen’ means that operations sent from that account can be included directly onchain as transactions, with no wrappers,” said Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum co-founder.

The design also expands cryptographic flexibility beyond fixed ECDSA, paving a pathway to quantum-resistant signature support over time, as reported by Blockonomi. Any such transition would remain cautious and staged.

BingX: a trusted exchange delivering real advantages for traders at every level.

FOCIL (EIP-7805) is designed to pair with EIP-8141 so valid transactions achieve inclusion within one to two slots, even under adversarial or censoring conditions, as reported by The Coin Republic. This is a design goal, not a guarantee.

The report also notes an approximate 8 kB inclusion-list limit and that MEV builders’ last-look dynamics remain unchanged. The net effect reduces censorship power while preserving existing block-construction roles.

Implementation, risks, and roadmap signals to watchClient changes and mempool policy updates (Geth, Nethermind, Besu)Rolling out EIP-8141 would require coordinated client work across Geth, Nethermind, and Besu, plus mempool-policy adjustments and security reviews, as reported by XT.com. Teams also discuss acceptance rules and potential paymaster configurations.

Operational complexity and potential validator exposure under inclusion rules are being flagged in governance discussions. Risk recognition is shaping rollout pacing and audit scope.

At the time of this writing, based on data from Simply Wall St, Ethereum (ETH) traded around $1,898.51 with very high volatility near 11.59% and a neutral RSI near 39.82. This serves as neutral background context.

Key limits: ~8 kB inclusion list, MEV last-look unchangedToday’s constraints include the roughly 8 kB inclusion list and unchanged MEV last-look, which cap throughput and leave some builder dynamics intact. These limits inform realistic expectations for near-term censorship resistance.

FAQ about EIP-8141How do EIP-8141 and FOCIL work together to achieve 1–2 slot transaction inclusion and resist censorship?Frames let smart accounts submit native transactions; FOCIL inclusion lists push valid items on-chain within one to two slots as a design goal, subject to an ~8 kB list limit.

What practical benefits will users and wallets get (smart accounts, multisig, social recovery, gas sponsorship)?Users get native smart wallets: multisig, social recovery, flexible keys, and sponsored gas via paymasters, without wrappers, improving reliability, fee handling, and direct mempool inclusion for everyday transactions.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.

Rate this post

3 mins mins

Key Insights:

Bitcoin fell below $64,000 after Israel struck Iran, triggering rapid liquidations in leveraged crypto positions. More than $100 million in leveraged long positions were liquidated as Bitcoin broke key support levels. Similar geopolitical events previously caused sharp Bitcoin drops followed by later price recoveries after stabilization. Bitcoin Drops Below $64K Amid Israel Strikes on Iran Bitcoin fell below the $64,000 mark after reports confirmed that Israel launched strikes on Iran. The move came as global markets reacted to rising geopolitical tension, leading to reduced risk exposure across several asset classes.

At the time of reporting, Bitcoin was priced at $64,027.54. Market data shows a 2.91% decline over the past 24 hours and a 6.10% drop over the last seven days. Trading activity increased as price volatility picked up following the news.

Liquidations Accelerate the Price Move The decline was driven in part by forced liquidations in the derivatives market. 

According to The Kobeissi Letter,

 “over $100 million worth of levered longs have been liquidated in 15 minutes.”

Source: The Kobeissi Letter/X This indicates that many traders were holding leveraged positions before the drop.

As Bitcoin slipped below key support near $65,000, liquidation orders were triggered in quick succession. This added selling pressure and caused price to fall sharply within a short period.

Weak Price Structure Ahead of the News Bitcoin showed signs of weakness before the geopolitical development. Price action reflected lower highs and lower lows, suggesting reduced buying strength near recent levels.

Because support was already fragile, the headline served as a catalyst rather than a standalone cause. Limited liquidity during the session allowed price to move lower rapidly until buyers emerged near the $64,000 zone.

Past Market Reactions to Global Conflict Similar price behavior has followed earlier geopolitical events. In February 2022, Bitcoin dropped after Russia attacked Ukraine and later recovered by about 40%. A comparable move occurred in June 2025 following Israeli strikes on Iran, when Bitcoin later rose roughly 25%.

Ted Pillows noted that “Bitcoin dumped first and then rallied” during both events. These cases show that sharp declines often occur immediately after conflict-related news before price finds stability.

Feb 2022: Russia attacked Ukraine.

▫️ $BTC dumped first and then rallied 40%.

June 2025: Israel attacked Iran.

▫️ Bitcoin dumped first and then rallied 25%.

Feb 2026: US attacked Iran.

Will a similar pattern follow again? pic.twitter.com/b8FLF4aR9p

— Ted (@TedPillows) February 28, 2026 Focus on Current Trading Levels The recent decline tied to reports of U.S. action against Iran has pushed Bitcoin back into a familiar demand range. While buyers have stepped in near current levels, price has not yet moved back above earlier support.

Traders are watching whether Bitcoin can stabilize and trade back above the prior breakdown area. Until that happens, market activity remains cautious, with leverage levels reduced after the recent sell-off.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.

Rate this post

Although Bitcoin (BTC) remains in a bearish phase, a trading expert has suggested that technical indicators and historical price action point to a potential return to $100,000 within the next year.

The outlook follows Bitcoin’s recent streak of five consecutive monthly red candles after its October all-time high. 

According to data shared by TradingShot in a TradingView post on February 27, such a sequence has occurred only twice before, in November 2011 and December 2018. In both cases, the fifth straight red candle marked a bear market bottom.

Bitcoin price analysis chart. Source: TradingView However, the analyst noted that the red-candle streak alone is not sufficient to confirm a bottom. Instead, the Fisher Transform on the one-month chart has historically provided a more reliable signal, with each bullish cross occurring after Bitcoin had already formed its cycle low.

Previous Fisher bullish crosses appeared in mid-2015, early 2019, and late 2022, with about 1,370 days between the 2019 and 2022 signals. If that pattern holds, the next bullish cross could emerge around September 2026.

Historically, the price bottom has formed shortly before the Fisher cross. In December 2022, the bottom came one month earlier, the shortest lag on record, while in June 2015 it preceded the cross by five months, the longest gap observed. Applying the shorter lag suggests a potential bottom around August 2026.

From that projected low, the analyst expects the next bull cycle to mirror previous recoveries, which produced multi-year rallies and new all-time highs. Under similar cycle symmetry, Bitcoin could challenge and potentially surpass $100,000 by early November 2027.

Bitcoin price plunges further Separately, the cryptocurrency fell sharply on Saturday after the United States and Israel carried out coordinated military strikes on Iran, triggering risk-off sentiment across global markets. 

Bitcoin dropped as much as 6% within minutes, sliding from around $65,500–$66,000 and wiping out an estimated $75–$128 billion from the total crypto market cap in the first hour.

Leveraged positions saw heavy liquidations, with $100–$522 million erased in short periods, including $100 million in long positions within 15 minutes. Ether (ETH) fell 4.5–8.8% to about $1,835–$1,850, while altcoins such as XRP and Solana recorded steeper losses.

The move followed Israel’s announcement of a “preemptive strike” on Iranian nuclear and military targets, with U.S. involvement confirmed by President Donald Trump as part of “major combat operations.”

Bitcoin price analysis  At press time, Bitcoin was trading at $63,935, down more than 4% in 24 hours and 6% on the week.

Bitcoin seven-day price chart. Source: Finbold Technically, Bitcoin remains in a critical range, with support between $60,000 and $65,000, an area aligned with prior breakout levels and earlier cycle lows. A decisive break below could open the door to $55,000.

On the upside, resistance stands between $68,000 and $70,000, where recent rallies have faced selling pressure.

Featured image via Shutterstock