A group of 20 victims from five countries or jurisdictions has filed a $525 million lawsuit against Fenwick & West LLP, one of Silicon Valley’s top tech law firms, accusing it of helping conceal the FTX fraud.

The complaint, filed Wednesday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, names the firm alongside six individual defendants. The plaintiffs say they lost their life savings when FTX collapsed, claiming that Fenwick’s involvement gave the exchange a false air of legitimacy that kept them from pulling their money out.

At the center of the case is testimony from Nishad Singh, FTX’s former director of engineering, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges and testified at Sam Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial. Singh said he personally told Fenwick attorneys that customer funds were being misused, and instead of walking away, the firm advised on how to hide it.

The complaint goes further. It says Fenwick attorneys set up North Dimension Inc., a Delaware shell company that posed as an electronics retailer but funneled over $3 billion in stolen customer funds. The firm also allegedly implemented FTX’s Signal auto-delete messaging policy, the same system federal prosecutors said helped the fraud go undetected by regulators and investigators.

Related: FTX estate misses out on $3B Cursor stake value after $200K sale in 2023

Examiner found Fenwick “intertwined” in FTX’s wrongdoing

A court-appointed bankruptcy examiner, whose report came out in 2024 after reviewing more than 200,000 documents, found that Fenwick created the corporate structures for both FTX and Alameda Research, formed shell entities to obscure money movements, and drafted backdated agreements to cover illicit transfers, the complaint states. The examiner concluded the firm was “deeply intertwined in nearly every aspect of FTX Group’s wrongdoing,” the lawsuit reads.

“These findings are those of a court-appointed officer based on documentary evidence in federal bankruptcy proceedings to which Fenwick was a party,” the lawsuit added.

FTX victims file lawsuit against Fenwick. Source: CourtListener

After FTX filed for bankruptcy in November 2022, Fenwick scrubbed all mentions of the exchange from its website. The firm also quietly hired top-tier law firm defense lawyers at Gibson Dunn before any civil lawsuit was filed against it, per the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are bringing seven claims against Fenwick, including malpractice, fraud and gross negligence. They are seeking compensatory damages exceeding $525 million, return of all legal fees Fenwick earned from FTX and punitive damages against partners Tyler Newby and Daniel Friedberg for “deliberate and reckless individual professional conduct.”

Related: Sam Bankman-Fried withdraws motion for a new trial, still asks for new judge

Judge denies SBF’s bid for new trial

Last month, a federal judge denied Bankman-Fried’s bid for a new trial, calling his claims of new evidence baseless. Judge Lewis Kaplan, who sentenced the former FTX CEO to 25 years in prison in 2024, said Bankman-Fried’s argument that three former FTX executives could counter the government’s case was without merit, noting that he knew all three witnesses well before the trial.

Bankman-Fried had argued that Ryan Salame and Daniel Chapsky could challenge the government’s claims about FTX’s insolvency, and that Nishad Singh changed his testimony under pressure from prosecutors. Kaplan dismissed those claims as “wildly conspiratorial and entirely contradicted by the record.”

Magazine: How crypto laws changed in 2025 — and how they’ll change in 2026

Bitcoin (BTC) bulls made another attempt to reclaim the $80,000 level on Thursday, as traders expect price swings before and after the CLARITY Act vote.

Key takeaways:

• Odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 rose to 67% in May.
• BTC price must hold $78,000-$79,000 as support for a bullish push to $84,000 or higher.

A 67% chance the CLARITY Act is signed into law in 2026

The CLARITY Act, a proposed US bill that would set clearer rules for how regulators oversee the crypto market and stablecoins, is scheduled for a Senate Banking Committee markup vote on Thursday.

Source: Cointelegraph

Prediction market traders say that there is a 67% chance that the CLARITY Act will be signed into law in 2026, according to Polymarket.

Odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026. Source: Polymarket

Traders on rival site Kalshi price-in the odds of the Act becoming law before August and Dec. 31, 2026, at 62% and 67%, respectively.

If the CLARITY Act passes, it could clearly classify Bitcoin as a digital commodity under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight, reducing legal uncertainty for the industry and further legitimizing crypto in the US. 

Related: Bitcoin to $100K in Q2? Strategy’s STRC unlocks potential to buy 3K BTC in two days

Bitcoin is expected to react positively, similar to the GENIUS Act signed in July 2025, which provided the first major US stablecoin framework. Bitcoin was already trading near all-time highs and climbed further amid regulatory optimism.

MN Capital founder Michaël van de Poppe was bullish, saying:

“Big day today with the CLARITY Act vote. Might be a historical day for everyone involved in Crypto and could, very well, signal the start of a stronger cycle.”

Analyst Sharky predicts a muted immediate pump, with the real strong move coming “90 days later, when institutional money finally has legal clarity.”

Not all analysts were optimistic about the event, however, with trading resource Material Indicators saying the passing of the CLARITY Act is “somewhat baked-in to $BTC price,” adding:

“Passing it will likely deliver a knee-jerk reaction from the market that pumps price briefly, but like all narratives, that rally will fade.”

As Cointelegraph reported, some traders expect a quick move in Bitcoin price toward $90,000 following the CLARITY Act vote, supported by improving market conditions and easing selling pressure.

Analysts highlight key BTC price levels to watch

Bitcoin may have delivered an impressive bounce to $82,000 last week, but the bullish sentiment was dampened by resistance from the 200-day moving averages around this level.

The support at $78,000 remains key for bulls, representing the short-term holder realized price and the true market mean.

This coincides with the 21-week exponential moving average (green line), as highlighted by analyst Rekt Capital in the chart below, saying:

“Downside wicking below it would be fine as long as price ends the week with a weekly candle close above the EMA to confirm it as retested support.”

BTC/USD weekly chart. Source: X/Rekt Capital

Bitcoin’s realized price by age cohorts reveals another major level of support sitting further down: the cost basis of the 1-week-to-1-month investor cohort at $76,900.

“The momentum of the ongoing rally has been driven largely by a wave of accumulation over the past 30 days,” Glassnode said in its latest Week Onchain newsletter, adding:

“This cohort’s cost basis now sits at approximately $76.9K, forming the most immediate support floor in the short term.”

Bitcoin realized price by age. Source: Glassnode

On the upside, the cost basis of investors who accumulated BTC during the November 2025-February consolidation period at $86,900 represents the “most probable near-term resistance zone as these holders approach breakeven and face a growing incentive to distribute into strength,” the onchain data provider added. 

Crypto trader and analyst Daan Crypto Trades said a break above $82,000 will see BTC rise to fill the CME gap at $84,000, eventually “continuing quite a lot higher” from that point.

BTC/USD daily chart. Source: X/Daan Crypto Trades

As Cointelegraph reported, key support levels for the bulls were the 20-day EMA at $79,000 and the 50-day SMA at $74,000, while bears were expected to defend $84,000.

The T3 Financial Crime Unit, a joint initiative backed by Tether, Tron and blockchain analytics company TRM Labs, says it has helped freeze more than $450 million in assets linked to suspected criminal activity since its launch in 2024.

The group said in a Thursday release shared with Cointelegraph that it has worked with law enforcement agencies across 23 jurisdictions to target funds tied to alleged drug trafficking, exchange hacks, North Korea-linked activity, terrorist financing and violent “wrench” attacks, including kidnappings and extortion.

The unit focuses on Tether’s USDT stablecoin activity on the Tron blockchain and says it has been able to freeze assets within 24 hours in multiple emergency cases at the request of authorities. T3 FCU said it intercepted 43.9% more illicit proceeds in 2025 than in the previous year.

The announcement comes as TRM Labs estimates that overall illicit crypto flows reached a record $158 billion in 2025, according to the release, highlighting the growing pressure on stablecoin issuers and blockchain networks to strengthen compliance and cooperate more closely with law enforcement.

The T3 Financial Crime Unit (T3 FCU). Source: Tether

The group was cited earlier this year by the Financial Action Task Force as an “invaluable resource” for law enforcement and highlighted in FATF reporting on public-private partnership models.

Related: Europe sees ‘hyperconcentration’ of crypto wrench attacks as losses hit $101M

T3 figures follow broader USDT freeze activity

The new figures also follow separate onchain data from security firm BlockSec on Friday, showing that more than $500 million in USDT had been frozen over a recent 30-day period.

Cointelegraph reached out to Tether to ask how the $450 million in assets linked to T3 FCU’s work intersect with Tether’s broader blacklisting and freezing activity across chains, and how much of the total relates specifically to Tron-based USDT, but had not received a response by publication.

The company was also asked how it balances an expanding compliance and asset-freezing toolkit with criticism from parts of the crypto industry that such powers increase centralization risk and may undermine the permissionless nature of stablecoin transfers on networks like Tron.

Tron, which positions itself as a low-cost settlement layer for stablecoins, told Cointelegraph it is an “agnostic technology provider” that cannot directly monitor every user or block every transaction, and that the means to identify and stop illicit activity sit with partners such as Tether, TRM Labs and law enforcement.

Asia Express: North Korea denies crypto hacks, Upbit’s bank tests Ripple

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) posted their largest daily outflow since January as Bitcoin struggled to hold the $80,000 level after a sharp rebound from April lows.

Bitcoin (BTC) funds recorded $635.2 million in outflows on Wednesday, extending $233.3 million in outflows from the previous trading session, according to SoSoValue data.

So far, weekly outflows stand at $841.2 million, putting ETFs on track for their first week of net losses after six consecutive weeks of gains totaling around $3.4 billion.

Weekly spot Bitcoin ETF flows since March 27 (May 13 week incomplete). Source: SoSoValue

The volatility comes as Bitcoin continues to swing around $80,000, repeatedly slipping below and reclaiming the level, with analysts pointing to profit-taking pressure following a 37% rally from April lows.

The biggest daily outflow since late January

The fresh outflows mark the largest daily Bitcoin ETF withdrawal since Jan. 29, when the funds posted about $818 million in losses in a single day.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led losses with roughly $285 million in outflows, according to Farside data. The ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB) and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) followed with $177 million and $133.2 million, respectively.

Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Trust ETF (MSBT) posted no outflows on Wednesday and recorded about $6 million in inflows on Tuesday. The fund has not seen any outflows since its April 8 launch and has accumulated roughly $256 million to date.

Altcoin funds: Ether joins the selling, Solana and HYPE lead inflows

The negative trend has continued in Ether (ETH) ETFs, which saw $36.3 million of outflows on Wednesday, bringing weekly outflows to roughly $184 million so far.

Solana (SOL)-linked funds led the positive trend with around $6 million in inflows, putting week-to-date gains at $51.6 million. Hyperliquid (HYPE)-linked funds saw inflows of $1.36 million on their debut on Tuesday, bringing cumulative net inflows to $2.52 million.

Related: JPMorgan lifts Bitcoin ETF exposure in Q1, led by BlackRock’s IBIT

Bitcoin’s volatility came as it tested the 200-day moving average near $82,400 after a 37% rally from April lows, a level that has historically acted as resistance in prior bear-market rebounds, CryptoQuant said in a note shared with Cointelegraph.

Source: CryptoQuant

The analysts pointed to rising profit-taking, elevated unrealized gains and weakening US spot demand as signs that momentum may be fading. On-chain data suggests potential support near $70,000 if a deeper correction develops, CryptoQuant said.

“This level has historically acted as a key resistance-turned-support band during bear markets, as it represents the average cost basis of short-term traders and the level at which unrealized profit margins compress back toward zero, reducing the incentive for further selling,” the report said.

Magazine: eToro founder timed Bitcoin top perfectly due to belief in 4 year cycles

US lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee advanced the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY) in a markup session, marking a significant step in Congress’ bid to establish regulatory clarity for digital asset companies and markets. The vote underscored a consequential, though tightly contested, path toward settling how the United States governs crypto markets, exchanges, and associated services.

In the Thursday session, all 13 Republican members and two Democrats voted to move CLARITY forward, while nine Democrats opposed the bill. Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joined the Republican bloc in voting yes. The markup followed a flurry of proposed amendments aimed at reshaping various facets of crypto regulation, including stablecoin yields and ethics restrictions. According to Cointelegraph, lawmakers proposed more than 100 amendments to the crypto bill ahead of the markup.

During opening remarks, committee chair Tim Scott framed the measure as a balance between consumer protection, US innovation, and national security in the digital asset space. In contrast, ranking member Elizabeth Warren argued the bill would be “written by the crypto industry for the crypto industry,” suggesting it would facilitate a political-friendly path for the administration’s crypto agenda. “Nothing made it into this bill that wasn’t approved by the crypto industry,” Warren contended.

“This is a pro-law-enforcement, pro-consumer framework,” said Senator Cynthia Lummis, a leading Republican advocate for CLARITY, countering several Democratic criticisms.

Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, characterized the process as lacking bipartisan parity, noting that Scott had repeatedly curtailed consideration of Democratic amendments. The exchange highlighted deep partisan fault lines surrounding the bill’s scope and its approach to enforcement, consumer protections, and industry oversight.

As CLARITY moved through the process, discussions touched on several high-profile amendments, including proposals to establish AI sandboxes, address tokenization loopholes, and strengthen anti-money-laundering provisions. Notably, lawmakers debated regulatory approaches to crypto mixers and the tracing of illicit flows, with supporters arguing that the bill would clarify enforcement authority, while critics warned of gaps that could hamper consumer protection and market integrity.

In a separate debate, Democrats floated provisions to expand law-enforcement capabilities in crypto cases, while Republicans defended the bill’s balance between oversight and innovation. Several amendments related to stablecoins, digital dollars, and the role of banking regulators were introduced and voted on along partisan lines, with many failing to advance.

Additionally, the committee weighed concerns about ethics and potential conflicts of interest within the executive and legislative branches. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen pressed for an amendment addressing potential conflicts tied to the Trump administration and related crypto ventures, but the measure did not pass. Republican supporters argued that the governance framework should not be distorted by extraneous political entanglements.

Key takeaways

• CLARITY advanced from the Senate Banking Committee with a partisan vote: all Republicans and two Democrats in favor, nine Democrats opposed.
• Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joined Republicans in voting yes; chair Tim Scott framed the bill as a consumer-protective measure that preserves US innovation and national security.
• Dozens of amendments were proposed, reflecting a broad debate over stablecoins, AML/CFT controls, AI use in markets, and ethics considerations; several amendments were debated and either adopted or rejected along party lines.
• Progress now hinges on a Senate floor vote (requiring 60 votes) and subsequent House approval of the amended language before any presidential signature.
• The regulatory architecture remains a focal point, with ongoing implications for the SEC, CFTC, and broader licensing, AML/KYC, and banking-backbone requirements for crypto firms and related financial institutions.

Regulatory context and implications for markets

The CLARITY debate sits at the intersection of multiple regulatory streams seeking to harmonize oversight for a rapidly evolving sector. Supporters frame the bill as a needed framework to reduce uncertainty for digital asset issuers, exchanges, and custodians while strengthening protections for investors and consumers. Critics, however, warn that the bill could entrench industry-friendly provisions and delay comprehensive, codified standards from the SEC and CFTC, potentially creating regulatory arbitrage across jurisdictions.

The measure contemplates cross-agency alignment, with consideration of SEC and CFTC roles, and signals ongoing congressional interest in clarifying which activities trigger securities, commodities, or other regulatory regimes. Observers note that the outcome could influence licensing pathways, anti-money-laundering controls, customer due diligence, and the integration of crypto services with traditional banking rails, including stablecoin settlements and on/off-ramp facilities.

Industry participants have stressed the practical significance of a clear statutory framework. Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, told Cointelegraph prior to the markup that floor passage would depend on sufficient Senate support and eventual alignment with the House’s stance on identical language. The comments underscore the central question: will CLARITY provide a lasting, enforceable baseline that reduces legal ambiguity for market participants, or will it remain a negotiating platform for a broader regulatory settlement?

Ethics, oversight, and the path forward

Ethics and governance remained a recurring theme for Democratic lawmakers, who raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of political actors on crypto policy. While some amendments targeted enforcement powers or supervisory discretion, others probed whether the administration’s broader crypto strategy would withstand legislative scrutiny. Republicans countered that robust oversight and clear standards would strengthen governance without stifling innovation.

Experts emphasize that the bill’s ultimate impact will depend on the text that emerges from the committee and the compatibility of House and Senate versions. If a floor vote in the Senate yields passage, the amended legislation would advance to the House for approval, where political dynamics and alignment with the White House would shape the likelihood of enactment. Until then, the regulatory timetable remains fluid, with ongoing debates likely to influence subsequent drafting and enforcement priorities.

As the process unfolds, industry and policy observers will monitor how CLARITY interacts with broader regulatory efforts, including MiCA in the European Union and evolving US AML/KYC standards, as well as the cross-border implications for stablecoins, banking integration, and enforcement actions by the DOJ and other agencies.

Closing perspective

With the markup marking a milestone in congressional consideration, CLARITY’s trajectory will depend on continued bipartisan buy-in and the ability to reconcile divergent views on enforcement, ethics, and consumer protections. The next steps—floor debates in the Senate, House harmonization, and potential presidential engagement—will determine whether the United States achieves a durable regulatory framework for the digital asset economy or enters another round of regulatory negotiation.

Real-world assets (RWA) crossed $32 billion in market value for the first time on Tuesday, as Wall Street’s love affair with tokenization continues to accelerate.

JPMorgan was the latest to double down on its interest through a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a new tokenized money-market fund for stablecoin issuers on Ethereum.

Not everyone is impressed by the big names and numbers.

“[Most] of the projects out there, and even the traditional finance players coming into crypto, they’re only looking at the issuance layer,” Chris Kim, founder and CEO of liquidity provider Axis, told Cointelegraph. “Nobody is actually focusing on the liquidity side of things.”

Issuing a tokenized asset and being able to trade it are two very different things, Kim argued. The industry’s obsession with market cap figures doesn’t measure how much of $32 billion can actually change hands.

Onchain RWA assets market value grew by about $10 billion in 2026 so far. Source: rwa.xyz

Putting assets onchain is the easy part

Tokenized finance is expected to continue growing. McKinsey & Company projects the tokenized market cap could reach $2 trillion by 2030. Standard Chartered sees $30.1 trillion by 2034.

But Kim claimed that the industry is obsessed with the wrong metrics, as the race to issue is outpacing the ability to trade these assets.

“The tradability around it is going to be an important factor to determine the value of these tokenisation markets going forward. But right now, there isn’t that much trading happening around tokenized RWAs,” he said.

The headline figure doesn’t tell the story of how unevenly liquidity is distributed across asset classes. Tokenized Treasuries, which account for roughly half of the RWA market, benefit from the underlying liquidity of US government debt, as rwa.xyz data shows.

But for other categories, Chainalysis reported that the tokenized assets market cap is drawn from a platform — rwa.xyz — that tracks highly illiquid assets like real estate alongside liquid ones.

“Because these illiquid assets lack continuous secondary market trading, their exact present market value is inherently difficult to measure, meaning certain aggregate valuations should be treated as best-available estimates,” Chainalysis wrote in its April report. 

Chainalysis tracked $40.5 billion in tokenized gold trading volume and found that for most of its history, it had almost no correlation to traditional gold markets, frequently decoupling entirely. It is only since mid-2025 that the two markets have begun moving in tandem.

Tokenized gold is beginning to track physical gold prices more closely, but the two markets have not yet fully converged. Source: Chainalysis

Related: Crypto and AI could be dirty words on 2026 midterm campaign trail

In other words, even for one of the most mature tokenized asset classes, onchain trading has only recently started to behave like the real thing.

Fragmentation is taxing the RWA economy

For RWA assets in today’s Web3 economy, the same asset is issued across multiple blockchains.

“The fragmentation is accelerating,” Kim said. “We are seeing the same asset being issued on multiple blockchains in 30 different formats, and they can’t interact with each other.”

Kim has a stake in the narrative. Axis, his arbitrage yield platform, is built on capturing price discrepancies across fragmented markets.

When tokenized assets are spread across blockchains without seamless interoperability, pricing diverges and capital efficiency takes the hit. Issuers can face duplicated legal work and siloed liquidity pools, while investors must navigate different custody models and risk profiles.

The cost of this fragmentation is already measurable, according to a report by RWA.io. Moving capital between networks compounds the problem by costing investors between 2% to 5% per transaction in fees and slippage.

The same tokenized fixed-income asset trades at different prices across blockchains. Source: RWA.io

RWA.io estimated these inefficiencies drain between $600 million and $1.3 billion from the market every year. If the fragmentation persists as the market scales, those annual losses could reach $75 billion by 2030.

The technology to fix this exists, but the infrastructure connecting it all is the missing piece of the puzzle, according to RWA.io. Onchain operational failures drove a 143% increase in financial losses in the first half of 2025 compared to all of 2024.

The long road to a functioning RWA market

Kim is not bearish on tokenisation and views it as an inevitable destination for global capital markets. But inevitable does not mean imminent.

“I view tokenisation as a default standard in the far future,” he said. “But until we get there, we are still going to have a differentiation between TradFi liquidity profiles and on chain liquidity profiles.”

JPMorgan and BlackRock are racing to put assets on chains. But until the liquidity infrastructure catches up, the market cap figure doesn’t fully measure a functioning market.

“We are just maybe in the early innings,” Kim said. “Until more sophisticated liquidity providers are able to synchronise TradFi and onchain tokenised markets, then I think we can only call it a successful alternative to TradFi.”

The IMF has also flagged a longer term concern in a January 2025 note on tokenization and financial market inefficiencies. It warned that while tokenization could reduce some trading costs, it may amplify shocks if institutions become more interconnected and hold lower liquidity buffers as a result. 

In other words, the race to put assets on blockchains may be creating new systemic risks even as the old infrastructure problems remain unsolved.

Magazine: eToro founder timed Bitcoin top perfectly due to belief in 4 year cycles

Bitcoin (BTC) is struggling to enter a stronger breakout phase above $80,000, as capital inflows into the BTC market remain below levels seen in past bull runs. BTC futures traders are also staying cautious, while a growing number of investors who have held for the past six months may look to sell into key resistance levels, according to new analysis.

Bitcoin capital inflows remain muted: Glassnode

The Week On-chain report from Glassnode stated that Bitcoin’s 30-day realized cap net position change recently climbed to $2.8 billion per month. The metric tracks the amount of new capital entering the BTC market over 30 days.

Bitcoin realized cap net position change. Source: Glassnode

The positive flows helped support the BTC recovery from April’s lows near $65,000. But previous breakout phases during the 2023–2025 rally were accompanied by much bigger capital rotations. The slower pace of capital entering the market this year has raised doubts about whether Bitcoin can rally above the $80,000–$82,000 range.

Related: Bitcoin risks slump after hitting ‘major bear market resistance’: CryptoQuant

Glassnode also flagged a growing cluster of holders near the $86,900 level. These investors accumulated BTC during the November-to-February period and are now approaching breakeven. These holders could sell near their entry price after extended drawdowns, creating a large overhead supply zone that may stall Bitcoin’s rally.

BTC realized price by age. Source: Glassnode

Short-term buyers continue to support the market around $76,900, which marks the average cost basis for coins acquired over the past 30 days. This indicates fresh demand is still entering the market at lower levels, even as overhead supply is concentrated closer to $87,000.

Related: JPMorgan lifts Bitcoin ETF exposure in Q1, led by BlackRock’s IBIT

BTC futures traders stay cautious

Bitcoin researcher Axel Adler Jr. said that the buying activity across spot and futures markets has started to cool after Bitcoin’s recent push above $80,000. The 30-day net taker volume indicator rose to +2.0 on May 6 before dropping to +1.25 on Wednesday. The metric shows whether buyers or sellers are in control.

BTC buyer pressure has dropped roughly 35% from last week, showing traders are becoming less aggressive as Bitcoin trades near $80,000. Adler noted that past corrections in the +0.3 range often coincide with slower price action or sideways periods.

Bitcoin net taker volume oscillator. Source: Axel Adler Jr.

At the same time, the 30-day Bitcoin funding rate has remained negative since March. Negative funding means the short traders are paying long traders to keep their positions open, showing that bears still dominate futures activity.

Even with Bitcoin reclaiming the $80,000 range, BTC futures traders have not added long positions needed to support a decisive breakout. Adler said a move back above zero in funding rates would offer the first stronger sign of renewed bullish positioning.

Meanwhile, Alphractal CEO Joao Wedson said Bitcoin still needs stronger money flows before a larger bull market can begin. Wedson pointed to the Realized Cap Impulse metric, which tracks whether fresh capital is entering or leaving the Bitcoin market.

Bitcoin realized cap impulse. Source: Joao Wedson/X

The indicator remains slightly below zero, showing fresh capital inflows have not yet returned to the levels typically seen during stronger Bitcoin breakout phases. Wedson said a move back above zero would signal that investors are putting fresh capital back into Bitcoin.