Ethereum price is eyeing a breakout from the $2,400 resistance, which has capped the token’s gains over the past week.

According to data from crypto.news, Ethereum (ETH) price rebounded 3.5% to $2,393 on May 4 before facing rejection at $2,400 and stabilizing around $2,370 at press time. While Ethereum has briefly broken above the $2,400 mark on two occasions over the past month, the altcoin lost momentum and quickly retraced below the level.

However, at press time, several technical and fundamental factors suggest that the token could finally escape from the narrow trading range.

Notably, on the daily chart, Ethereum price is approaching a bullish MACD crossover, which typically signals a shift toward upward momentum. The last time such a positive crossover occurred, Ethereum price rose nearly 25% within a month.

The Supertrend has remained green since mid-March, a sign that the broader market structure remains in an uptrend despite recent price fluctuations.

At press time, Ethereum price was near the 61.8% fibonacci retracement level at $2,381, a sign that bulls are aggressively defending the mid-range zone. A decisive break above the current resistance could trigger a breakout from the $2,400 and a move towards the next key 38.2% retracement level at $2,772 if bullish momentum holds.

Besides strong technical signals, on-chain demand also seems to support a potential rally. Data from SoSoValue show that Ethereum ETFs recorded over $100 million in net inflows last Friday, breaking off a 4-day negative streak, which saw $183 million in outflows.

While this is not yet a sign that institutional investors will go all in immediately, it shows renewed appetite for the asset, especially if the positive flows continue to show up this week.

Another catalyst that could support Ethereum’s gains is the drop in ETH balances on exchanges. Per data from CryptoQuant, Ethereum exchange reserves have fallen to 14.5 million, the lowest level since mid-2016, indicating reduced selling pressure on the token.

Bitcoin breached $80,000 on Monday, rising 2.7% over a three-hour span as Asian equities began trading, marking its highest price since Jan. 31, 2026.

The Bitcoin rally began at 1:25 am UTC, rising from $78,415 to break the $80,000 level about 75 minutes later before climbing to $80,515 by 4:20 am UTC, according to TradingView data. 

Bitcoin’s price change on Coinbase on Monday. Source: TradingView

The rally coincided with a 2.3% rise in the MSCI AC Asia Index to 245.2 on Monday morning, breaking its previous high of 243.6 on Feb. 22, about a week before the US-Iran war began.

A rise in the MSCI AC Asia Index at the start of the week generally reflects positive global risk sentiment in response to weekend developments, though it doesn’t necessarily mean that US equities will follow suit.

Ether (ETH), XRP (XRP) and BNB (BNB) also rallied and are up 3.9%, 2.4% and 3.3% over the last 24 hours, at the time of writing. 

The price rise also comes as crypto momentum has been building in Washington, where members of the banking and crypto industries reached a compromise on stablecoin yield provisions in the CLARITY Act, with a Senate markup expected this month.

The US-based spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds have also seen net inflows in 11 of the past 14 trading days, indicating that institutional demand remains strong.

Friday’s inflow of $629.8 million also marked the US Bitcoin ETF industry’s strongest day in two weeks.

Bitcoin up nearly 30% from 2026 low

Bitcoin’s climb back to $80,000 marks a nearly 30% recovery from its 2026 low of about $62,000 reached on Feb. 5, and several industry observers said there is a path for Bitcoin to reach $100,000.

Related: Strategy takes Bitcoin buying breather ahead of Q1 earnings report 

One of them is MN Trading Capital founder Michael van de Poppe, who said Friday that Bitcoin does not need a fresh narrative to return to the $100,000 mark:

“There doesn’t need to be a narrative that pushes the price upwards,” he said, stating that as the price moves upwards, “the narrative will create itself.”

The crypto industry is also watching the US Bitcoin Reserve after White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said at the Bitcoin Conference in Las Vegas last week that a “big announcement” on President Donald Trump’s Bitcoin reserve is coming in the next few weeks. 

Magazine: Adam Back says current demand is ‘almost’ enough to send Bitcoin to $1M

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Key Takeaways

• Legendary commodities trader Peter Brandt projects Bitcoin reaching $250,000 by the end of 2029.
• Brandt anticipates an extended consolidation period that may continue through September or October 2026.
• Bitcoin has already rebounded more than 25% from its February trough around $60,000.
• The projection relies on analyzing Bitcoin’s recurring four-year halving cycle patterns.
• Brandt maintains flexibility, stating he’ll adjust his thesis if market behavior deviates from historical patterns.

---

Peter Brandt, a commodities trading veteran with nearly fifty years of market experience, has unveiled a comprehensive price trajectory for Bitcoin. His ultimate target stands at $250,000 by the close of 2029. However, he emphasizes that the cryptocurrency market faces considerable consolidation before initiating that major upward move.

According to Brandt’s assessment, Bitcoin is presently navigating through a bottoming formation that could persist until September or October 2026. This extended timeframe isn’t speculation. It’s derived from careful examination of Bitcoin’s four-year halving cycle, a pattern that has demonstrated remarkable consistency throughout the cryptocurrency’s history.

In April 2024, Bitcoin underwent its scheduled halving event — reducing the mining reward from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC per block. Historical data shows that bull market peaks typically emerge approximately 16 to 18 months following each halving event. Based on this framework, the most recent cycle peak occurred around October 2025, when Bitcoin reached approximately $126,000.

Understanding the Four-Year Cycle Structure

After reaching that peak, Brandt anticipates a bear market phase spanning roughly twelve months. This timeline would position a market bottom somewhere in the autumn of 2026. Subsequently, a fresh uptrend would develop heading into the April 2028 halving, potentially culminating at $250,000 during late 2029.

“I am not calling for a low until Sep/Oct 2026,” Brandt explained to CoinDesk. “It is not necessary for the recent low to be penetrated. We could get a rally and then chop sideways to down. Worst case would be a move back into the lower green banana peel which would be into the 50s, maybe high 40s. Then blast off for $250k and a high in late 2029.”

This analysis suggests Bitcoin may trade within a range of approximately $47,000 to $80,000 for over a year before any substantial bullish momentum develops.

This perspective contrasts with many cryptocurrency analysts who believe the bear market concluded in February when Bitcoin established a floor near $60,000. Since that low point, BTC has surged over 25%, trading around $80,300 in early May 2026.

A Non-Dogmatic Forecasting Philosophy

What distinguishes Brandt from numerous market forecasters is his transparent commitment to revising his outlook when circumstances warrant. “As long as the market follows the script I will stay with my projections. If at some point the price discovery moves off script I will be forced to revise all my thinking. I will NOT be dogmatic about it,” he stated.

This adaptive methodology represents a refreshing contrast in an environment where many analysts remain stubbornly attached to failed predictions.

Currently, Bitcoin is trading near $79,740, remaining considerably below its 2025 all-time high.

Coinbase has urged U.S. derivatives regulators to keep prediction markets under existing rules, filing a formal response as legal pressure builds around event-based contracts.

According to a letter submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and addressed to Secretary Christopher Kirkpatrick on April 30, Coinbase responded to the agency’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on prediction markets, arguing that such products already fit within current statutory authority.

In the filing, Coinbase described prediction markets as “one of the most dynamic areas of derivatives markets,” while stating that no new legislative mandate is required to oversee them under existing frameworks. Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad signed the letter and called on regulators to preserve a principles-based approach that prioritises market integrity.

Shirzad told the press that event-based contracts are not a new concept and compared them to traditional futures, explaining that both mechanisms aggregate dispersed information into pricing signals. Coinbase’s submission also asked the CFTC to clarify how it intends to exercise its authority to block contracts deemed against the public interest.

Coinbase said in the letter that consistent safeguards should apply to all users, whether they trade directly on platforms or through intermediaries, adding that regulatory clarity would help maintain trust as participation expands.

The filing comes as disputes over event contracts continue to surface at the state level, including a lawsuit in Wisconsin that has added urgency to the regulatory debate. Coinbase’s position places it among firms seeking federal clarity at a time when jurisdiction between state authorities and federal regulators remains contested.

Earlier, Shirzad addressed a separate policy issue tied to stablecoin rewards during negotiations around the CLARITY Act, telling Reuters that revised language preserved “what matters” for crypto platforms while introducing limits on rewards that resemble bank interest. Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks negotiated that compromise, which restricts deposit-like yields while allowing activity-based incentives tied to platform use.

With the Senate Banking Committee targeting a markup of the CLARITY Act in the week of May 11, Coinbase’s latest filing on prediction markets adds to its ongoing engagement with U.S. policymakers across multiple areas of crypto regulation.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is soliciting public input on a March-proposed rule aimed at tightening and clarifying the agency’s authority over prediction-market event contracts. More than 1,500 comments were filed as the comment window closed, reflecting a broad mix of support for clearer federal oversight and concerns that new rules could curb access or push activity into less regulated spaces.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC drew more than 1,500 public responses to its proposed rule, which would empower the regulator to amend or issue new regulations for event contracts on prediction markets.
• Kalshi and Polymarket endorsed the CFTC’s stance on exclusive federal jurisdiction, with Kalshi’s Luana Lopes Lara urging guidance to keep event contracts listed and overseen by the Commission; Polymarket’s Justin Hertzberg likewise backed strong CFTC authority.
• Industry voices such as Andreessen Horowitz supported the move, arguing that state actions to regulate or ban prediction markets threaten impartial access and the viability of CFTC-regulated platforms.
• State gambling regulators and some lawmakers pushed back, warning that prediction markets could masquerade as unregulated sportsbooks or raise questions about jurisdiction over sports and geopolitical markets.
• The debate appears amid ongoing legal tensions between federal regulators and several states, who have pursued or threatened litigation over prediction-market operations.

Federal rulemaking and the broad jurisdictional question

The public comment period centered on a CFTC proposal designed to formalize the agency’s ability to adjust or introduce regulations governing event-based contracts offered on prediction markets. The agency’s aim is to clarify oversight for products that people bet on outcomes ranging from elections to geopolitical events, by carving out a defined federal jurisdiction that some market participants say is overdue, while others worry about potential overreach into areas traditionally governed by state gambling regulators.

In the view of Kalshi, a leading prediction-market platform, the proposal could usefully supplement existing rules. Kalshi co-founder and chief operating officer Luana Lopes Lara told the commission that its current framework is “well-designed and effective,” and urged the agency to provide guidance that would ensure the universe of event contracts can continue to be listed, traded, and overseen by the Commission. Her stance reflects a desire for regulatory clarity that maintains a federal standard without stifling innovation.

A separate industry voice, Polymarket, echoed similar sentiment. Polymarket US CEO Justin Hertzberg commended CFTC Chair Mike Selig for reaffirming the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets, while stressing that the regulator should continue to exercise that authority. The call for certainty here mirrors a broader industry preference for predictable rules that reduce the risk of a patchwork state-by-state regime.

Supportive voices: investors and builders weigh in

Beyond Kalshi and Polymarket, venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz joined the chorus advocating for federal clarity. In a letter, the firm argued that actions by individual states to regulate or ban prediction markets can impede impartial access and raise barriers for participants who rely on predictable, federally supervised systems.

From the industry’s perspective, a stable federal framework could unlock participation from institutions and developers who have looked for consistent regulatory ground to justify scaling operations that depend on prediction-market economics. Yet supporters also recognize that clear rules must address real-world risks, including consumer protection, market manipulation, and the potential for insider knowledge to influence outcomes.

Regulators and lawmakers push back: concerns about overreach and misuse

Not everyone in the regulatory ecosystem welcomed the CFTC’s stance. Several state gambling regulators pressed back, arguing that the federal approach could obscure the line between sports betting and prediction markets, and potentially allow platforms to circumvent state oversight. Pennsylvania’s Kevin O’Toole, executive director of the Gaming Control Board, asserted that the CFTC’s position could allow prediction markets to masquerade as unregulated sportsbooks. Similarly, Mary Beth Thomas, executive director of the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council, contended that sports event contracts offered on prediction markets may fall outside the CFTC’s jurisdiction altogether and should remain under state control.

Missouri’s perspective was notably pointed. Michael Leara, executive director of the Missouri Gaming Commission, urged Congress to preserve state jurisdiction over sports-event contracts, arguing that lawmakers did not intend futures markets to embody gambling activities. Such framing highlights the friction between a federally focused approach to prediction markets and states that view these activities as intrinsically tied to traditional gambling regulation.

The debate also touched on broader policy concerns. Some lawmakers worry about the potential for prediction markets to monetize geopolitical events or to be influenced by insiders with privileged information. In a joint letter, Dennis Kelleher, CEO and co-founder of Better Markets, along with 12 consumer groups, urged the CFTC to prohibit event contracts tied to elections or geopolitical events, arguing such contracts could influence public policy or governmental action.

The intensity of state-level pushback has intersected with ongoing legal action in the federal arena. The CFTC has argued that it should hold authority over prediction markets and has pursued litigation against several states that challenged this position, signaling a deliberate effort to secure a clear federal role in this space. The tension between state sovereignty and federal oversight remains a central throughline of the current discourse.

Market implications: what readers should watch next

Looking ahead, the CFTC’s next steps will be crucial for market participants navigating prediction markets and related crypto ventures. While the proposed rule is designed to formalize federal oversight, the precise contours of the final rule—and how it will be interpreted by states and courts—remain to be seen. For traders and platform operators, the outcome could impact licensing trajectories, listing standards, and the balance between consumer protections and open access.

The broader environment also includes notable developments around insider trading restrictions and platform governance. Kalshi and Polymarket indicated in recent weeks that they have tightened insider-trading controls and restricted certain users, such as politicians, from participating in their markets. These steps may reflect a growing sensitivity to insider risks and could inform how stricter federal guidance might shape platform policies going forward. Separately, the Senate’s decision to ban its members and staff from using prediction markets has added a political dimension to the regulatory conversation, signaling that policymakers are watching how these tools are used in practice.

As the CFTC weighs public input, observers will be watching for signs of timing and substance in forthcoming guidance or a final rule. If the agency provides clearer standards on listing, trading, and oversight of event contracts, it could spur greater participation from compliant players while also clarifying the boundaries for state regulators. Conversely, if the final rule narrows federal reach or imposes onerous requirements, it could slow adoption and push certain activities toward gray areas or state-level solutions.

Readers should monitor next statements from the CFTC, any coordinated actions among states, and the evolution of platform policies around eligibility, insider trading, and dispute resolution. The outcome will help define not only the regulatory risk landscape for prediction markets but also the broader trajectory of how crypto-related derivatives and event-based instruments integrate into the U.S. financial-regulatory framework.

Stablecoins may need a new public identity as their role expands beyond crypto trading, according to Robert Hackett, head of special projects at a16z crypto. 

In a May 1 report, Hackett said the word came from crypto’s early years, when builders needed tokens that could hold steady value during sharp market swings.

He said the name once made sense because it explained the main problem these assets solved. However, Hackett argued that the technology has moved past that early use case. He wrote, “Stability is now table stakes. It’s a prerequisite, and not the point.”

Stablecoins move beyond price stability

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to track assets such as the U.S. dollar, gold, or other reference values. They now support payments, transfers, settlement, savings products, and financial apps built on public blockchains.

Hackett said the term still points to the original problem of crypto volatility, not to the wider platform stablecoins have become. He added that the real question is no longer whether these assets can hold value, but what builders can create with them.

The market has also grown. DefiLlama data showed the total stablecoin market cap near $320.84 billion, with USDT holding about 59.06% dominance. That size has made the sector one of crypto’s main bridges to payments and dollar-based activity.

Rebrand debate grows among builders

John Palmer, a developer and brand adviser, made a similar case last week. He said it “feels like a bug” to call them stablecoins because the category may expand crypto’s use far beyond its current reach.

Palmer also said these assets deserve a self-defined name, rather than one built as a response to volatility. His comments matched Hackett’s view that the word stablecoin frames the technology as a fix, not as a base layer for digital money.

Moreover, Hackett said other terms, such as “digital cash” or “programmable money,” may describe the technology better. Still, he noted that such names can feel too awkward for common use.

He also said early names often remain even after technology changes. As an example, he compared stablecoins with terms such as horsepower and email. In his view, people may later speak more often about digital dollars, digital euros, and other onchain assets.

Elsewhere, the a16z comments came as the firm stays active in wider crypto policy debates. Crypto.news reported that a16z also backed the CFTC in a dispute over state-level restrictions on prediction markets, showing its wider role in digital asset regulation discussions.

Payward has completed its acquisition of Bitnomial, giving Kraken a regulated pathway to launch crypto derivatives in the U.S.

According to a company statement released Friday, the deal hands Payward control of a full set of Commodity Futures Trading Commission licenses, including a Futures Commission Merchant, a Designated Contract Market, and a Derivatives Clearing Organization, allowing it to operate trading, clearing, and brokerage services under one framework.

Arjun Sethi, co-CEO of Payward and Kraken, said the rollout will begin with spot margin trading on Kraken, with perpetual contracts and options scheduled to follow, adding that “that stack is what makes the next set of products possible.”

Bitnomial, based in Chicago, spent more than a decade securing the three CFTC approvals required to run a complete derivatives operation, a combination no other crypto-native U.S. firm holds at the same time, according to Payward’s earlier disclosure in April.

With the transaction closed, Bitnomial will operate within Payward while keeping its regulatory structure and third-party services intact, the company said, alongside plans to expand the exchange’s team as development continues.

Payward said the integration will connect Bitnomial’s infrastructure across Kraken, NinjaTrader, and its business-to-business platform, allowing banks, brokerages, and payment firms to access regulated U.S. crypto derivatives through a single API.

When the acquisition was first announced, Payward said the deal could reach up to $550 million in cash and stock, valuing the company at $20 billion, although final terms were not disclosed upon closing.

Company data released in April showed Payward generated $2.2 billion in revenue in 2025, processed about $2 trillion in transaction volume, and held more than $48 billion in customer assets at year-end.

Outside the U.S., Payward said it already runs regulated derivatives businesses in the UK following a 2019 acquisition and introduced EU-regulated offerings in 2025, building out its international presence ahead of entering the U.S. market with a fully licensed structure.

The acquisition follows a separate $200 million investment from Deutsche Börse Group earlier this month, while Payward confirmed it had confidentially filed a draft S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in November as it continues to consider a public listing.

The 11 U.S.-listed spot bitcoin BTC$79,854.07 exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have now recorded two consecutive months of net inflows in a sign of renewed institutional appetite for the leading cryptocurrency.

But zoom out, and the recovery looks more modest than the monthly headlines suggest.

ETFs have pulled in a total of $3.29 billion in investor funds over the past two months, according to data source SoSoValue. May began on a positive note, with ETFs registering a net inflow of $629 million on Friday.

That has lifted the cumulative net inflows since the launch in January 2024 to $58.72 billion, which is still shy of the record high of $61.19 billion in October. It’s also the month when bitcoin’s spot price hit its lifetime peak of over $126,000.

The gap shows that, though demand has recovered, it has yet to compensate for the outflows between November 2025 and February 2026. The four-month stretch saw investors yank $6.38 billion alongside a sharp slide in bitcoin to nearly $60,000 from over $100,000.

It’s not necessarily a reason for alarm, but a useful reality check on where things stand compared to the peak of October’s bullish sentiment. It tells us that the recovery in ETF flows is real but incomplete. Whether it gains enough momentum remains to be seen in the days ahead.