Crypto World
The civil war inside Cardano: Hoskinson vs the foundation
Cardano launched its on-chain governance system in 2025 with the promise that ADA holders would finally control the network’s $470 million treasury. Eighteen months later, that promise is producing exactly what it was designed to: a community that is now openly rejecting funding proposals from the project’s founder. Charles Hoskinson is in a public, escalating dispute with the Cardano Foundation, Emurgo, and the DRep voter base he helped create. Three concurrent governance battles in 2026 have already shaped how Cardano’s treasury gets spent, who controls the next generation of protocol development, and whether the network can preserve its identity as crypto’s “science coin” while its own elected representatives vote against research funding. This is the story almost no major outlet is telling properly.
Summary
- Cardano’s DRep governance system has repeatedly voted against treasury proposals backed by Charles Hoskinson, Emurgo, and Input Output Global during multiple disputes in 2026.
- A proposed 32.9 million ADA research funding request tied to Leios scaling and quantum-resistant cryptography faced overwhelming opposition from DRep voters ahead of the June 8 vote deadline.
- Tensions between Hoskinson, the Cardano Foundation, and community delegates have raised questions about who now controls Cardano’s long-term direction and treasury spending priorities.
The promise and the trap
Cardano spent more than seven years building toward Voltaire, the governance era that would hand control of the network from its founding entities to its community of (ADA) holders. When the Plomin hard fork activated in early 2025, the system went live. ADA holders could now delegate their voting rights to “DReps” (Delegated Representatives), the on-chain equivalent of elected officials, who would vote on protocol changes and treasury withdrawals. The Cardano Constitution, ratified in 2024, gave DReps real authority. The treasury, which had grown to hundreds of millions of ADA from transaction fees and reserves, would be spent only with DRep approval.
This was the dream. A blockchain that did what most crypto projects only said they did: handed real power to its users.
What nobody quite anticipated is what happens when the founder of a network disagrees with the network’s elected representatives.
The first warning came in late 2025 with the Genesis ADA dispute. The first major test came in April 2026 when the Cardano Summit 2026 budget proposal hit the DRep voting system. And the third, still unfolding as of late May 2026, is the rejection of Input Output Global’s “Cardano Vision 2026” research proposal, which would fund the foundational work on Leios scaling and quantum-resistant cryptography. All three battles trace to the same underlying fault line: who decides what Cardano is for, and who gets to spend its money to get there.
The story is not, strictly, about Hoskinson. It is about what happens to a project’s founding figure when the governance system they helped design starts producing outcomes they did not expect. And it is happening, in public, with documented statements from every named participant, on a chain where every vote is permanently recorded.
The Genesis ADA dispute: who owns what
The first fight set the tone for everything that followed.
In November 2025, the major Cardano organizations (IO, Emurgo, the Cardano Foundation, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect) submitted a joint proposal to withdraw 70 million ADA from the on-chain treasury to fund what they described as critical 2026 integrations: stablecoin partnerships, custody providers, analytics services, cross-chain bridges, and price feed oracles. At the prevailing ADA price, this was roughly $18 million worth of treasury draw.
Some community members pushed back. The argument was that Genesis ADA, the initial token allocations given to IO, Emurgo, and the Cardano Foundation when the network launched, should cover these integration costs rather than the community treasury. The implication was clear: if the founding entities benefit from these integrations, the founding entities should pay for them.
Hoskinson responded on November 30 during a livestream he titled “Genesis ADA.” The remarks were direct. Genesis ADA was not a community treasury, he said. It was private earnings from the early-stage risk taken by the founding entities when the project could have failed. The allocations to IO and Emurgo were “rewards for building the original infrastructure, funding early operations, and supporting” the network during a period of regulatory uncertainty. They were not, and had never been, public funds. Calls to redirect them now were “retroactive and unfounded,” he argued, because many of today’s integrations did not even exist when Genesis ADA was defined.
The deeper point, which Hoskinson made openly in the same livestream, was that the Genesis ADA debate was a proxy for something larger. Cardano was preparing for what he called a “pentad” governance restructure in 2026, moving from the original three-entity model (IO, Emurgo, Cardano Foundation) to a five-entity executive layer, adding the Midnight Foundation and Intersect. The expanded structure, he argued, was needed to compete with “large and aggressive industry players” and coordinate negotiations for major infrastructure deals.
The community pushback held. The 70 million ADA request became one of the most-discussed treasury proposals in Cardano’s history, and the underlying tension between “private earnings” and “community treasury” did not resolve. It carried into 2026.
The Summit 2026 vote: the first time DReps said no
The second battle was procedurally smaller than the Genesis ADA dispute, but politically larger, because it produced a clean, public, on-chain outcome.
In April 2026, Emurgo submitted a treasury withdrawal proposal to fund the Cardano Summit 2026 in Berlin and presence at Token 2049 in Singapore. The original request was for 14.07 million ADA, roughly $3.66 million at the time. The 2025 edition of the Summit had been approved under the same governance framework, and the funding had passed, so Emurgo went into the 2026 vote expecting a similar outcome.
That is not what happened.
DReps pushed back immediately. The 2026 budget nearly doubled the 2025 cost. ADA’s price had fallen sharply through Q1 2026, sitting in the $0.24 to $0.30 range, and community sentiment had shifted toward what one DRep called “doing more with less.” The proposal’s gross budget was $2.26 million against a revenue target of only $450,000, an imbalance that became a focal point of criticism. The Cardano Foundation, in an unusual move for a major founding entity, abstained from the vote rather than backing Emurgo’s request, stating it wanted “to avoid directing the outcome.”
Hoskinson weighed in publicly. On April 11, 2026, he posted to X, arguing that “parties” would not save ADA’s price. Infrastructure would. He proposed the same money could fund “up to six permanent offices worldwide that would operate like a hub in Buenos Aires,” shifting Cardano’s outreach model from event-based marketing to permanent local presence. He went further: the treasury, he argued, should stop issuing “free grants” entirely, and funded projects should return up to 30 percent of capital to the treasury, which would then buy ADA from the market, creating natural buy pressure.
The original proposal failed. Emurgo submitted a revised version requesting 7.8 million ADA (approximately $1.95 million), with the Foundation contributing an additional $380,000 internally. The revised version was, by analyst accounts, materially stronger than the original. The Cardano Foundation again abstained from voting on it, formally noting it wanted the community to decide independently.
The Summit vote was, in plain terms, the first time the Cardano Foundation and Emurgo discovered they no longer set the budget themselves. DReps did. And the DReps, weighted by ADA delegations, were not in the mood to approve eight-figure event sponsorships during a price downturn.
The IO research proposal: the most consequential vote yet
The third battle is the most important one, and the one most likely to define what Cardano looks like in 2027 and beyond.
In May 2026, Input Output Global submitted a proposal titled “Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure – IO Research.” The request was for 32.9 million ADA in treasury funding (roughly $8.6 million at the prevailing price) to fund advanced research initiatives, including the Leios scaling technology and quantum-resistant cryptography. Leios is Cardano’s next-generation consensus protocol upgrade, designed to sharply raise the network’s transaction throughput, targeting the 2030 scaling strategy of 27 million monthly transactions. Quantum-resistant cryptography is the long-horizon defense against the threat that future quantum computers could break the elliptic curve cryptography that secures every major blockchain today.
This was, in IO’s framing, the foundational research that would keep Cardano relevant for the next decade.
DReps started voting against it almost immediately.
As of the week of May 19, 2026, with the vote scheduled to close on June 8, 86.72 percent of votes are “No,” with only 13.28 percent supporting the proposal. Among the most influential opposing voices was a DRep operating under the name YUTA, who announced an abstention vote and argued the proposal “mixes valuable research with what he considers unnecessary treasury spending.” YUTA’s stated preference was for the proposal to be split into separate submissions, so DReps could approve the Leios scaling work without simultaneously approving everything else IO had bundled with it.
A separate cluster of Japanese DReps voted against the proposal on different grounds, raising structural concerns about how IO was using the treasury to fund what they saw as work that should be covered by Genesis ADA allocations. The argument echoed the November 2025 Genesis dispute almost verbatim, but with sharper teeth: this time, the DRep system was actually voting, and the votes were going against IO.
Hoskinson’s response was extraordinary by any measure of crypto founder discourse. He warned, publicly, that if the proposal failed, IO would not resubmit it. He warned that “layoffs could follow if proposals fail.” He warned that ADA’s “downturn could become permanent if Cardano loses its research-driven edge.” He criticized opposing DReps as undermining “years of technological progress” for the sake of “ADA’s temporary price downturn.” And he warned that Cardano risked losing its identity as the “science coin,” the reputation it had built over “more than a decade of development and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in peer-reviewed research and academic rigor.”
The framing was that DReps voting against the proposal were not just rejecting a budget request. They were rejecting the foundational identity of Cardano itself.
DReps kept voting no.
What the three fights have in common
Step back from the specifics of each battle, and a pattern emerges that explains all three.
The Cardano governance system was designed to give ADA holders real authority over treasury spending. The system is now exercising that authority. The DReps who hold delegated voting rights are not, on net, voting the way the founding entities want them to vote.
This is not a failure of the governance system. It is the system working exactly as designed. The unstated assumption among many of the project’s founding entities had been that Voltaire would produce a decentralized rubber stamp for proposals the founding entities themselves brought forward. The reality has been the opposite: DReps are rejecting proposals, including high-profile ones, from the project’s most senior figures.
There is a price dimension to all of this that cannot be ignored. ADA has been trapped in the $0.24 to $0.30 range since January 2026, down sharply from earlier highs. Treasury proposals that fund event marketing, large research initiatives, or anything that does not produce immediate measurable value have become much harder to pass in this environment. The community has, in effect, become a fiscal hawk. DReps are protecting the treasury because the treasury’s purchasing power has shrunk, and they want to see clear returns on what little spending does occur.
There is also a structural dimension. The Cardano Foundation expanded its DRep delegation program in January 2026, adding 220 million ADA across 11 DReps. The move was designed, by the Foundation’s framing, to distribute voting power more broadly and maintain coordinated governance participation. The unintended effect has been to create a class of DReps who are accountable to no single entity, and who can vote against any of the founding organizations, including the Foundation itself. The Foundation’s abstention on the Summit 2026 votes is, in part, an acknowledgment that the Foundation itself can no longer count on the community to follow its lead.
And there is a personal dimension. Hoskinson’s public communication style has, by his own admission, contributed to the friction. In a Thanksgiving 2025 livestream, he openly accepted “responsibility for some of the tension” and urged the ecosystem “not to polarize.” The months that followed did not produce a less polarized ecosystem. The April 2026 “no more parties” post, the criticisms of DReps as undermining Cardano’s research mission, and the recurring framing of disputes as existential threats to the project have not lowered the temperature.
The deeper question is whether Cardano’s founder still has the political capital to push proposals through a governance system designed to operate without him.
The Foundation’s careful position
The Cardano Foundation deserves separate attention because its conduct during these three battles has been notably different from Emurgo’s, and notably different from IO’s.
The Foundation has not, in any of the three disputes, openly opposed Hoskinson. It has also not, in any of the three disputes, openly backed him. On the Summit 2026 vote, the Foundation abstained both times, formally stating its reasons. On the Genesis ADA dispute, the Foundation did not weigh in publicly. On the IO research proposal, the Foundation has stayed largely silent.
What the Foundation has done is build governance infrastructure. The January 2026 DRep delegation expansion put 220 million ADA into circulation across 11 DReps. The Foundation has introduced new standards (CIP-0113, the Programmable Tokens standard) and backed tokenization initiatives. It has, in effect, focused on the structural work of making governance function rather than on the political work of taking sides in any particular vote.
The Hoskinson-Foundation tension has surfaced periodically. In November 2025, Hoskinson posted criticism of the Foundation’s spending discipline, framing it as resistance to “accountability, oversight, or real KPIs.” The Foundation’s community and governance lead, Nicolas Cerny, responded by pushing back against what he called “CF derangement syndrome” and advising community members to practice “critical thinking rather than simply parroting the talking points of certain individuals.” The exchange, conducted publicly on X, was unusually sharp for an organization-to-founder communication in crypto.
The Foundation’s quieter posture in 2026 may reflect an institutional judgment that the public fights are not worth having. Or it may reflect a strategic patience: if Hoskinson’s relationship with the DRep community keeps deteriorating, the Foundation’s careful neutrality becomes more valuable, not less.
Either way, the asymmetry between the Foundation’s silence and Hoskinson’s public statements is one of the most telling features of the current dynamic.
What this means for ADA holders
For an ADA holder, the civil war has direct, material consequences that extend beyond founder drama.
Treasury spending is now harder to approve. This is, on balance, neutral or positive for ADA’s price in the short term, because every rejected proposal is a smaller draw against the treasury, which means less sell pressure from funded projects converting ADA to fiat. The Summit 2026 rejection alone kept approximately $3.66 million of ADA out of the market. The IO research proposal, if it fails as currently projected, would keep an additional $8.6 million from being sold.
Treasury spending is also slower. The lag between proposal submission and DRep vote, combined with the now-common pattern of revisions and resubmissions, means projects requesting funding face longer timelines and more uncertainty. This is good for fiscal discipline. It is bad for execution speed, particularly for time-sensitive infrastructure work.
The most consequential outcome for ADA holders is what happens to the founder. If Hoskinson follows through on the warning that IO will not resubmit the research proposal if it fails, the Cardano Vision 2026 research initiative would not proceed in its current form. IO’s research division has been one of the project’s strongest differentiators, the source of the peer-reviewed papers, academic partnerships, and “science coin” reputation that has carried Cardano through multiple downturns. If that engine slows, Cardano’s competitive position against Ethereum, Solana, and the broader Layer-1 field changes materially.
For now, the situation is unresolved. The IO research proposal vote closes June 8, 2026. The pentad governance restructure is still under discussion. The Summit 2026 revised vote is still active. Each of these has the potential to either de-escalate the tension or sharpen it further, and there is no clear signal yet which direction the next round will move.
The deeper question
Strip away the specifics, and Cardano is testing a question every other major crypto project will eventually have to answer.
What happens when a network’s governance system, designed to give power to its community, starts producing outcomes the founding figures of the network disagree with?
The honest answer is that this is what decentralization actually looks like. Bitcoin’s founder is gone. Ethereum’s founder has explicitly stepped back from operational influence. Cardano’s founder is still active, still vocal, and still convinced his vision for the project is the correct one, but the governance system he helped design no longer requires the community to agree with him.
That is not a failure mode. That is a feature. But it is a feature that produces visible discomfort when it operates against the founder’s preferences, and the discomfort is now public, ongoing, and documented on-chain.
Cardano’s civil war is therefore not a crisis. It is a test. The project that emerges from 2026 will be either one where DReps and the founding entities have learned to coordinate productively, or one where the founding entities accept reduced political influence over a system that has, by design, outgrown them.
Both outcomes are plausible. Neither is settled.
The Pi Network community has spent years asking when tier-1 listings would arrive. The Cardano community is asking a harder question: when the founder of the network and the community of the network disagree, who actually decides?
The answer, on chain, is increasingly clear. The DReps decide. Whether Hoskinson can rebuild political capital with that community, or whether Cardano will keep shipping through a governance system that no longer defers to him, is the story to watch through the rest of 2026 and into 2027.
For now, the votes are running. The proposals are being rejected. And the man who built the system that produced this outcome is, by his own framing, watching his project lose the identity he spent over a decade building.
That is the civil war. It is happening in public, in real time, and it is shaping Cardano in ways the project’s founder did not anticipate when the system that produced it was first designed.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Governance votes and ecosystem disputes evolve quickly; the figures and statements described reflect reporting available as of late May 2026. Always do your own research.
SpaceX has gained fresh support from Wall Street as reports point to more than $70 billion in potential retail demand ahead of what could become one of the largest public offerings in U.S. market history.
Summary
- Oppenheimer initiated SpaceX coverage with an outperform rating and a $190 price target ahead of the IPO.
- Reports suggest the offering could attract more than $70 billion in retail investor orders.
- CryptoQuant data showed no clear evidence that Bitcoin selling was driven by investors shifting funds into SpaceX shares.
According to Oppenheimer, the brokerage has initiated coverage of SpaceX with an “outperform” rating and a $190 price target, implying substantial upside from the company’s expected IPO price of $135.
The firm’s coverage comes as investor interest continues building around the aerospace company’s planned stock market debut.
Framing its investment case around technology integration, Oppenheimer said SpaceX is positioned to combine space-based infrastructure with artificial intelligence-driven systems while using terrestrial computing capabilities to improve efficiency and expand services. The firm argued that such an approach could help lower operating costs while supporting future growth initiatives.
Excitement around the offering has intensified as investors await the company’s expected Friday, June 12, debut.
While optimism remains elevated, political scrutiny has also emerged. Senator Elizabeth Warren recently called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to delay the IPO, adding a regulatory dimension to discussions surrounding the listing.
Alongside its SpaceX coverage, Oppenheimer raised its outlook for Tesla stock, citing stronger electric vehicle demand amid elevated oil prices. The firm noted that Tesla’s long-term performance would still depend largely on execution in artificial intelligence and electric vehicle markets.
Wall Street forecasts point to gains after listing
Beyond Oppenheimer, additional firms have started publishing forecasts for the stock. New Street Research has initiated coverage with a $165 price target, representing roughly 22% upside from the proposed IPO price.
Those projections have emerged as institutional and retail investors compete for exposure to the Elon Musk-founded company. Reports citing people familiar with the matter indicate that retail demand alone could exceed $70 billion, highlighting the scale of investor interest before shares begin trading.
Allocation plans have also contributed to the enthusiasm. According to reports, at least 20% of the IPO shares could be reserved for retail investors, a relatively large portion for an offering of this size. The structure would give individual traders a larger role than is typically seen in major U.S. listings.
At the same time, reports suggest that less than 10% of the shares may be allocated to international investors, signaling a strategy primarily focused on domestic participation.
Crypto market watches for potential capital competition
Attention surrounding the IPO has extended beyond equity markets and into the digital asset sector.
As crypto.news reported earlier, some analysts have warned that the SpaceX listing could compete for investor capital at a time when cryptocurrencies are already facing pressure from ETF outflows and weak sentiment.
The discussion gained momentum after Bitcoin (BTC) fell roughly 16% during the same period that SpaceX began marketing its public offering. Bitcoin briefly dropped below $60,000 before recovering toward the $61,000 level, according to market data cited in reports.
Despite the timing overlap, available blockchain data has not established a direct connection between the two developments. According to CryptoQuant data reviewed in the report, exchanges did not record unusual withdrawals of USDC or Tether during the selloff.
Stablecoin flows remained within ranges observed since February, suggesting there was no clear evidence of investors moving large amounts of crypto liquidity to fund IPO purchases.
Even so, reports that retail investors could access the offering through platforms such as Robinhood, Fidelity, and Charles Schwab have kept the debate active as the market prepares for SpaceX’s highly anticipated debut.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) charged two men over AudiA6, a crypto laundering service tied to over $389 million. Ruslan Tkachuk and Alexander Ledenev were arrested Wednesday in Batumi, Georgia.
Each defendant faces one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and one count of sting money laundering. The US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will seek their extradition.
AudiA6 Charged up to 5% for Crypto Laundering
US Attorney David Metcalf announced the charges Thursday. The DOJ statement describes Tkachuk, 37, and Ledenev, 25, as senior members of the AudiA6 organization.
The Ukrainian and Russian nationals also allegedly manage Dark2Web, the cybercrime forum where the service advertised.
A Dark2Web advertisement offered to conceal the source of any customer’s cryptocurrency traceable to criminal activity. The service charged fees of up to 5% of the amount laundered.
Blockchain analysis showed AudiA6 wallets received roughly 10,333 Bitcoin (BTC) since 2021. The deposits were worth about $389.7 million at the time of the transactions.
Only 393.39 BTC, worth roughly $19.2 million, arrived directly from darknet markets, major ransomware groups, and cybercrime services.
That is under 4% of all deposits. Additional funds arrived indirectly from illicit sources, suggesting customers layered coins before they ever touched the service.
International Operation Dismantles AudiA6 Infrastructure
The takedown followed parallel investigations by the Secret Service’s Cyber Investigative Section, IRS Criminal Investigation, Europol, and Eurojust. Partners in 10 more countries supported the action.
Authorities targeted servers and domains in the US, Iceland, Germany, and France. They blocked Telegram accounts, froze crypto assets, and seized digital devices.
The AudiA6 and Dark2Web sites now display seizure banners, mirroring earlier darknet marketplace takedowns.
The same playbook hit a crypto mixing service in November. German and Swiss authorities seized three servers and over 25 million euros, Eurojust reported.
The DOJ has meanwhile charged two Russian nationals over a $1 billion laundering operation and pursued a billion-dollar Venezuelan scheme.
Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, though the complaint’s allegations remain accusations.
The sting count covers funds that investigators represented as criminal proceeds, hinting at undercover contact with the service.
Extradition proceedings in Georgia will now determine how quickly the case reaches a Philadelphia courtroom.
The post AudiA6 Turned Crypto Laundering Into a 5% Service, Until the DOJ Caught Up appeared first on BeInCrypto.
- Short squeezes and $11 million liquidations fueled the rapid Audiera (BEAT) price spike.
- Weekly burns and $2.9 million revenue added strong narrative support.
- $7.50 support is key, break below risks move toward $6 or lower.
Audiera (BEAT) has become one of the most talked-about tokens in the digital asset market after recording an explosive move that pushed its price from below $1 levels earlier in the month to a recent high near $9.2053 on MEXC.
At its current trading range around $9.0708, the token is up more than 61% in a single day and has gained over 1,400% across the monthly timeframe.
The scale and speed of this move have placed BEAT among the strongest-performing crypto assets.
What is Audiera (BEAT)?
Audiera is a blockchain-based entertainment project built around music creation, rhythm gaming, and AI-powered content tools.
The ecosystem is designed to merge interactive gaming experiences with digital music production and on-chain ownership of assets such as NFTs.
The BEAT token acts as the central utility asset within this environment, and it is used for in-game transactions, creator rewards, subscription access, governance voting through staking mechanisms, and participation in platform-driven rewards.
The project also introduces AI agents designed to assist with music generation and user interaction inside the ecosystem.
Why has BEAT surged more than 1400% in a month?
The BEAT price has not been driven by a single factor.
Instead, it has developed through a combination of derivatives activity, market positioning, and ecosystem-related developments that aligned at the same time.
1. A major short squeeze in derivatives markets
One of the strongest drivers behind the price surge has been a large-scale short squeeze.
As BEAT’s price moved sharply higher, over $11 million in short positions were liquidated across derivatives exchanges.
These forced buybacks created additional upward pressure, accelerating the price movement.
During the same period, open interest rose by approximately 35.44% to around $303.5 million.
This indicates that leveraged positions were actively being built even as volatility increased, creating conditions for further liquidation cascades.
The combination of rising open interest and forced liquidations created a feedback loop where buying pressure was not entirely organic but heavily influenced by leveraged market structure.
2. BEAT token burn mechanism
Audiera is currently conducting a weekly token burn of 770,545 BEAT, funded by approximately $2.9 million in platform revenue.
$BEAT Revenue & Burn Update 🔥
Jun 1 – Jun 8, 2026
🔥 770,545 $BEAT burned
📈 772,045 $BEAT weekly revenue (2,866,231 USDT)Total burned: 12,353,034 $BEAT
Over 12.35M $BEAT permanently removed from circulation.1 $BEAT = 3.712 USDT (Jun 8, 2026)
Burn tx:… pic.twitter.com/ttaXnW5uui
— Audiera🟣🎵 (@Audiera_web3) June 8, 2026
This burn mechanism aims at reducing the circulating supply over time and is part of the broader narrative surrounding demand and deflationary pressure within the ecosystem.
Audiera (BEAT) price forecast
BEAT’s current structure shows a market that is still heavily influenced by leverage-driven flows and short-term momentum trading.
The key technical level for traders to watch is $7.50, which previously acted as resistance and has now become an important support zone.
As long as BEAT holds above $7.50, price action may continue consolidating within a wide range while volatility remains elevated.
Sustained stability above this level keeps the structure intact for potential continuation attempts toward the $9.40 region, where previous highs were established.
A breakout above the $9.40–$9.50 zone would place price discovery back into play, with extensions historically projected toward the $15 area based on prior momentum cycles.
However, seeing that the RSI is heavily oversold at 97.16, we could see a pullback as the market cools after the massive rally.
If the pullback happens and $7.50 is breached, we could see forced liquidations, which could accelerate a move toward the $6.00 region.
In a deeper correction scenario, particularly if open interest contracts sharply decline while price declines, extended downside projections have been observed toward the $3.70 area, reflecting a full unwind of the earlier leveraged move.
Key takeaways
- Rising supply and weak technical indicators could pressure PI toward key support at $0.1184.
- Around 16 million PI tokens are set to be unlocked on Thursday, with another 14.8 million becoming eligible for mainnet migration on Friday, potentially increasing selling pressure.
Pi Network (PI) traded lower on Thursday after suffering three consecutive days of losses earlier in the week. The token remains locked in a broader downtrend that has persisted since late April.
The recovery faces a significant near-term challenge as millions of new PI tokens are scheduled to enter circulation, potentially increasing selling pressure and limiting upside momentum.
Major token unlocks could increase supply pressure
According to PiScan data, approximately 16 million PI tokens are scheduled to be unlocked on Thursday.
A further 14.8 million PI tokens are expected to become eligible for mainnet migration on Friday, adding to concerns about rising circulating supply.
The newly unlocked tokens can potentially be transferred to centralized exchanges, increasing the likelihood of additional selling activity.
Historically, large token unlock events often create short-term downward pressure as investors gain access to previously restricted holdings.
Network activity also points to notable withdrawals among major wallets. PiScan data shows that three of the five largest transactions recorded over the past 24 hours involved the movement of approximately 255,000 PI tokens.
PI technical outlook remains bearish
At the time of writing, PI is trading above $0.1250, but the broader technical picture remains weak.
The token continues to trade below key moving averages (50-day, 100-day, and 200-day) on the four-hour chart.
The clustering of these indicators above the current price suggests that sellers continue to control the broader trend.
Technical momentum signals offer little evidence of a strong recovery. The RSI is hovering near 43, indicating weak buying pressure and a lack of strong bullish momentum.
The Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) and signal line remain slightly below zero, reflecting ongoing bearish conditions despite the recent rebound.
Together, these indicators suggest that any short-term rallies could face difficulty sustaining momentum.
If the rally resumes, PI would need to overcome the $0.1299 resistance to enable it to target the higher supply zones at $0.1360 (100-period EMA) and $0.1400.
However, if the bearish trend persists, the bulls will need to defend the core support levels at $0.1184 and $0.1000.
A break below $0.1184 could expose PI to further downside and potentially trigger a move toward the $0.1000 region.
While Pi Network has managed to stabilize after several days of losses, the combination of weak technical momentum and substantial upcoming token unlocks continues to favor the bears.
Unless demand strengthens enough to absorb the incoming supply, the current rebound risks becoming a temporary relief rally, with the recently established $0.1184 support level remaining the critical line to watch in the days ahead.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong disclosed three platform-scale figures on Thursday, giving the most detailed public accounting to date of how deeply stablecoins and agentic payments have embedded in the exchange's operations. Armstrong's post on X quoted an article by Alec Lovett, Coinbase's Head of… Read the full story at The Defiant
Crypto theft from criminal fraud and hacking would be the jurisdiction of a new U.S. cross-agency task force contemplated in a bipartisan bill introduced on Thursday, backed by well-placed lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Federal Cryptocurrency Theft Task Force would be led by the U.S. attorney general, according to bill text reviewed by CoinDesk, and it would involve the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security and the Treasury Department, among others.
The legislation is sponsored by Representative Lance Gooden, a Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and by a Democrat on House Financial Services Committee, Representative Josh Gottheimer.
“Crypto criminals are stealing billions from Americans, and Washington lacks a coordinated strategy to stop them,” Gooden, a Texas Republican, said in a statement to CoinDesk. “As digital assets shape the future of finance, this bill protects consumers, cracks down on thieves, and strengthens trust in the crypto ecosystem.”
The task force would become the main point of coordination for preventing and investigating the theft of cryptocurrency, which is a problem that plagues the young industry. From fraud and so-called pig butchering by complex criminal networks to state-backed attacks from hackers, digital assets have long been a target. Many of the sector’s most vocal political opponents often cite that undercurrent of criminal abuse as proof the sector is risky for consumers.
Despite $11 billion in thefts and scams last year, “victims have nowhere to turn,” Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, argued. This change would provide “a single federal point of contact.”
This legislative effort suggests that the responses to theft cases have been inconsistent across the jurisdictions, including federal agencies and down through state and local law enforcement.
“By housing a coordinating task force at the Justice Department, this bill gives victims, investigators and local law enforcement the unified federal response they have been missing, all on a voluntary basis that respects local control,” said Dannis Porter, co-founder and CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund that advocates for digital assets policy, in a statement.
Before the arrival of the pro-crypto administration of President Donald Trump, the DOJ had maintained its own National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, but the agency quickly disbanded it during the new administration, with new leaders arguing it was regulating the industry through enforcement.
In 2021 — during the administration of President Joe Biden — the Joint Ransomware Task Force was established to coordinate across federal agencies in a similar fashion and in a related vein, because ransomware attacks are often associated with crypto payments.
And last year, the Treasury Department set up a Scam Center Strike Force to work with other law enforcement agencies to deal with overseas scams that seek to trick people into sending crypto. The group, led by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, says it seized more than $700 million in crypto from the scams, often backed by Chinese organized crime groups through intermediaries in Southeast Asia.
It’s not yet clear whether the new task force legislation will find an avenue for passage in the busy congressional session. Bills need to either find a track through a House committee or get attached to a must-move legislative package.
The Digital Chamber, a Washington group supporting crypto policy, said in a statement about this legislative effort that it’s “critical that law enforcement agencies have the tools, training and coordination necessary to investigate theft, trace illicit activity, support victims and pursue bad actors.”
Ethereum (ETH) price rebounded by almost 2% to near $1,650 after holding a key support level. Yet the recovery rests on a weak footing as whale behavior repeats a pattern that preceded the last leg down. The bounce follows a sharp drop from May highs.
The current rebound move looks slightly bullish on the surface. Below it, a whale setup that played out weeks ago appears to be forming again.
Ethereum Whales Are Repeating a Pre-Crash Pattern
Whale positioning is the first warning, and the danger is in the pattern, not the level. Ethereum whale supply, excluding exchanges, has ticked up since June 9, from about 124.75 million to 125.12 million ETH, a move that looks like steady accumulation.
Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.
It is not steady. The same choppy pick-up-and-drop played out between May 20 and May 28, when supply looked like it was climbing but was really churning.
What came next is the warning. Whales began cutting their stash on May 28 and kept selling through May 30. Price then broke down hard from May 31 with no rebound. The current June 9 to June 11 churn mirrors that exact setup.
A bounce built on this pattern lacks a strong base. The next flow metric shows whether longer-term holders are increasing risk.
Hodlers Walking Away Deepen the Pessimism
Longer-term holders are not stepping in either. ETH hodler net position change turned negative in early June, after months of steady accumulation. This cohort holds ETH for at least 155 days.
This compounds the whale signal.
Buying from the hodlers dominated from late February through May, as holders added supply. The flip means the same group began selling into the decline.
The two signals stack in a worrying way. Whales are showing the same fragile, churn-and-drop pattern that led the last breakdown, while hodlers are now actively selling.
That mix points to real pessimism, not a passing dip. With one cohort unstable and the other heading for the exit, a rebound has little support beneath it. Smart-money flows confirm the caution.
Smart Money Index Rolls Over as Price Bounces
The Smart Money Index deepens the divergence. The index tracks how informed ETH traders position near the close versus the open, with a falling line pointing to smart-money selling.
The reading rolled over sharply in June, when the biggest chunk of the price dip surfaced. The index now sits below its signal line. So while price bounced off the lows, the smart-money proxy kept falling.
Also, the ETH price correction since the highs of $2,424 to the near-term bottom of $1,503, resembles a pole of the bearish pole-and-flag pattern.
If that pattern holds, the price chart shows how far ETH could move in the flag.
Ethereum Price Levels to Watch as Support Decides the Trend
ETH fell 38% from the May high before finding support at $1,503, then carved a V-shaped recovery into a rising channel. Ethereum price trades near $1,650, climbing back toward the channel.
The bullish case needs a clean break above $1,717, the level that caps the recovery range. Above it, the channel opens room back toward the $2,424 high lost in May.
The bearish case is heavier and tied to the flow data. A daily close below $1,600 would invalidate the bounce and expose the downside Fibonacci ladder at $1,365, then $1,256 and $1,147. These levels also align with Claude Fable 5 price prediction for ETH.
The Fibonacci retracement marks the proportional pullback from the prior swing. A full breakdown puts $992 in play, a level ETH has not traded below since the 2022 bear market. Precisely, June 2022.
The pattern carries a caveat. The V-recovery and channel are bullish shapes, but a repeating whale pattern, hodler exits, and a falling Smart Money Index argue the bounce is a relief bounce inside a downtrend, not a reversal.
The $1,600 level separates a channel-driven recovery toward $2,424 from a flow-driven breakdown toward $992.
The post Ethereum Whales Mask a 2022 Bear Market Warning appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
This guide reviews leading Canadian day trading platforms, focusing on commissions, execution quality, and investor protection.
Summary
- A 2026 review names SaintQuant the top automated trading platform for Canadian traders seeking AI-driven execution.
- SaintQuant leads a Canadian day-trading platform ranking with no-code automation, while IBKR and Moomoo serve active traders.
- Canadian traders in 2026 are weighing automated platforms like SaintQuant against active-trading options such as Interactive Brokers.
Choosing a day trading platform in Canada comes down to more than a feature checklist. Commissions eat into intraday margins. Slow execution on a fast-moving stock is the difference between a clean fill and a bad one. And regulatory standing determines whether capital is actually protected.
This guide covers the platforms worth considering in 2026, what each one is genuinely best at, and the factors that should drive a decision.
What to look for in a Canadian day trading platform
Day traders evaluate platforms differently from long-term investors. Here are the criteria that carry real weight:
- Regulation and investor protection. In Canada, look for platforms regulated by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) and backed by Canadian Investor Protection Fund (CIPF) coverage. CIPF protects eligible accounts up to $1 million if a member firm becomes insolvent.
- Execution quality. Order fill quality and execution speed directly affect profitability. Platforms with direct market access (DMA) generally provide faster, more reliable fills than those routing through third parties.
- Real-time data and Level 2 quotes. Intraday strategies depend on seeing the full order book. Some platforms charge separately for Level 2 data; others include it free.
- Commissions and total cost per trade. The headline rate is rarely the full story. Factor in ECN fees, currency conversion spreads on US equities, inactivity fees, and data subscription costs when calculating real cost per trade.
- Charting and order types. Serious day trading requires more than basic candlestick charts — look for broad indicator libraries, customizable layouts, and order types beyond market and limit.
The best day trading platforms in Canada for 2026
1. SaintQuant — Best for automated trading without the complexity
For Canadian traders who want systematic, algorithmic exposure to crypto, stock, and futures markets without the operational burden of managing a manual day trading setup, SaintQuant is the standout choice in 2026.
SaintQuant is a no-code AI automated trading platform that provides one-click quantitative strategies, ready to run from the moment a user signs up. There is no configuration, no coding, and no manual setup of any kind. The platform’s AI algorithms analyze market conditions and execute trades 24/7, with built-in risk management controls embedded in every strategy — designed to pursue consistent returns through disciplined quantitative models rather than high-volatility speculation.
Where every other platform on this list requires active involvement — reading charts, timing entries, managing positions — SaintQuant handles execution entirely on a user’s behalf.
New user offer: A $99 free starter trial credit to experience live strategy execution with no initial deposit, plus a $7 instant cash bonus upon registration with no conditions or hidden requirements.
2. Interactive Brokers (IBKR) — Best for experienced active traders
Interactive Brokers is the platform most professional and semi-professional day traders in Canada gravitate toward. Its Trader Workstation (TWS) offers over 100 order types, direct market access, institutional-grade charting, and coverage across Canadian and US exchanges.
Margin rates at IBKR are among the lowest available to retail traders — a meaningful advantage for active traders who use leverage regularly. Global market access across TSX, NYSE, NASDAQ, and international exchanges makes it the default choice for traders who want both breadth and depth.
The trade-off is a steep learning curve. TWS is not designed for beginners, and account setup is more involved than on consumer-facing platforms.
Best for: Experienced traders who prioritize execution quality, low margin rates, and global market access.
3. Moomoo — Best for active traders who want data without the cost
Moomoo has established a strong position in the Canadian active trading market by offering tools most platforms charge extra for — free Level 2 market data with full order book depth, advanced charting, stock screeners, and a comprehensive set of order types — all within a single interface.
For traders whose edge depends on reading order flow and reacting to market depth changes, free Level 2 access is a material advantage. The platform is app-first with a capable desktop version, well suited to traders who split time between mobile and desktop environments.
Best for: Active traders who want institutional data tools without institutional-tier fees.
4. Questrade — Best for options-focused traders
Questrade is one of the most established independent brokerages in Canada, with a solid options platform and competitive stock trading costs. For traders whose primary strategy involves equity options — spreads, covered calls, or directional plays — Questrade’s interface is among the better retail offerings in the Canadian market. For strategies that don’t rely heavily on Level 2 data, the absence of free depth tools is rarely a deciding factor.
Best for: Options traders and mid-volume equity traders who want a well-established Canadian brokerage.
5. TD Direct Investing (TD Active Trader) — Best for high-volume traders
TD’s Active Trader platform is designed for traders who execute at high frequency. Qualifying accounts receive discounted commissions based on trade volume, making it cost-effective for traders placing 150+ trades per month. The platform offers advanced charting, real-time data, and direct access to Canadian and US markets. Account minimums and the volume threshold for discounted commissions make it less accessible for lower-volume traders.
Best for: High-frequency traders who consistently execute at volumes that unlock the discounted commission tiers.
6. Wealthsimple — Best entry point for beginners
Wealthsimple isn’t a day trading platform in the traditional sense — it lacks Level 2 data, direct routing, and advanced order types. What it offers is the smoothest onboarding experience in the Canadian market, zero commissions on stocks and ETFs, fractional shares from $1, and the only direct crypto trading integration alongside equities at a major Canadian broker.
For traders just learning the mechanics, it removes infrastructure friction. It is not a platform to scale a serious intraday strategy on.
Best for: Beginners testing their first strategies before migrating to a more capable platform.
Platform comparison at a glance
| Platform | Best For | Level 2 Data | Commissions | Automated Trading |
| SaintQuant | Automated/passive | Built-in | N/A | ✅ Full automation |
| Interactive Brokers | Experienced traders | Yes (fee-based) | Very low | Partial (API) |
| Moomoo | Active / data tools | Free | Competitive | No |
| Questrade | Options traders | Available | Low | No |
| TD Active Trader | High-volume traders | Yes | Volume-tiered | No |
| Wealthsimple | Beginners | No | $0 | No |
Canada-specific considerations
No PDT Rule. The US Pattern Day Trader rule — requiring a $25,000 minimum balance to place more than three intraday trades in five days — does not apply to Canadian traders using Canadian brokerages. This is a meaningful structural advantage for traders with smaller accounts.
Currency conversion costs. Most Canadian day traders actively trade US equities. The FX conversion spread on USD/CAD transactions can be a hidden cost that erodes edge, particularly on platforms without a USD account option. IBKR and Questrade both offer mechanisms to mitigate this cost.
Tax treatment. The CRA generally treats day trading profits as business income rather than capital gains — taxed at full marginal rate. This doesn’t change platform choice, but it’s worth factoring into net return expectations.
Final verdict
For most Canadian traders in 2026, the decision comes down to one key question: trade actively, let capital work systematically in the markets without managing personally?
If it’s the latter, SaintQuant is the clear answer — one-click automated strategies, built-in risk management, and a $99 free trial to evaluate it without depositing money first.
For those who want to trade actively, Interactive Brokers leads on execution and margin rates for experienced traders, while Moomoo delivers the best combination of free data tools and accessible onboarding for active traders who don’t need the full depth of IBKR.
The platform is a tool. Choose the one that matches how to actually want to engage with the markets.
Try SaintQuant Free: New users receive a $99 free starter trial credit and a $7 instant cash bonus upon registration — no deposit required.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
Federal prosecutors have charged two alleged operators of a cryptocurrency laundering service that processed more than $389 million in transactions and received over 10,000 Bitcoin since launching in 2021.
Summary
- U.S. prosecutors charged two alleged AudiA6 operators after tracing more than $389 million in cryptocurrency transactions through the laundering service.
- Authorities said the network received over 10,000 Bitcoin since 2021, including funds linked to darknet markets, ransomware groups and cybercrime services.
- An international operation led to arrests in Georgia, server seizures across multiple countries, and the freezing of cryptocurrency assets.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Ukrainian national Ruslan Igorevich Tkachuk, 37, and Russian national Alexander Vladimirovich Ledenev, 25, were arrested in Batumi, Georgia, on Wednesday and are awaiting extradition to the United States.
The criminal complaint accuses the pair of serving as senior members of AudiA6, a cryptocurrency laundering network that prosecutors say helped customers conceal the origins of digital assets linked to criminal activity. Prosecutors also allege that both men managed the Dark2Web cybercrime forum, where AudiA6 promoted its services to users seeking to move illicit funds through cryptocurrency.
Court documents cited by the U.S. Attorney’s Office state that an advertisement posted on Dark2Web offered to disguise the source of traceable cryptocurrency in exchange for fees of up to 5% of the amount being laundered.
Blockchain analysis conducted during the investigation found that approximately 10,333 Bitcoin had been deposited into wallets controlled by AudiA6 since 2021, according to prosecutors.
Authorities said about 393.39 BTC came directly from known darknet marketplaces, ransomware groups, cybercrime services and other identified illicit sources, while the remaining deposits were traced indirectly to criminal activity.
International operation targets laundering infrastructure
Details released by prosecutors show the arrests formed part of a coordinated operation involving the U.S. Secret Service, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, Europol and Eurojust, alongside law enforcement agencies from Australia, Canada, France, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Investigators carried out searches at three properties and targeted servers and domains located across the United States, Iceland, Germany and France. Authorities also blocked Telegram accounts allegedly used by the network, froze cryptocurrency assets and seized electronic devices linked to the investigation.
At the same time, law enforcement agencies replaced both the clear web and dark web infrastructure connected to AudiA6 and the Dark2Web forum with seizure notices.
For Tkachuk and Ledenev, prosecutors have filed one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and one count of sting money laundering. The charges remain allegations, and both defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.
The case adds to a series of enforcement actions targeting cryptocurrency laundering services and darknet-linked funds. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice charged German citizen Owe Martin Andresen over an alleged laundering scheme tied to Dream Market, a darknet marketplace that ceased operations in 2019.
According to the DOJ, Andresen allegedly moved funds from dormant Dream Market administrator wallets before converting part of the proceeds into gold bars.
Prosecutors in that case said more than $2 million was laundered between August 2023 and April 2025, while searches uncovered approximately $1.7 million in gold bars and information linked to crypto wallets and bank accounts holding another $1.2 million in suspected proceeds.
In today’s newsletter, Joshua de Vos, from CoinDesk Research, analyzes May’s crypto outflows to explain what current market signals mean.
Then, in “Ask an Expert,” Bryan Courchesne from DAiM addresses how investors can navigate the current market environment.
Crypto ETFs: May Breakdown and What’s Next
May ended two consecutive months of net inflows, with global crypto ETP flows swinging back to heavy redemptions. According to TrackInsight data, global digital-asset investment products recorded $2.39 billion in net outflows, against $1.79 billion of net inflows in April, as total assets under management fell to $141.1 billion from $158.7 billion a month earlier. U.S.-listed vehicles accounted for almost the entire redemption, while flows outside the U.S., which had already cooled in April, turned modestly negative.
The CoinDesk 20 Index (CD20), which captures a diversified cross-section of the top 20 digital assets, fell 1.11% in May after gaining 5.45% in April. The more concentrated CoinDesk 5 Index (CD5) declined 3.73% and bitcoin itself fell 3.56%, a sharp reversal from April, when bitcoin (up 11.87%) and the CD5 (up 9.91%) led a broad rally. The return hierarchy also inverted: large caps led in April, whereas in May the broad index outperformed, indicating that large-cap assets bore the brunt of the decline while diversified exposure offered relative shelter.
According to data from TrackInsight, outflows were concentrated in bitcoin — and ether-linked instruments globally, while parts of the altcoin market, led by XRP, Hyperliquid and Solana, drew net inflows, a divergence that widened over the month.
Largest ETF Gainers, Globally (by May Net Flows)
- NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF (BTCI): +$141.8 million; $1.24 billion AUM
- Bitwise Solana Staking ETF (BSOL): +$79.3 million; $672.2 million AUM
- Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT): +$73.9 million; $260.1 million AUM
- Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF (BHYP): +$62.0 million; $71.1 million AUM
- iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHB): +$56.1 million; $584.3 million AUM
- 21Shares Hyperliquid ETF (THYP): +$49.7 million; $61.6 million AUM
- NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI): +$42.8 million; $71.8 million AUM
- Franklin XRP ETF (XRPZ): +$38.7 ,million; $273.8 million AUM
- iShares Bitcoin ETP (IB1T): +$33.1 million; $1.06 billion AUM
U.S.-listed products continued to dominate the global crypto ETF market in May. Despite net outflows of $2.37 billion, American-domiciled ETFs closed the month with $119.2 billion in AUM, retaining roughly 84.5% of the $141.1 billion global market, broadly in line with April’s 85.1%.
May’s headline outflow ended two months of inflows and was overwhelmingly a U.S., large-cap reversal. The gainers list, by contrast, was dominated by income, staking and newly launched products. With the CoinDesk 20 down just 1.11% against a 3.73% fall in the large-cap CD5, diversified and altcoin exposures showed a relative resilience that the flow data corroborated. That resilience has since been overwhelmed: by early June, Bitcoin had fallen to around $62,000, and the major indices were down a further 15% or more, leaving no sign that May’s outflows marked a bottom and pointing to intensifying pressure into June.
Read more: May’s global ETP recap and May’s U.S.-focused ETF recap.
– Joshua de Vos, research team lead, CoinDesk
Ask an Expert
Q: Bitcoin’s RSI recently dropped into the low 40s. Why is that significant?
Bitcoin’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) has fallen into the low 40s on key timeframes, which is a relatively rare occurrence. Similar readings were seen in February 2020 and during the March 2020 COVID crash. In both cases, those oversold conditions preceded powerful recoveries and substantial long-term gains. While no indicator guarantees future performance, historically these periods have often represented attractive accumulation opportunities for long-term investors.
Q: Does this signal present an opportunity today?
Potentially, yes. For investors who remain focused on bitcoin and have a long-term time horizon, periods of market pessimism have historically offered some of the best entry points. The challenge is that buying often feels hardest when sentiment is negative, which is exactly why many investors miss these opportunities.
Q: What advice would you give investors who struggle to evaluate crypto projects?
If you cannot confidently assess factors such as real-world usage, security, tokenomics, decentralization and adoption metrics, simplifying your approach may be the best option. Bitcoin remains the most established digital asset, with the strongest network effects, the clearest store-of-value thesis, institutional support through ETFs and a proven ability to survive multiple market cycles.
Q: How can investors separate credible advice from noise?
A: Look for analysts and advisors with verifiable experience, a track record of being right more often than not, and a history of evidence-based commentary. Be skeptical of anonymous influencers, paid promoters and personalities whose primary business model appears to be generating engagement. In many cases, the difference between successful investing and costly mistakes comes down to ignoring the attention machine.
Q: What’s the key takeaway from today’s market environment?
This RSI setup could prove to be another important moment in bitcoin’s history. While no outcome is guaranteed, bitcoin has repeatedly rewarded patience, discipline and long-term conviction. Investors focused on fundamentals may view current conditions as an opportunity, while those still waiting for unrealistic altcoin narratives to play out risk missing another bitcoin-led recovery.
– Bryan Courchesne, founder, DAiM
Keep Reading
- Japan’s three largest banks, MUFG, SMBC and Mizuho, plan to jointly issue a stablecoin by March 2027.
- The stablecoin market cap hit a new all-time high of $320 billion while the total market cap of tokenized real-world assets reached $28.9 billion: read the latest research.
Looking for more? Receive the latest crypto news from coindesk.com and market updates from coindesk.com/institutions.
What is the Common Travel Area? Why the Ireland-UK border arrangement isn’t a ‘loophole’ for migrants
Bitcoin’s Shaking Everyone Out
Middle East Conflict to Push Global Growth to Lowest Rate Since COVID-19
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Evereve – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World6 days agoJensen Huang Approves Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron for NVIDIA (NVDA) HBM4 Memory Supply
-
Entertainment5 days agoThe Best Mystery Series of All Time Is Surging on Streaming 30 Years After It Ended
-
Crypto World3 days agoAnatomy of the June crypto crash: Fed, Iran, Saylor
-
NewsBeat4 days agoAlexander Zverev wins the French Open to finally earn a 1st Grand Slam title
-
Tech6 days agoSuspicious Polyfill login prompts pop up on Toshiba, Muji websites
-
Crypto World5 days agoSenator Cynthia Lummis Calls CLARITY Act the Most Consequential Financial Legislation of This Generation
-
Tech4 days agoMicrosoft unveils seven homegrown AI models in new bid for ‘long term self-sufficiency’
-
Tech6 days agoMicrosoft launches MXC, an OS-level sandbox for AI agents, with OpenAI and Nvidia already on board
-
Business6 days ago(VIDEO) Justin Bieber Delivers Surprise Happy Birthday Serenade to Diners at Los Angeles Mexican Restaurant
-
Business5 days agoThe Pain Points Taking a Fragile Tech Rally Down a Notch
-
Business3 days agoHigh Stakes for Wembanyama as New York Pushes for 3-0 Lead
-
Crypto World3 days agoEli Lilly (LLY) Stock Surges 4% Following Breakthrough Sleep Apnea Trial Results
-
Tech6 days agoVon der Leyen’s AI envoy pick draws conflict-of-interest fire
-
Tech6 days agoMeta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents
-
Crypto World6 days ago
LBank Surpasses 25 Million Users Worldwide as AFA Partnership Continues to Drive Global Growth
-
Tech5 days agoHackers now exploit SolarWinds Serv-U flaw to crash servers
-
NewsBeat4 days agoAlexander Zverev conquers demons and outlasts Flavio Cobolli to win French Open for first major title
-
Crypto World4 days agoTrump’s AI Ownership Plan Could Benefit Anthropic at OpenAI’s Expense
-
Sports2 days agoBangladesh beat Australia after 20 years in ODIs, register only their second win over six-time world champions | Cricket News
You must be logged in to post a comment Login