Six weeks of war have split the bitcoin BTC$72,930.88 market into two camps. The institutional buyers who keep accumulating regardless of conditions, and everyone else, who is leaving.

The result is a market that looks stable on the surface, with bitcoin holding a $65,000 to $73,000 range through five weeks of conflict headlines, $600 million liquidation events, and the worst sentiment readings since the 2022 bear market, but is narrowing underneath in ways that matter for what comes next.

Here is who is on each side and what their behavior tells us about where conviction actually sits.

The mandated buyers

Three entities account for nearly all of the sustained buying pressure in the bitcoin market right now, and all three are buying because their business model requires it rather than because they’ve made a discretionary call on price.

Strategy has been the most visible. The company disclosed its latest purchase on April 5, adding 4,871 BTC for approximately $329.9 million at an average of $67,718 per coin.

Total holdings now stand at 766,970 BTC acquired for $58.02 billion at a blended cost basis of $75,644. The position is underwater by roughly 8% at current prices, but Strategy continues buying below its average, pulling the breakeven lower with each purchase.

A CoinDesk report last week showed Strategy’s 30-day accumulation holding steady at approximately 44,000 BTC through March.

Strategy’s STRC preferred equity product saw hundreds of millions in new inflows around its recent ex-dividend date, providing the capital for continued accumulation. As long as investor appetite for that yield product holds, Strategy keeps buying. If STRC inflows slow, so does the bid.

Meanwhile, U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs absorbed approximately 50,000 BTC in March’s 30-day rolling window, the highest monthly pace since October 2025.

But the broader ETF industry data tracked on a weekly basis tells a less bullish story. CoinShares reported only $22 million in U.S. spot ETF inflows last week out of $107 million in total bitcoin ETP flows globally. Meanwhile, most flows came from one country – Swiss-listed products pulled in $157 million alone, accounting for 70% of the global ETP inflow of $224 million.

The institutional channel is open but the flow tis highly concentrated and is slowing on a weekly basis.

Meanwhile, Bitmine Immersion Technologies, while primarily an ether play, represents the same structural dynamic on the ETH side.

The company bought 71,252 ETH last week, its largest single-week purchase since December 2025, and now holds 4.8 million tokens worth roughly $10 billion.

Chairman Tom Lee called the stock market bottom this week while his company was actively spending hundreds of millions accumulating the asset he was publicly talking up.

The discretionary sellers

Everyone with a choice is running for the exit.

Whales holding 1,000 to 10,000 BTC have turned from the market’s largest buyers into its largest sellers. The one-year change in whale holdings has swung from roughly positive 200,000 BTC at the 2024 bull market peak to negative 188,000 BTC, a nearly 400,000 BTC reversal that CryptoQuant described as one of the most aggressive large-holder distribution cycles on record. The 365-day moving average continues to decline, confirming the selling is structural rather than reactive to any single event.

Mid-tier holders, wallets with 100 to 1,000 BTC, are still technically accumulating but the pace has collapsed more than 60% since October 2025, from nearly 1 million BTC in annual additions to 429,000. They have not flipped to selling yet, but the trajectory points that direction.

Listed bitcoin miners are liquidating treasury. Riot Platforms, MARA Holdings, and Genius Group disclosed selling more than 19,000 BTC from their treasuries in a single week earlier this month.

Some are facing operational strains, with bitcoin near $70,000 and difficulty at all-time highs and rising energy costs. The likes of Core Scientific, Iris Energy, and Hut 8, are pivoting capacity to AI hosting where contracted revenue replaces the volatility of mining income.

Bhutan, the only sovereign nation that built a bitcoin position through its own hydropower-backed mining operation, has sold 70% of its holdings since October 2024, from roughly 13,000 BTC to 3,954. The kingdom moved another 319.7 BTC to exchange-linked wallets this week. Its last mining inflow exceeding $100,000 was recorded over a year ago, suggesting the operation may have stopped entirely. Strategy now buys more bitcoin in a typical week than Bhutan has left.

The sentiment gap

The gap between what mandated buyers are doing and what the rest of the market feels is historically unusual.

The Fear and Greed Index spent over a month pinned between 8 and 14, the most sustained period in extreme fear territory since the 2022 bottom. It only climbed out of single digits this week after the ceasefire was announced.

Santiment data showed five bearish social media posts for every four bullish ones last weekend, the most negative skew since the war began.

Yet through all of that, ETFs were buying 50,000 BTC a month, Strategy was buying 44,000, and bitcoin never broke below $65,000. The floor held because the mandated buyers were absorbing what the discretionary sellers were dumping. The question is whether that absorption is sustainable.

What the ceasefire changed and what it didn’t

The ceasefire announcement Tuesday produced the sharpest single-day rally in over a month, with bitcoin surging past $72,000 and $427 million in shorts getting liquidated. Open interest in BTC and ETH perpetuals expanding by $2.1 billion and $2.2 billion respectively in 24 hours, with coin-denominated OI also rising, confirming net new long positions rather than just short liquidations.

The Coinbase Premium turned positive for both bitcoin and ether for the first time since October’s all-time high, reversing months of persistent negative readings. If it holds, that is the first sign of genuine U.S. buyer re-engagement since the war began.

But the ceasefire has not changed the structural dynamics underneath. Whether it converts into a trend reversal depends on whether the two-week truce becomes permanent, and whether the institutional flows that held the floor through the war can push through the $73,000 ceiling that has rejected every rally since late February.

In conclusion, a read across all of the data is that bitcoin’s buyer base has been narrowing for months.

The number of entities providing sustained buying pressure can be counted on one hand. Strategy, ETFs, and to a lesser extent Morgan Stanley’s new channel. Everyone else is either selling, slowing down, or leaving.

TLDR

• Tesla’s Q1 2026 vehicle deliveries reached 358,000 units, marking a 6% yearly increase but falling short of the 365,000 analyst consensus
• TSLA shares have declined 29% from record highs amid weakening EV demand, tax credit expiration, and intensifying competition
• Bank of America resumed coverage with a $460 target price, highlighting Tesla’s camera-based robotaxi technology as a scalable competitive edge
• Morgan Stanley calculates Tesla’s cost-per-mile advantage at $0.81, significantly undercutting Waymo’s $1.43 and conventional rideshare’s $1.71
• Tesla’s Energy Storage division substantially underperformed — delivering 8.8 GWh against expectations of 14.4 GWh, representing a 40% gap

Tesla’s first-quarter 2026 delivery report showed 358,000 vehicles handed over to customers, representing a 6% improvement versus the prior year but narrowly missing Wall Street’s 365,000-unit forecast. This marked the second straight quarter where actual deliveries trailed analyst projections.

Tesla, Inc., TSLA

The electric vehicle manufacturer has encountered substantial headwinds. The elimination of federal tax incentives, escalating competitive pressures, and CEO Elon Musk’s controversial political involvement have all dampened consumer appetite. Throughout 2025, Tesla relinquished its position as the globe’s leading EV manufacturer, with deliveries, revenue, and profitability all trending downward.

TSLA shares currently trade 29% beneath their all-time peak. Yet two prominent Wall Street institutions have issued optimistic assessments — and their focus centers on future opportunities rather than recent performance.

Bank of America analyst Alexander Perry resumed coverage in March with a $460 valuation target, suggesting approximately 33% appreciation potential from the current $345 price level. This target aligns with the median forecast among 56 analysts tracking the stock, per The Wall Street Journal data.

Perry’s fundamental thesis revolves around autonomous vehicle technology. Tesla presently operates robotaxi services in only two American cities — Austin and San Francisco — placing it considerably behind Alphabet’s Waymo, which maintains operations across 11 cities. However, Perry identifies Tesla’s camera-exclusive methodology as the critical distinguishing factor.

Most autonomous taxi providers employ a combination of cameras, lidar sensors, and radar systems. Tesla relies exclusively on cameras. While technically more challenging, this approach dramatically reduces costs. The strategy eliminates expensive sensor installations and removes the requirement to pre-map urban environments with lidar before entering new markets.

“Tesla’s camera-only approach is technically harder but much cheaper and leverages a consumer-fleet data engine. Tesla’s strategy should allow it to scale more profitably compared to robotaxi competitors,” Perry said.

Cost Advantage Could Be Decisive

Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco reinforces this perspective. His analysis estimates Tesla’s robotaxi operating cost at $0.81 per mile, contrasted with $1.43 for Waymo and $1.71 for conventional rideshare services. He anticipates this metric will decrease further once Cybercab manufacturing achieves scale.

Percoco additionally identifies the robotaxi deployment as creating a reinforcing cycle: expanded ride volume produces enhanced real-world operational data, which refines Tesla’s artificial intelligence systems, which advances the Full Self-Driving (FSD) capabilities offered to traditional vehicle purchasers, which stimulates demand in the primary automotive business.

Musk has indicated the autonomous transportation network could extend to “dozens of major cities” encompassing between one-quarter and one-half of the United States by year’s conclusion. Morgan Stanley forecasts Tesla will secure 25% of U.S. autonomous transportation trips annually by 2032, trailing Waymo’s projected 34% market share.

Energy Storage Was the Real Miss

While automotive delivery figures dominated headlines, Tesla’s Energy Storage division experienced a challenging quarter. Megapack installations totaled merely 8.8 GWh, a 40% shortfall compared to the 14.4 GWh consensus projection. This represented Tesla’s first year-over-year contraction in storage deployments since 2022.

Analysts characterize this as an isolated occurrence, attributing it to the irregular timing inherent in large-scale utility agreements and project schedules. Nevertheless, this metric warrants continued monitoring.

Morgan Stanley has revised its full-year 2026 delivery projection to 1.60 million vehicles, still indicating a 2.2% year-over-year decrease. The firm’s extended-term framework anticipates a mid-teens volume compound annual growth rate through 2030, propelled by upcoming model introductions including a prospective “Model YL” and a refreshed Cybertruck.

Ripple’s native token traded at $1.35 on April 11 after posting a slight daily gain and a 3% weekly rise. 

The US Congress is due to reconvene on April 13. Traders are watching that date closely because the CLARITY Act may return to the agenda during the coming week.

The Senate Banking Committee could review changes to the bill before another vote takes place. That process has kept XRP in focus because Ripple’s token often reacts to US crypto policy news and market sentiment tied to regulation.

Recent support for the bill from financial officials, White House economists, and some lawmakers has added to market attention. That setup has increased expectations of a busy week for digital assets.

XRP may see stronger price swings if lawmakers move the discussion forward. Traders often react quickly when policy headlines affect the outlook for the broader crypto market.

Analyst shares wide XRP price targets

At the same time, analyst EGRAG CRYPTO shared a new long-term XRP outlook. The analyst said the chart structure points to several possible targets across different time frames.

In the post, EGRAG wrote that the targets are “NOT random numbers” and described them as “harmonic targets from different scales.” The analyst listed a non-logarithmic measured move in the $4 to $7 range and larger expansion targets at $13 and $27.

The post also referred to a macro repricing case of $100 and a measured move of $225. EGRAG said that “$225 is TA… it’s a SYSTEM SHIFT bet,” placing the higher target in a separate category from the near-term projections.

Those levels have drawn attention because XRP has a large and active community that often follows bold market calls. The latest post added another round of discussion around long-range XRP forecasts.

Market watches price history and bill progress

Even the lower end of EGRAG’s target range would require a sharp move from current levels. XRP has delivered strong rallies before, but those gains came when the asset had a smaller market profile.

Recent commentary around the forecast said the framework relies on a broad multi-year structure rather than a short-term setup. 

Similar past analysis from the same analyst used large formations and Fibonacci expansion levels, including a prior call that placed XRP at $27 by August 2027.

Key Takeaways

• The WLFI token plunged 12% to reach an all-time low since its 2025 debut
• The project leveraged its native WLFI tokens as collateral for stablecoin loans on the Dolomite platform
• This borrowing activity exhausted Dolomite’s USD1 liquidity pool, preventing other users from accessing withdrawals
• Tron’s Justin Sun saw his locked WLFI position decline by more than $11 million within 24 hours
• Treasury repurchase operations are currently underwater by approximately 48%

The World Liberty Financial token experienced a sharp 12% decline over a 24-hour period, reaching its lowest valuation since its 2025 introduction. The digital asset traded around $0.0818, compounding weekly declines of 15% and monthly losses totaling 17%.

The dramatic price movement followed a CoinDesk investigation revealing that WLFI had pledged billions of its proprietary governance tokens as collateral within the Dolomite lending infrastructure. Using this collateral base, the initiative secured substantial stablecoin loans, including USDC and its proprietary USD1 token, totaling tens of millions of dollars.

Blockchain intelligence from Arykham verified that a project-controlled wallet deposited 5 billion WLFI tokens as collateral on Dolomite, facilitating approximately $75 million in stablecoin borrowings. Subsequently, more than $40 million of these borrowed assets were moved to Coinbase Prime.

This substantial borrowing activity maxed out Dolomite’s available lending capacity, creating a liquidity crisis that temporarily prevented other protocol participants from accessing their deposited capital.

Project Team Addresses Growing Concerns

World Liberty Financial published a detailed response thread on X, characterizing the criticism as baseless fearmongering. The organization emphasized that liquidation risks remain minimal.

“In the event of significant market volatility against our position, we maintain the capability to supply additional collateral,” the team explained. However, skeptics noted that pledging more WLFI tokens to support existing WLFI-backed positions—particularly on a platform where a WLFI advisor holds leadership—compounds circular risk rather than mitigating it.

Adding to the controversy, Dolomite co-founder Corey Caplan simultaneously serves in an advisory capacity for World Liberty Financial, intensifying questions about potential conflicts of interest among industry observers.

According to project disclosures, WLFI allocated $65.58 million toward repurchasing 435.3 million tokens across six months, achieving an average acquisition price of $0.1507. With current market prices hovering near $0.078, these buyback initiatives represent unrealized losses of roughly 48%.

Significant Losses for Justin Sun

Justin Sun, the founder of Tron, witnessed his immobilized WLFI holdings depreciate by over $11 million in a single trading session. Sun initially committed $30 million to World Liberty Financial during late 2024, subsequently expanding his stake to approximately $75 million.

Following the movement of roughly $9 million in WLFI from Sun’s wallet last year, World Liberty Financial blacklisted his address, effectively freezing his token holdings. According to blockchain analytics provider Bubblemaps, Sun currently possesses approximately 545 million frozen WLFI tokens valued at roughly $45 million—representing a decline exceeding $80 million from previous valuations.

An additional 3 billion WLFI tokens remain in an intermediary wallet following treasury operations conducted on April 2 and April 7, presently valued at approximately $234 million.

Technical indicators show the Relative Strength Index approaching 30, nearing oversold conditions, while the MACD reflects persistent bearish momentum. Immediate support is positioned at $0.079, with potential downside objectives at $0.075 and $0.070 should selling intensity persist.

WLFI, the native token of World Liberty Financial—the Donald Trump–backed platform—took a deeper slide over the weekend as new on-chain disclosures raised questions about the project’s use of its own tokens as loan collateral. Trading near $0.078, WLFI marked an all-time low after sinking roughly 83% from its September peak around $0.46, according to data tracked by CoinMarketCap. The fresh selloff followed revelations that wallets tied to World Liberty Financial deposited substantial WLFI holdings on Dolomite, a DeFi lending protocol co-founded by the project’s chief technology officer, Corey Caplan, and then used those tokens as collateral to borrow USD1 and USDC stablecoins. The proceeds were partly moved to Coinbase Prime, fueling concerns about liquidity and risk in a relatively obscure DeFi niche.

On-chain analytics from Arkham show a wallet associated with World Liberty Financial placing a colossal 5 billion WLFI tokens on Dolomite. The same wallet subsequently borrowed about $75 million in USD1 and USDC and transferred more than $40 million to Coinbase Prime. The size of the position ignited debate among DeFi observers about whether WLFI’s price could withstand a material move in liquidation risk should the token’s liquidity prove insufficient to cover a rapid margin call.

Key takeaways

• WLFI traded around $0.078 after hitting an all-time low near $0.077, marking an 83% decline from its September high of about $0.46 (CoinMarketCap).
• On-chain data from Arkham indicates a wallet linked to World Liberty Financial deposited roughly 5 billion WLFI on Dolomite and used the collateral to borrow around $75 million in USD1 and USDC, with more than $40 million moved to Coinbase Prime.
• Dolomite’s footprint remains modest within DeFi, ranking about 19th by total value locked (TVL) among lending protocols, per DefiLlama.
• World Liberty acknowledges its lending activity, asserting that its positions sit well above liquidation thresholds and characterizes itself as an “anchor borrower” intended to generate yield for users amid low traditional-market activity.
• A governance proposal is planned to implement a phased unlock schedule for WLFI held by early retail buyers, replacing immediate access with a long-term vesting plan subject to community vote.

On-chain activity and the liquidity question

The core concern centers on the scale of WLFI used as collateral and what a price move could trigger for lenders on Dolomite. Analysts have warned that a 5% or larger forced sale of WLFI from such a large collateral position could compress liquidity quickly, given WLFI’s market depth and the token’s relatively modest liquidity profile. While World Liberty’s public communications emphasize that the loan book remains well above liquidation thresholds, observers note that a sudden price shock or a cascade of liquidations could expose both the Dolomite pool and other users who rely on its lending markets.

Dolomite’s standing in the DeFi universe is notable but not outsized. It sits far below leaders by TVL, a reality that can complicate risk management for lenders that rely on single-asset collateral with limited trading liquidity. This backdrop amplifies the importance of robust risk controls and transparent governance, especially when a token possesses a high narrative premium but limited natural liquidity.

World Liberty’s stance and the governance plan ahead

World Liberty Financial responded to the disclosures through social channels, arguing that the firm’s positions are prudent and that the strategy serves as a mechanism to provide outsized stablecoin yields in an environment where traditional assets often yield little. The project described itself as an “anchor borrower,” a role intended to stabilize the WLFI ecosystem while delivering yield to everyday users who participate in the platform’s offerings.

In a move to address investor concerns about token dynamics, World Liberty said on X that it would soon submit a governance proposal aimed at altering token unlock mechanics. The plan would replace the immediate access enjoyed by early retail WLFI holders with a phased unlock schedule, implemented through a community-driven vote. If approved, the long-term vesting framework could help reduce the likelihood of abrupt, large-scale WLFI selling pressure tied to token distribution, potentially easing some market anxiety in the near term.

Broader implications for WLFI holders and DeFi markets

The episode underscores several recurring themes in crypto markets: the tension between tokenomics and practical liquidity, the risk of using a highly concentrated or illiquid token as the backbone for large-margin loans, and the sensitivity of retail holders to governance decisions that affect token accessibility.

For investors and traders, the development highlights a few practical considerations. First, even seemingly large, high-profile projects can face liquidity strains when a significant portion of the supply is deployed as collateral on a single DeFi venue. Second, governance proposals—especially those that affect vesting and unlock schedules—can materially shape perceived risk and price dynamics. Third, the ongoing move to clarify and formalize unlock mechanics signals a maturation process in a sector where tokenized projects have historically offered broad access with less emphasis on long-term holder alignment.

From a market structure perspective, the Dolomite exposure calls into question the risk budgeting of smaller DeFi lending platforms that might rely on a handful of large positions. While Dolomite remains a relatively small player by TVL, the event illustrates how collateral quality and token liquidity can become systemic concerns when a project is positioned as a solar-anchored yield generator for a broad user base.

In the context of broader regulatory and market developments, observers will be watching for how governance shifts are implemented and whether additional disclosures accompany on-chain activity into future quarters. The balance between encouraging user-friendly yields and maintaining robust risk controls will likely shape both WLFI’s trajectory and the wider DeFi lending landscape as platforms evaluate collateral standards and liquidity risk frameworks.

As WLFI navigates this period of scrutiny, investors should monitor price action, liquidity cues, and the outcomes of forthcoming governance discussions. The unfolding narrative will help determine whether the project can restore confidence in its tokenomics, or whether tighter risk management and more transparent capital practices will become the baseline expectation for participants in WLFI’s ecosystem.

Source notes: WLFI’s price data tracked by CoinMarketCap; on-chain activity and collateral details drawn from Arkham analytics; the project’s DeFi footprint cited via DefiLlama; official responses and governance plans referenced through World Liberty Financial’s public statements.

Grayscale has updated its list of digital assets under consideration for future investment products. 

The latest Q2 2026 list includes several large and emerging tokens, while a separate filing tied to Hyperliquid’s HYPE token has added more attention to the asset manager’s next product moves.

Grayscale said its latest Q2 2026 review covers digital assets it may include in future investment products. The company grouped the list under its crypto sector framework and said it plans to refresh the list as often as 15 days after each quarter ends.

The new watchlist includes CC, CELO, MNT, MON, TON, TRX, ENA, HYPE, JUP, KMNO, SYRUP, MORPHO and PENDLE. It also names other assets such as ROBO, FLOCK, GRASS, KAITO, KITE, VVV, VIRTUAL, WLD, GEOD, HNT, JTO, ZRO and W.

Grayscale said the list includes assets not yet held in its current product suite. It added that the list remains subject to change during the quarter as multi-asset funds reconstitute and as new single-asset products launch.

The company also named MegaETH, Nous Research and Poseidon with an asterisk. That suggests those projects remain under review but may not yet trade as standard liquid tokens in the same way as others on the list.

HYPE ETF filing adds new focus

Attention around the Grayscale update increased after reports said the firm filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for a spot HYPE ETF in March. The proposed fund would track Hyperliquid’s native token if regulators approve the product.

That filing places HYPE in two active discussions at the same time. It appears on Grayscale’s Q2 assets under consideration list, and it is also linked to a separate exchange-traded fund proposal.

TLDR:

• Attackers socially engineered OVHcloud support to remove hardware 2FA, enabling full account access within an hour.
• The phishing site used an Inferno Drainer kit and ran live for roughly four hours on March 30, 2026.
• ICANN’s five-day domain transfer lock gave Steakhouse Financial time to cancel an outbound transfer filed by the attacker.
• Steakhouse vaults on Morpho operated independently throughout; no depositor funds were at risk at any point.

A social engineering attack briefly redirected Steakhouse Financial’s website to a phishing page on March 30, 2026. 

Attackers manipulated the domain registrar’s support team to strip account security protections. The phishing site ran for roughly four hours before the team reclaimed control. No user funds were lost, and no onchain contracts were touched.

How Attackers Broke Into Steakhouse Financial’s Domain Registrar

The attacker called OVHcloud, the domain registrar used by Steakhouse Financial, and posed as the account owner. They provided enough personal information to pass OVH’s phone-based identity check. 

An OVH support agent then removed the hardware-based two-factor authentication on the account.

Within seconds of logging in, the attacker ran automated scripts. These deleted every second-factor device on the account and enrolled their own. The speed pointed to a pre-planned operation.

The attacker then redirected the domain’s nameservers to servers under their control. 

They pointed the site’s A records to a cloned version of the Steakhouse website hosted on Hostinger. That cloned site carried a wallet drainer linked to Inferno Drainer, a known drainer-as-a-service operation.

Let’s Encrypt TLS certificates were obtained within minutes. This made the phishing site appear legitimate to standard browsers. Wallet extensions from Phantom, MetaMask, and Rabby flagged the site as malicious independently and quickly.

Steakhouse Financial Regained Control Within Hours, Funds Remained Safe

Steakhouse Financial’s team spotted the unauthorized email-change notification at 08:47 UTC and contacted OVH immediately. The phishing site went live around 09:59 UTC. 

The team posted a public warning on X at 10:34 UTC, under 30 minutes after the site became operational.

The Security Alliance (SEAL) was brought in at 11:25 UTC while the attack was still active. The team worked across multiple parallel tracks. These included account recovery, DNS forensics, and transfer cancellation.

The attacker had filed an outbound domain transfer. ICANN’s five-day transfer timelock gave the team time to cancel it.

The team contacted Hostinger directly to reject the transfer on the receiving end. Hostinger later confirmed the offending account was frozen and closed.

By 12:56 UTC, the team had reclaimed the OVH account. DNS was fully restored by approximately 13:55 UTC. Steakhouse Financial confirmed all domains were safe to use by April 1.

The company has since migrated to a registrar supporting hardware-key MFA and registrar-level locks. A continuous DNS monitoring system now watches all Steakhouse domains in real time. According to the post-mortem published by Steakhouse Financial on X, a full vendor security review process is now being established across all supply-chain vendors.

Adrian Cachinero Vasiljevic, the partner responsible for operations at Steakhouse Financial, issued a personal apology. He stated that identifying this attack vector was his responsibility and committed to driving the security hardening work going forward.