Lido, a liquid staking protocol that lets users earn Ethereum staking rewards through its stETH token, has launched an upgrade to its staking infrastructure that aims to improve validator efficiency and decentralization.

The upgrade introduces Curated Module v2, which adds support for Ethereum’s 0x02 withdrawal credentials. The change allows validators to increase their effective balance from 32 ETH to up to 2,048 ETH, according to a Lido update on Monday.

Lido said the migration could reduce Ethereum’s validator count from about 880,000 to roughly 628,000, a decrease of about one-third. The migration has not started yet, and the figures are based on Lido’s projections.

The change is expected to affect Ethereum’s consensus layer by reducing the number of validators and validator messages required to maintain the network, according to Lido. It is not designed to change execution-layer activity, which determines transaction fees and gas costs.

The update also introduces new accountability measures for Lido’s node operators, including bonding and penalty mechanisms. Lido said future stake distribution could place more weight on factors such as operator performance, fees and contributions to Ethereum’s ecosystem.

“Curated Module v2 is the next major step in that evolution,” Lido said, adding that the upgrade introduces new operator incentives, bond-based security mechanisms and governance improvements. Lido said no action is required from stakers because the upgrade will be handled at the protocol level.

Related: Ethereum nears market bottom against Bitcoin, though key signals remain unconfirmed: CryptoQuant

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

Paradigm has led a $470 million funding round for nuclear startup Antares Nuclear, extending its capital into military-focused small modular reactors as the crypto venture firm continues investing across frontier technologies.

According to TechCrunch, the Series C financing includes $370 million in equity and $100 million in debt, with Caffeinated Capital co-leading the round and participation from Industrious Ventures, Point72 Ventures, and Shine Capital. 

The investment comes weeks after Paradigm closed its own $1.2 billion fourth fund, which the firm said would continue backing crypto while expanding into artificial intelligence, robotics, and other frontier technologies.

Paradigm has extended its frontier technology strategy

Fresh capital for Antares adds another example of how Paradigm is deploying money outside blockchain without stepping away from digital assets. On July 8, Paradigm announced a $1.2 billion fourth fund dedicated to crypto while also backing companies working in AI, robotics, aerospace, manufacturing, and other emerging technologies.

At the time, co-founder Matt Huang and managing partner Alana Palmedo said the firm would continue investing “first in crypto” while supporting founders building technologies that sit alongside advances in software and hardware. The firm cited companies including Zipline, SendCutSend, True Anomaly, and Nous Research as examples of investments beyond blockchain.

Antares now joins that expanding portfolio, giving Paradigm exposure to another industry that has attracted growing venture capital interest as electricity demand rises alongside AI infrastructure expansion.

Interest in advanced nuclear companies has accelerated over the past year as hyperscale data center construction and broader electrification have increased demand for dependable power generation. Venture firms have increasingly turned to startups developing advanced reactors capable of supplying electricity to industrial facilities, government customers, and computing infrastructure.

Antares Nuclear is targeting military reactor deployments

Founded to develop compact nuclear systems, Antares has built a small modular reactor capable of generating between 100 kilowatts and 1 megawatt of electricity, enough to supply power to roughly 750 homes.

According to TechCrunch, the company’s demonstration reactor, known as Mark-0, reached criticality on June 4 at Idaho National Laboratory, a milestone showing the reactor sustained a controlled nuclear chain reaction.

Rather than targeting commercial utilities first, Antares is pursuing U.S. government customers. The startup is one of three finalists selected for the Pentagon’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, which plans to evaluate small modular reactors at Air Force bases in Colorado and Montana.

If development remains on schedule, Antares expects to bring its first electricity-producing reactor online next year before beginning deployments at U.S. military installations in 2028.

The company’s reactor uses TRISO fuel, a technology adopted by several advanced nuclear developers. TRISO fuel surrounds uranium particles with multiple carbon and ceramic layers that are designed to contain radioactive material under high temperatures. The fuel can be paired with cooling systems that use gases such as helium or molten salts instead of conventional water-based designs.

Nuclear investment has grown alongside AI infrastructure

Antares’ latest fundraising arrives as investors continue directing capital toward companies developing advanced nuclear technologies.

According to TechCrunch, X-energy completed a $1 billion initial public offering in April, while Radiant Energy, Standard Nuclear, and Last Energy have each secured funding rounds exceeding $100 million since December.

Artificial intelligence has become one of the main drivers behind that investment activity. Large-scale AI models require data centers that consume substantial amounts of electricity, prompting technology companies and investors to search for additional power sources capable of operating continuously.

Paradigm has already identified AI as one of its priority investment sectors. When announcing its latest venture fund earlier this month, the firm said blockchain would remain central to its strategy while AI and robotics would become additional areas for new investments.

The firm also pointed to internal projects combining blockchain research with artificial intelligence. Among them are EVMbench, developed with OpenAI to evaluate AI agents for smart contract security, along with continued work on open-source blockchain infrastructure projects such as Foundry and Reth.

Viewed together, the Antares investment fits within the direction Paradigm outlined earlier this month, where crypto remains part of the firm’s strategy while capital is also being allocated to technologies supporting future computing infrastructure.

Commercial hurdles still remain for small modular reactors

Although investment activity has accelerated, commercial deployment of advanced nuclear reactors still faces several challenges.

According to TechCrunch, many developers continue dealing with limited domestic supply chains and the difficulty of scaling manufacturing. Several companies argue factory-built reactors will eventually lower production costs, but industry observers have said those manufacturing benefits typically take years to materialize.

The report cited analysis from Lazard estimating electricity generated by first-generation small modular reactors could cost about $214 per megawatt-hour, placing them above the cost of most newly built power plants except the highest-cost gas turbine facilities.

Apple is facing a federal lawsuit from three users who allege fraudulent Sparrow Wallet applications distributed through its App Store caused about $1.835 million in Bitcoin losses. 

James Ramirez, Christopher Ellis and Jalen Delgado filed the 54-page complaint on July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The allegations have not been tested in court, and Apple has not yet filed a public response in the case.

The public docket identifies the action as Ramirez et al. v. Apple Inc., case 5:26-cv-07713. It currently shows the complaint, a civil cover sheet and an unexecuted summons filing. No judge has ruled on Apple’s responsibility for the alleged thefts.

Fake Sparrow apps allegedly captured seed phrases

The complaint says Delgado downloaded a spoof application around May 1, 2025 and lost about $120,000. Ramirez allegedly downloaded another on July 25 and lost 7.4 BTC, valued near $875,000. Ellis allegedly lost about $840,000 after using the app around August 3. Each user says the software requested a wallet seed phrase before transferring Bitcoin to attacker-controlled addresses.

Sparrow’s official website describes the product as a desktop Bitcoin wallet. Its current download page lists versions for macOS, Windows and Linux, but none for iOS. Entering a recovery phrase into malicious software gives an attacker the credentials needed to control the associated wallet.

Apple says it removed impersonating apps

Apple told MacRumors that it acted quickly to remove applications impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated developer accounts connected to them. The company also pointed users to its reporting tools and said it takes action against applications that breach App Store rules.

Advertisement

Apple’s published review rules prohibit applications from impersonating another service or using another developer’s brand without permission. The company says every app is reviewed and describes the App Store as a safe and trusted marketplace. Apple separately reported blocking more than $2.2 billion in potentially fraudulent transactions and rejecting more than two million problematic submissions during 2025.

The plaintiffs argue that Apple’s safety marketing led them to believe applications offered through the App Store had been properly vetted. Their complaint brings claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Louisiana’s unfair-trade law and Massachusetts consumer-protection law. It also alleges fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, concealment and failures to warn.

Those claims remain allegations. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial, reimbursement of lost digital assets, compensatory and enhanced damages where permitted, restitution and injunctive relief. Apple can contest both the factual account and whether its App Store representations created legal responsibility for losses caused by third-party scammers.

Previous crypto wallet scams add context

The dispute follows other cases in which fake wallet software reached major app marketplaces. Notably,a fraudulent Ledger Live application on Apple’s App Store allegedly stole at least $9.5 million from more than 50 users in April. On-chain investigator ZachXBT traced funds from that separate campaign through numerous exchange deposit addresses. The incident does not prove the claims in the Sparrow case, but it shows the recurring method.

Advertisement

However, fake Phantom, Rabby and UniSat applications have also appeared in app-store searches or listings. The common tactic is to imitate a recognised wallet and request a recovery phrase that the genuine provider would not need during routine use.

The next formal step is service of the complaint and Apple’s response, which could take the form of an answer or a motion seeking dismissal. The public docket did not show a hearing date or merits ruling when checked. Any award, product change or finding that Apple is liable would require a court decision or settlement.

The National Football League has urged the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to tighten its proposed prediction market rules, arguing that stronger safeguards are needed to protect game integrity and consumers.

According to The Closing Line, which obtained a July 27 letter sent to CFTC Chair Michael Selig, the NFL told the regulator that its draft framework for prediction markets contains useful proposals but does not go far enough to address risks tied to sports-based event contracts.

“The NFL’s highest priority is preserving the integrity of our games,” the league wrote in the letter published by The Closing Line. It added that maintaining that integrity is also important for the “stable and orderly administration” of event contracts linked to NFL games and for protecting traders who participate in those markets.

The submission comes as the CFTC considers public feedback on proposed amendments to Rule 40.11, which would establish a federal framework for reviewing event contracts tied to gaming, war, terrorism, assassination and unlawful activities. The comment period closed on July 27 after attracting responses from sports leagues, exchanges and crypto industry groups.

NFL wants tighter limits on sports prediction contracts

Among its recommendations, the NFL called for stricter restrictions on contracts that could be influenced by a single participant, depend heavily on officiating decisions or involve outcomes that may become known before the public, according to The Closing Line.

The league also asked the CFTC to narrow its proposed definition of permissible contracts. According to the publication, the NFL argued that the agency should better distinguish legitimate event contracts from activities that are effectively gambling.

Another concern involved the CFTC’s proposed 10-day review period for newly self-certified contracts. The NFL reportedly argued that the review window is too short and could allow contracts to remain listed before regulators have enough time to assess them.

Awards markets also drew criticism. The league questioned why contracts tied to honors such as “Offensive Player of the Year” should be allowed simply because their outcomes are decided by a voting panel.

On market integrity, the NFL asked for explicit rules governing the use of material non-public information. It also recommended mandatory league-specific prohibited bettor lists instead of allowing individual platforms to develop their own monitoring systems.

The letter repeated several recommendations the league has made previously, including a ban on margin trading for sports event contracts, advertising restrictions and a minimum participation age of 21.

CFTC has continued building a federal prediction market framework

The NFL’s latest submission arrives as the CFTC has adopted a more structured approach toward prediction markets rather than seeking broad prohibitions.

Earlier this month, the agency’s Division of Market Oversight issued its second compliance advisory of the year, warning exchanges against submitting broad, template-style self-certifications covering large groups of event contracts. Instead, designated contract markets must provide contract-specific terms, settlement methods, data sources and legal analysis for each product they intend to list.

The July 24 advisory did not eliminate the self-certification process. Exchanges may still introduce qualifying event contracts without prior Commission approval when they comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC rules. However, the agency said filings covering open-ended groups of contracts without enough product-level detail limit its ability to review settlement procedures, manipulation risks and legal compliance.

The guidance followed a March advisory reminding exchanges that they act as front-line regulators responsible for reviewing whether contracts can be manipulated and whether settlement sources are reliable before listing products.

At the same time, the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 40.11 that would create a three-step review process for contracts linked to activities identified in the Commodity Exchange Act. Under the proposal, regulators would first determine whether a product qualifies as an event contract, then assess whether its settlement depends on activities such as gaming or unlawful conduct before applying public-interest factors to decide whether the contract should proceed.

According to legal analysis from Ropes & Gray cited by crypto.news, the proposal would review contracts individually instead of prohibiting entire categories in advance while also distinguishing games from contests, placing elections and award events outside the proposed gaming definition.

League takes different position from some sports organizations

Unlike the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball, which have entered partnerships with prediction market platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket, the NFL has repeatedly argued for tighter oversight of sports-related event contracts.

In March, the league sent letters to Kalshi and Polymarket asking the companies to withdraw several sports contract offerings, continuing its position that sports prediction markets require stronger integrity protections.

By contrast, the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has defended federally regulated prediction markets against state challenges while advancing formal rules for the industry. Since his appointment in 2025, Selig has supported treating qualifying prediction markets as legitimate derivatives subject to federal oversight rather than state gambling laws.

Recent court filings also show the Commission defending that position in litigation against Minnesota and win. The agency argued that the law conflicts with the federal derivatives framework established under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Kalshi and Polymarket have filed similar requests seeking temporary relief while their own legal challenges proceed. The dispute could determine whether federally regulated prediction markets remain available nationwide or become subject to individual state gambling restrictions.

The NFL’s comments arrive as prediction markets continue expanding across sports, politics, economics and current events.

CFTC data cited in its March rulemaking notice showed registered exchanges listed an average of about five event contracts each year between 2006 and 2020. That number increased to 131 contracts in 2021 before reaching roughly 1,600 new contracts during 2025.

More recent testimony referenced has estimated that CFTC-regulated prediction markets handled more than $25 billion in trading volume during 2025. The same testimony said daily listings on one major platform increased from about 1,600 contracts in April 2025 to roughly 162,000 by April 2026.

Apple is being sued by three customers who allege they suffered a combined loss of about $1.8 million after installing a fraudulent “Bitcoin wallet” app from the App Store. The lawsuit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims Apple failed to properly review and monitor applications even as it markets the App Store as a trusted marketplace.

According to the complaint, the victims entered their Bitcoin seed phrases into the fake wallet, enabling scammers to move funds. The plaintiffs say their losses occurred during 2025, with reported losses of approximately $875,000, $840,000, and $120,000 across the three accounts, respectively.

Key takeaways

• Three plaintiffs allege App Store controls were insufficient, leading to seed-phrase theft via a fake Bitcoin wallet app.
• The complaint states total claimed losses reached roughly $1.8 million during 2025.
• Apple says it removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated associated developer accounts.
• Sparrow Wallet has no official iOS app, which the filing and related developer commentary indicate should have mattered to users.

Lawsuit alleges App Store oversight failures

The lawsuit names plaintiffs James Ramirez, Christopher Ellis, and Jalen Delgado. The filing alleges Apple did not adequately review and monitor applications despite promoting the App Store as a secure channel for users to obtain software. A copy of the complaint was obtained by MacRumors, which reported on the case.

The core allegation is straightforward and common to seed-phrase theft scams: the victims allegedly provided their seed phrases to the fraudulent application, after which scammers transferred their Bitcoin. Each plaintiff reported losses of different magnitudes during 2025, culminating in the combined figure cited in the complaint.

The broader issue raised by the plaintiffs is less about one specific scam and more about whether platform-level processes—review, monitoring, and enforcement—were strong enough to prevent an impersonation-style wallet from reaching users.

Sparrow Wallet impersonation and the iOS gap

MacRumors’ coverage ties the alleged scam to Sparrow Wallet impersonation. Sparrow Wallet is described as being available for Windows, macOS, and Linux, and the wallet’s developer, Craig Raw, previously criticized Apple over fake versions of the application appearing on the App Store.

Crucially for users, Sparrow Wallet has no official iOS app. That absence is significant because impersonation scams typically rely on confusion—users may assume a popular wallet exists on their device and may not realize that the genuine developer did not provide an iOS version.

While the lawsuit centers on the plaintiffs’ alleged experience, this iOS gap also points to a practical takeaway: wallet users should be cautious about any “official” claim for seed-based wallets appearing on mobile app stores—especially when the known developer ecosystem indicates a different set of supported platforms.

Apple says it removed the apps and took enforcement action

In response to MacRumors, Apple said it had removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated developer accounts linked to those apps. Apple also stated that developers and users can report applications that violate App Store guidelines, and that it takes action against apps that do not comply with its rules.

This response frames Apple’s position as enforcement after detection, rather than an admission that the App Store’s gatekeeping was insufficient before the scam was live. For investors, traders, and builders, the tension here is important: seed-phrase scams produce irreversible outcomes for users, so the debate naturally turns to how quickly and how effectively malicious impersonators are identified and removed.

The case therefore sets up a likely factual dispute over timing and adequacy—what Apple knew, when it acted, and whether its review and monitoring efforts met the standard the plaintiffs argue should apply to a marketplace that promotes itself as trustworthy.

Why this matters for crypto users and the broader app ecosystem

Seed-phrase entry scams are among the most damaging categories of fraud in the crypto ecosystem because they transfer control of funds in a way that is difficult for users to reverse. This lawsuit highlights a recurring vulnerability: users often treat app stores as inherently safer than installing software from unknown sources, even though wallet-related attacks can still pass through if impersonation and branding are effective.

For crypto users, the dispute underscores several risk-control habits that remain relevant regardless of what the court ultimately decides. First, users should verify whether a wallet exists on iOS at all—particularly when a developer’s published support list does not include iOS. Second, users should avoid entering seed phrases into any app that was not directly sourced from official developer channels. Third, even if a platform removes malicious apps later, users may already have lost funds by the time enforcement occurs.

For app developers and wallet maintainers, the case is also a reminder that brand impersonation can cause real financial harm quickly, and that monitoring and reporting mechanisms may need to be paired with more proactive user education—especially around what is and isn’t available on mobile.

Readers should watch next for how the court addresses the alleged timeline of the fraudulent apps and what evidence the plaintiffs use to argue that App Store processes were inadequate prior to the losses. Apple’s response suggests it will emphasize removals and enforcement efforts, so the factual record on detection and action timing may be the central battleground.

Bitcoin (BTC) has regained some poise, recovering from Asian session lows despite signs of worsening risk aversion in equity markets.

The leading cryptocurrency by market value traded at around $63,500 as of this writing, up from the low of $63,065 in Asia, according to CoinDesk data. Prices are still down by 0.3% since midnight UTC and by nearly 3% over the past 24 hours.

In the meantime, e-mini futures tied to Nasdaq have slipped to 27,930 points, the lowest since May, and are down 1.2% for the week, having peaked near 31,000 in June. On Monday, shares in NVDA, the index heavyweight, fell by nearly 5%.

Earlier today, South Korea’s Kospi index tanked by 10%, alongside relatively more measured declines in other regional indices, such as Japan’s Nikkei.

Readiness matters because quantum computing poses a real long-term risk to the cryptography that underpins modern finance. Banks are especially vulnerable to “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks, which the Bank for International Settlements’ Project Leap has flagged as an immediate threat to the financial system.

The harvest now, decrypt later means that malicious entities could be stockpiling encrypted banking data today, waiting for the quantum hardware to catch up. Blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum face the same risk, which could leave modern finance exposed to a long-term security risk.

While practical, large-scale quantum machines capable of breaking bank security and blockchains such as Bitcoin do not exist today, estimates for when that risk could become real start in as early as 2029.

The HKMA is aiming for a perfect 10 on the Quantum Preparedness Index by 2030. To get there, the regulator is rolling out practical tools: a post-quantum cryptography toolkit being developed with Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s business school, plus a series of workshops to help banks build skills, improve crypto agility and explore quantum opportunities responsibly.

It’s not alone. President Donald Trump recently signed two executive orders. One aims to accelerate U.S. quantum computing development, with a goal of producing a machine powerful enough for scientific research by 2028. The other calls for the federal government’s migration to post-quantum cryptography by 2030-31.

Bitcoin traded near $63,490 on July 28 after falling below $64,000 during a broad risk-off move across Asian markets. 

According to crypto.news market data, BTC dropped about 2.85% over 24 hours, with a daily range between approximately $63,055 and $65,546 at the time checked.

The decline began after U.S. markets closed Monday and accelerated as South Korean technology shares sold off. Bitcoin dropped from nearly $65,000 to around $63,200 before recovering slightly, while ether, XRP and solana also weakened.

The move places BTC back inside the lower half of its recent $60,000–$66,000 range. Technical momentum has softened, although compressed volatility, whale accumulation and the approaching Federal Reserve decision leave the next direction unsettled.

Asian equity losses added pressure to Bitcoin price

South Korea’s KOSPI fell more than 8% on Tuesday morning, forcing the Korea Exchange to suspend marketwide trading for 20 minutes. The Level 1 circuit breaker was activated after the decline remained above the required threshold for one minute.

Selling continued after the halt. The KOSPI fell almost 10% during the session, while Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix lost more than 12%. Concerns centred on heavy AI spending, financing risks and growing competition from Chinese semiconductor companies.

Japan’s Nikkei also fell about 4%, following a 2.2% decline in the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index during Monday’s U.S. session. Nvidia had dropped 5%, adding another negative signal for technology-linked risk assets.

Bitcoin often trades alongside equities when selling is driven by interest rates, liquidity or broad macro concerns. However, the relationship is not constant. Bitcoin may decouple when pressure is limited to company earnings or sector-specific capital-spending concerns.

Tuesday’s price action suggests traders initially treated the Asian selloff as a wider risk event. It does not prove that the KOSPI decline alone caused Bitcoin’s fall, because Fed expectations, ETF flows and geopolitical developments were moving simultaneously.

Bitcoin remains trapped between $60,000 and $66,000

The BTC/USDT daily chart places Bitcoin near $63,500 after repeated failures to establish support above $65,000–$66,000. Price has consolidated since June’s sharp decline, but it remains in a broader downtrend from the previous peak above $100,000.

The relative strength index on the supplied chart stands at 46.77, below its moving average of 53.49. An RSI reading below 50 shows that short-term momentum has moved slightly towards sellers, although it remains well above the traditional oversold level of 30.

Bitcoin price chart, source: crypto.news

The moving average convergence divergence indicator has also weakened. Its histogram is negative at about minus 104.93, while the MACD line near 219.58 remains below the signal line around 324.51. That structure shows that the earlier July recovery has lost momentum.

Ali Martinez said Bitcoin’s three-day Bollinger Bands were beginning to squeeze. Bollinger compression usually reflects falling realised volatility and can precede a larger move, but it does not establish whether the eventual break will be higher or lower.

Bitcoin $BTC 3-day Bollinger Bands are starting to squeeze.

Periods of low volatility like this are often followed by a major price expansion. A big move could be just around the corner. pic.twitter.com/ytFoCBIedh

Advertisement

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) July 27, 2026

Crypto Patel separately argued that BTC had broken trendline support, retested approximately $65,600 and faced rejection. His bearish scenario targets the 0.618 Fibonacci area near $61,000 while price remains below reclaimed resistance. That level is an analyst projection, not a confirmed destination.

The chart therefore presents three immediate zones. Bitcoin must recover $65,000–$66,000 to improve its short-term structure. The $61,000 area is the first lower support identified by the bearish Fibonacci setup, while $60,000 remains the main floor of the broader consolidation.

A sustained daily close below $60,000 would weaken the range and expose the June lows near $58,000. Conversely, a close above $66,000 would invalidate part of the short-term bearish setup and place the July resistance near $67,181 back in focus.

Bitcoin reclaimed $65,000 on July 27 as falling oil prices briefly supported risk assets. That recovery failed to produce a breakout above the wider resistance band.

ETF selling conflicts with whale accumulation

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded combined net outflows of $11.64 million on July 27, according to SoSoValue data. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust recorded the largest individual fund outflow at $8.82 million.

Bitcoin spot ETF net inflow, Source: SoSoValue

The daily total was modest compared with the $240.08 million withdrawn on July 24. However, another negative session shows that institutional demand remains uneven rather than firmly returning to sustained inflows.

ETF activity has become an important source of marginal Bitcoin demand. Persistent inflows require authorised participants to create shares and source underlying exposure, while extended outflows can reduce that source of buying.

One session should not be treated as a trend. The four-week flow direction offers a more useful measure because individual daily totals can be affected by portfolio rebalancing, market making and settlement timing.

On-chain data present a different picture. Santiment said wallets holding between 10 and 10,000 BTC added 19,696 BTC over eight days. The analytics firm also said wallets holding less than 0.01 BTC showed weaker dip-buying activity.

🐳 Bitcoin’s key stakeholders are accumulating. Wallets holding 10 to 10K BTC added 19,696 BTC in just the past 8 days.

🧊 Micro retail demand is cooling. Sub-0.01 BTC wallets are showing less dip-buying urgency, which often means late retail noise is fading.

📈 This… pic.twitter.com/Vr8XyLuNfK

Advertisement

— Santiment Intelligence (@SantimentData) July 27, 2026

The divergence suggests larger holders have accumulated while very small accounts have shown less urgency. Still, wallet cohorts do not map perfectly to individual investors. Large addresses can represent exchanges, custodians, funds or several customers rather than one whale.

Whale accumulation may provide support if those coins remain off exchanges. It becomes less constructive if large holders begin transferring inventory to trading platforms during price rebounds.

Fed, GDP and core PCE create a volatility window

The Federal Open Market Committee is meeting on July 28 and 29. At its previous meeting on June 17, the Fed kept the federal funds target range at 3.5%–3.75% and said inflation remained above its 2% goal.

Interest-rate markets assigned a roughly 38% probability to a 25-basis-point increase before the decision. That estimate represents market pricing and can change quickly before the announcement.

The July meeting is not marked as one accompanied by a new Summary of Economic Projections. Traders will therefore focus on the rate decision, the statement and the central bank’s language about inflation, energy prices and future tightening.

Thursday brings two major U.S. releases at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The Bureau of Economic Analysis will publish its advance estimate of second-quarter gross domestic product and the June Personal Income and Outlays report, which contains the Fed’s preferred personal consumption expenditures inflation measures.

A rate increase or a more restrictive statement could lift Treasury yields and the dollar, conditions that often weigh on Bitcoin and other assets without fixed cash flows. Under that scenario, the $61,000 and $60,000 zones would become more exposed.

A rate hold accompanied by less restrictive guidance could help BTC challenge $65,000–$66,000 again. Cooler core PCE data on Thursday could support that move, while stronger inflation or GDP figures could renew expectations that rates must remain higher.

The outcomes should not be considered in isolation. A hold on Wednesday could initially lift Bitcoin, only for hotter inflation data to reverse the move on Thursday. Likewise, a restrictive Fed decision could be partly offset by weaker economic data the following day.

As previously reported, Bitcoin entered July with the Fed meeting and ETF flows as its main external catalysts. The earlier analysis identified $58,000 as major downside support, while the market has since established a nearer resistance zone around $65,000–$67,181.

Bitcoin needs confirmation outside the current range

Bitcoin’s immediate trend remains neutral to mildly bearish while price trades below $65,000–$66,000. The negative MACD histogram and sub-50 RSI support that reading, but neither indicator confirms a full breakdown while $60,000 remains intact.

A bullish confirmation would require a sustained close above $66,000, preferably accompanied by stronger spot volume and renewed ETF inflows. That would return attention to $67,181 and the higher resistance area near $68,000.

A bearish confirmation would require a decisive close below $60,000. Such a move would break the current consolidation and bring the late-June low near $58,000 back into view.

Until either boundary fails, Bitcoin remains range-bound. The Bollinger Band squeeze suggests that volatility may expand soon, while the Fed decision, GDP release and core PCE data provide clear events capable of triggering that expansion.

FAQs