XRP holders are underwater by more, on average, than they have ever been, according to onchain data that some traders treat as a contrarian floor signal.

The reading comes from MVRV, or market value to realized value, a ratio that compares XRP’s price with the average price at which its supply last moved.

When it sits below zero, the typical holder is carrying a loss. XRP’s 30-day MVRV is around -45% and its 365-day version around -47%, so both recent buyers and those who have held for a year are deep in the red.

Combined, the two are at their lowest in XRP’s history, analytics firm Santiment said in a Friday post.

That describes a capitulation, the phase where holders sit on steep unrealized losses and weaker hands sell out to those willing to absorb the coins. Santiment is careful to call this a risk-reward point, instead of a price call.

“The best setups often appear when the crowd is feeling maximum pain,” the firm wrote, stating that so much downside has already been taken on that adding here carries less risk than usual, while noting price can still fall further if the broader market weakens.

XRP has climbed even as that reading stays depressed. The token is up about 8% over seven days to around $1.14, per CoinDesk data, among the week’s stronger majors.

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy has vowed to hold his Bitcoin investment even if it falls to zero after revealing he is down millions on a position bought near $100,000.

According to an interview with Fox Business host Stuart Varney, Portnoy admitted that his history with Bitcoin has been defined by buying at the wrong time and selling before major rallies.

Speaking about his latest position, he said he purchased Bitcoin at around $100,000 and acknowledged that the investment is now deeply underwater after the asset lost more than half its value from its October peak of $126,080 to about $62,162.

Instead of exiting the position, Portnoy said he plans to continue holding. He told Varney that previous attempts to sell Bitcoin had repeatedly backfired because the cryptocurrency rallied soon afterward. Having experienced that pattern multiple times, he said he would rather keep the asset regardless of how far the price falls.

Portnoy also described himself as someone who has been consistently wrong on Bitcoin trades. Looking back on earlier market cycles, he recalled panic-selling the cryptocurrency during a price decline in 2021 before it recovered sharply, adding that those experiences shaped his decision not to sell this time.

Bitcoin outlook remains divided

Even as Portnoy remains committed to holding Bitcoin, market participants continue to disagree over where prices could move next.

Earlier this week, as reported by crypto.news, Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki’s prediction that Ethereum could reach $95,000 by mid-2027 resurfaced across crypto social media. Kiyosaki argued that a severe global financial crisis could trigger a major repricing of alternative assets.

Under that scenario, he said Ethereum could climb to $95,000 within a year of such an event, while Bitcoin could rise to $750,000 alongside gold reaching $35,000 per ounce and silver advancing to $200.

A day later, Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan wrote that Bitcoin appeared to be entering the final stage of its correction after the STRC-related unwind reduced excess leverage. At the time, he said he expected a new Bitcoin bull market to begin in the fall.

Although he cautioned that identifying the exact bottom is impossible in real time, he said the latest developments suggest the market could be entering the final stage of the current cycle.

Hougan also argued that the next Bitcoin rally is likely to rely less on retail traders and more on institutional investors, including banks, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, asset managers, financial advisers, and endowments. Based on that view, he said he expects a new Bitcoin bull market to begin in the fall.

Portnoy’s crypto record extends beyond Bitcoin

Beyond Bitcoin, Portnoy has been involved with several high-profile crypto projects over the years. He previously promoted the SafeMoon meme coin and publicly identified himself with the Chainlink community, often referred to as the Link Marines.

His trading activity later expanded into Solana-based meme coins. After revealing his wallet address and facing criticism from some traders who accused him of pumping and dumping tokens, Portnoy publicly embraced JAILSTOOL, a meme coin built around imagery of him behind bars. The token later climbed above a $210 million market capitalization and secured a listing on crypto exchange Kraken. Since then, however, it has lost more than 99.5% of its value and now trades at a market capitalization of just over $1 million.

The United States’ Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) says it has dropped its opposition to the CLARITY Act, shifting to a “neutral” position after lawmakers addressed concerns it raised in an earlier submission. In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said revisions to the bill addressed issues it flagged around Section 604.

That change matters for the CLARITY Act’s momentum because the bill has bipartisan backing but has faced delays in the Senate. Its progress has been repeatedly constrained by banking-industry objections, particularly around how stablecoin-related products could affect traditional deposits and broader financial stability.

Key takeaways

• The MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral stance after concerns about Section 604 were addressed.
• Section 604 is tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is intended to limit developer liability for illicit activity committed by platform users.
• MCSA previously argued that the provision could be exploited by criminals and complicate law enforcement investigations.
• Despite the shift, the MCSA says it wants additional amendments—specifically to involve state law enforcement in a Treasury study under Section 309.
• Even with clearer law-enforcement buy-in, the Senate timeline remains uncertain due to objections from banking groups, particularly over stablecoin yield.

MCSA shifts stance after Section 604 concerns are addressed

According to the letter referenced in public reporting, the MCSA told Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren that its position changed to “neutral” following responses to its May 14 concerns about Section 604. The provision is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and is designed to protect developers from liability for illicit activity that occurs through users on decentralized platforms.

The MCSA’s earlier opposition centered on the risk that Section 604 could be leveraged as a loophole. In its view, criminals might structure behavior around that liability framework in a way that makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate crypto-related offenses.

While the bill’s supporters emphasize clearer rules for decentralized technology, the MCSA’s reversal signals that at least one major law-enforcement coalition believes the revised approach is workable—though it still wants improvements rather than unconditional support.

Why the CLARITY Act has stalled in the Senate

Although the CLARITY Act has bipartisan support, its route through the Senate has been largely blocked. Reporting cited in the source highlights that banking groups have sought limits on stablecoin yield, arguing that the practice can resemble an unregulated deposit product.

That argument, according to the cited coverage, is rooted in potential knock-on effects for traditional banking systems, including the prospect of large outflows if consumers treat yield-bearing stablecoin products as a substitute for bank deposits.

The legislation has been waiting for a full Senate vote since the Senate Banking Committee advanced it in May, with the bill passed mostly along party lines. That combination—committee approval without broader clearance—has left the bill dependent on additional negotiations and political timing.

Advocates have recently renewed pressure for floor consideration, aiming for passage and signature into law before the November midterm elections. Earlier coverage noted that senators backing the bill are pushing for a vote this month, framing it as a window where the bill could clear the remaining procedural hurdle.

Law enforcement still asks for changes: state involvement in Treasury study

Even with the updated position, the MCSA said it wants amendments to the CLARITY Act. Its latest request focuses on Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks. The MCSA specifically wants state law enforcement included within that framework.

MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should ensure that law enforcement has the training, technology, and resources needed to handle crimes enabled by digital assets. His remarks, as quoted, emphasized that state and local agencies investigate a wide range of offenses—from fraud and narcotics trafficking to ransomware, child exploitation, and terrorism financing—where investigators must be able to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.

“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”

From an investor and industry standpoint, this is more than an internal law-enforcement preference. If the CLARITY Act is intended to provide regulatory certainty while supporting enforcement capacity, then bringing state agencies into the Treasury’s research obligations could affect how risk assessments are conducted and how operational guidance is developed for regulators and policing bodies.

What happens next after the MCSA’s “neutral” shift

The MCSA’s decision to drop opposition may reduce one of the more politically visible sources of resistance to the bill, which supporters have described as a meaningful roadblock. However, the broader timeline still appears tied to unresolved concerns—especially from banking groups regarding stablecoin yield and its relationship to deposit-like products.

With advocates pushing for a Senate vote in the near term, readers should watch whether the amended language addressing Section 604 is treated as sufficient by additional stakeholders, and whether Section 309’s scope is adjusted to include state law enforcement before any floor action.

The 2015 cycle took about $69 billion for a gain near 10,000%. The 2018 cycle needed about $365 billion for roughly 2,000%. This cycle, running since 2022, has taken in about $697 billion and returned 689%. The figures track realized capitalization, a measure that values each coin at the price it last moved rather than its current price, a rough gauge of how much money has actually gone into the asset.
The trend holds at every scale. In 2011, roughly $5 million in new money was enough to double bitcoin’s price. This cycle, doing the same took around $101 billion. Each run has demanded exponentially more capital for a smaller percentage move, the arithmetic of an asset that now carries a market value near $1.2 trillion, per CoinDesk data, rather than the few billion it held a decade ago.

CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju, who published the data, called it as a case for patience rather than a top. “Bitcoin needs to be a core macro asset, not just a retail-driven ETF trade,” he wrote, arguing that another parabolic run is possible only if bitcoin can absorb more than $1 trillion in fresh capital, which would take institutional adoption well beyond where it sits today.

That argument lands at an awkward moment. U.S. spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds have seen record outflows over the past month, and bitcoin closed a losing first half, so the retail flows the thesis wants to move past are running in reverse rather than building the institutional depth it calls for.

TL;DR

• Revolut will delist USDT, ending support for the stablecoin on August 31.
• Users can buy USDT until July 6 and deposit it until July 30 before the phased removal begins.
• Any USDT remaining after the deadline will be automatically converted into fiat at the prevailing exchange rate.
• The move reflects the impact of the EU’s MiCA rules, which continue to drive USDT delistings across regulated European platforms.

European fintech giant Revolut has announced that it will discontinue support for USDT, just days after Tether’s freezing move, giving customers until August 31 to withdraw or sell their holdings before the stablecoin is removed from the platform. The move comes as the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework continues to reshape the region’s regulated crypto market.

According to notifications sent to users via email and the Revolut app, customers will be able to purchase USDT until July 6, while new USDT deposits will be accepted only until July 30. After that date, users can continue selling the stablecoin or transferring it to external wallets until August 31. Any remaining USDT balances left on Revolut after the deadline will be automatically converted into fiat currency at the prevailing exchange rate.

The announcement adds another major platform to the growing list of European companies ending support for the world’s largest stablecoin.

MiCA Continues to Drive USDT Delistings Across Europe

Revolut’s decision follows the completion of the European Union’s MiCA transition period, which took full effect on July 1, 2026. Under the new regulatory framework, licensed crypto platforms can only offer stablecoins that comply with MiCA requirements.

Rather than seeking authorization as an Electronic Money Token (EMT), Tether chose not to apply for MiCA approval. The company has previously argued that the regulation’s reserve requirements, including rules governing where reserves must be held, are incompatible with its existing reserve management strategy.

As a result, several major exchanges have already removed USDT from their regulated European services. Coinbase, Kraken, Crypto.com, and Binance have all ended or significantly restricted USDT trading for users in the region as the regulatory deadline approached.

The latest move by Revolut further reduces the number of regulated platforms where European customers can access the stablecoin.

Circle Gains Ground as Europe Adopts MiCA-Compliant Stablecoins

This comes as Circle takes the opposite approach by securing regulatory approval that allows USDC and EURC to operate across all 27 European Union member states, as earlier reported.

The shift has prompted exchanges and liquidity providers to increasingly support MiCA-compliant stablecoins, with many rebuilding trading liquidity around USDC after removing USDT trading pairs.

Although USDT is disappearing from regulated European trading platforms, Tether has maintained a presence in the region through technology partnerships. The company continues to support projects developing MiCA-compliant stablecoins using its Hadron tokenization platform, allowing it to remain active in Europe’s digital asset ecosystem without issuing a MiCA-approved stablecoin itself.

Revolut’s latest announcement underscores how the implementation of MiCA is reshaping the European stablecoin market. As regulated platforms align with the new rules, compliant alternatives such as USDC are gaining wider adoption while USDT’s availability across Europe’s licensed crypto services continues to decline.

The Major County Sheriffs of America has withdrawn its opposition to the decentralized finance provision in the CLARITY Act, easing one of the main law enforcement concerns surrounding the proposed U.S. crypto market structure bill.

According to a letter sent by the Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) to Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, the organization has changed its position from opposing the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act provision to taking a neutral stance after conducting a continued review of the legislation. The change comes as lawmakers prepare for the next stage of Senate discussions on the bill.

The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act section of the CLARITY Act would protect software developers and infrastructure providers from legal responsibility for crimes committed by users of decentralized platforms, provided they do not control customer funds.

Law enforcement organizations had argued that the language could make investigations into illicit crypto activity more difficult.

Law enforcement concerns narrow as amendments remain on the table

While ending its formal opposition, the MCSA did not give unconditional support to the provision. In its letter, the organization said continued discussions with the Trump administration had provided additional clarity on how officials expect the DeFi language to be interpreted and implemented if the legislation becomes law.

Alongside its updated position, the sheriffs’ association proposed several changes. It asked Congress to give state and local law enforcement agencies a formal role in the Treasury study required under Section 309 of the CLARITY Act and in any advisory groups created under the legislation.

The MCSA argued that local and state agencies investigate most cryptocurrency-related crimes and should therefore help shape future legislative, regulatory, and policy recommendations.

It also urged lawmakers to recognize that a new federal regulatory framework should be matched with funding and operational resources needed by state and local authorities responsible for enforcing the rules.

Earlier this week, the CLARITY Act also secured backing from the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE). As previously reported by crypto.news, the organization said the legislation would provide law enforcement with additional investigative capabilities while preserving existing criminal enforcement powers.

Senate timeline points to renewed momentum

Meanwhile, political attention has shifted back to the Senate’s legislative schedule after Senator Bill Hagerty outlined a revised timeline for the bill. Reports citing Hagerty indicate that the Senate is expected to release the final text of the CLARITY Act this weekend before debate resumes after lawmakers return from the July recess.

The updated schedule replaces earlier expectations that President Donald Trump could sign the legislation by July 4. Instead, Hagerty has indicated that Senate floor action is more likely after Congress reconvenes on July 13.

Support for the legislation has continued to build despite the delay. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, the probability of the CLARITY Act passing during July has increased to around 60%, suggesting improving expectations for a federal digital asset market structure framework.

Prediction market participants have also turned more optimistic. According to Polymarket, the odds of President Trump signing the CLARITY Act into law before the end of the year have climbed back above 50% after falling earlier in the week.

Still, not every issue has been resolved. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has continued to argue that lawmakers should prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from issuing or promoting crypto assets before advancing major digital asset legislation, keeping ethics provisions among the remaining points of debate as the Senate prepares to take up the bill.

The Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) has dropped its opposition to the proposed CLARITY Act, shifting its position to “neutral” after lawmakers addressed concerns it raised in an earlier letter about how the bill could affect illicit finance investigations.

In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said its stance changed after revisions addressing its objections to Section 604, a provision tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. The development removes a key resistance point from law enforcement stakeholders that had been flagged as a hurdle for the bill’s progress through the Senate.

Key takeaways

• MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral position after concerns raised in a May 14 letter about Section 604 were addressed.
• Section 604 is intended to protect blockchain and decentralized platform developers from liability for illicit activity committed by users.
• MCSA previously argued the provision could be exploited by criminals, complicating law enforcement investigations into crypto-related crimes.
• The CLARITY Act still faces delays in the Senate, with banking groups reportedly pushing to limit stablecoin yield arrangements.
• MCSA says it still wants changes—particularly to include state law enforcement in a Section 309 Treasury study of DeFi and illicit finance risks.

Why MCSA’s position shift matters for Senate momentum

Although the CLARITY Act has drawn bipartisan backing, its path to enactment has been slowed. Senators have had to balance support for clearer rules for blockchain and decentralized finance with objections from segments of the financial industry, especially around stablecoin-linked products.

Against that backdrop, MCSA’s shift is notable because it directly concerns the enforcement community—an area where legislators often expect operational consequences to be scrutinized. In its earlier stance, MCSA said Section 604 could create a loophole for bad actors, potentially making it harder for law enforcement to investigate criminal activity facilitated through crypto systems.

By describing its new posture as “neutral,” the group is signaling that revised bill language (or interpretive clarifications) has reduced enough of its concern that it no longer believes the provision should face outright resistance from sheriffs’ leadership.

What Section 604 does—and what law enforcement worried about

Section 604 is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act embedded within the broader CLARITY Act. The provision aims to provide developers with regulatory certainty by limiting liability for illicit activity carried out by users on decentralized platforms.

In its May 14 letter, MCSA argued that this protection could be turned into a shield by criminals, enabling misuse without sufficient accountability and thereby complicating investigative work. That concern reflects a broader tension at the heart of many crypto compliance debates: striking a balance between preventing user harm and avoiding rules that inadvertently discourage legitimate development or overreach into decentralized systems.

According to MCSA’s Friday letter, the group’s earlier objections were addressed—enough for it to move to neutrality—suggesting lawmakers incorporated changes related to how Section 604 would operate in practice.

Stablecoin yield concerns remain a major drag on passage

Even as the CLARITY Act retains political support, the bill’s Senate timeline has been affected by resistance tied to stablecoin structures. The bill has largely been stalled by banking groups seeking restrictions on stablecoin yield, which they argue functions like an unregulated deposit product.

As characterized in earlier reporting, critics of yield-bearing stablecoins warn that such arrangements could lead to large-scale outflows from the traditional banking system, potentially reaching “trillions of dollars,” though the exact magnitude is framed as an industry concern rather than a specific forecast tied to the act itself.

The CLARITY Act has been waiting for a full Senate vote since May, when the Senate Banking Committee advanced it largely along party lines. That bottleneck means the bill’s prospects are still highly sensitive to how other constituencies—beyond developers and enforcement—view the practical effects of the proposed compliance regime.

Law enforcement support grows, but MCSA wants further amendments

MCSA’s change in stance is not the end of its engagement with the bill. The group said it still wants modifications to Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks.

Specifically, MCSA asked that state law enforcement be included in the section. The group’s position underscores how compliance studies and policy implementation often run into real-world capacity gaps: even well-designed legal frameworks can underperform if enforcement agencies lack the tools, training, and partnerships needed to act on the intelligence they receive.

In its letter, MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should provide the training, technology, and resources required to investigate increasingly sophisticated digital asset-enabled crimes. He pointed to a range of alleged criminal activity, including fraud, narcotics trafficking, ransomware, child exploitation, terrorism financing, and other offenses.

“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”

That emphasis highlights a key reason the law enforcement community continues to matter in the crypto policy conversation: not just whether legislation creates clearer responsibilities, but whether it is matched by implementation capacity at the local and state level.

What could happen next

With MCSA moving off opposition, the immediate “roadblock” narrative around enforcement stakeholders appears to be easing, but the CLARITY Act still depends on Senate scheduling and on overcoming financial-industry objections—especially around stablecoin yield. Investors and builders should watch whether the bill’s remaining concerns narrow enough to clear a full vote, and whether Section 309 modifications addressing state law enforcement involvement gain traction as lawmakers try to finalize the measure.

The Major County Sheriffs of America reportedly said it no longer opposes the CLARITY Act after initially raising concerns over how the bill would affect illicit finance investigations.

In a letter to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the MCSA said it shifted its stance on the CLARITY Act to “neutral” after some of its concerns in a May 14 letter regarding Section 604 in the bill were addressed.

Section 604 relates to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which seeks to protect developers from liability for illicit activity committed by users on their decentralized platforms.

The MCSA previously contended that Section 604 could create a loophole for criminals to exploit, making it tougher for law enforcement to investigate crypto-related crimes.

Source: Eleanor Terrett

While the CLARITY Act has bipartisan support, its passage through the Senate has largely been stalled by banking groups seeking to restrict stablecoin yield, which they argue functions like an unregulated deposit product that could drive trillions of dollars in outflows from the traditional banking system. 

The bill has been awaiting a full Senate vote since May, when the Senate Banking Committee passed the bill mostly along party lines.

Senators in favor of the bill are pushing for a full Senate vote this month, in hopes that it can be passed and signed into law before the US midterm elections in November.

One of CLARITY Act’s “biggest roadblocks” removed

Crypto investor Mark Chadwick described MCSA’s initial opposition to the CLARITY Act as one of the “biggest roadblocks” in preventing the Senate from passing the bill.

“With that hurdle now out of the way, the path to passage just got a lot clearer,” Chadwick said. “One more major hurdle down.”

MCSA still wants improvements to CLARITY Act

The MCSA said it would like the CLARITY Act to be amended to include state law enforcement in Section 309, which requires the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks.

Related: Senate leaders push for July passage of CLARITY Act 

MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should provide the training, technology and resources needed to “investigate increasingly sophisticated digital asset-enabled activity” tied to fraud, narcotics trafficking, ransomware, child exploitation, terrorism financing and other crimes.

“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”

Magazine: Does ‘Paper Bitcoin’ mean there’s an unlimited supply of BTC?

Bitcoin’s rebound this week underscored how quickly market sentiment can shift: after trading near a 21-month low, BTC rallied on July 3 toward the $63,000 area, while Ether outpaced the broader complex to push toward $1,775. The move came despite a still-dark sentiment backdrop, with the Crypto Fear & Greed Index registering “Extreme Fear” at 11 out of 100.

That disconnect—an index signaling near-panic while price action turns constructive—became more interesting after data showed a notable change in US spot Bitcoin ETF flows. According to SoSoValue, July 2 saw net inflows of $221.7 million into US spot Bitcoin ETFs, their largest single-day inflow since early May and a break from 10 straight days of outflows.

Key takeaways

• BTC recovered toward $63,000 on July 3 and Ether moved to about $1,775 after both hit fresh weakness earlier in the week.
• Crypto Fear & Greed showed “Extreme Fear” (11/100), even as spot ETF inflows turned positive on July 2.
• SoSoValue data points to a sharp reversal in ETF demand, with $221.7 million net inflows on the day.
• Derivatives indicators—positive funding for eight straight days and rising open interest—suggest leverage is building even as price has not fully trended.
• Near-term levels to watch include BTC holding around $61,000 and potential follow-through above $62,500 during thinner holiday-weekend trading.

Fear gauge vs. improving ETF demand

The “Extreme Fear” reading matters because it often reflects a market that is either under-allocating to risk or actively de-risking. Yet Friday’s bullish price activity suggests that, at least for some investors, the fear signal may have begun to lose effectiveness as buyers returned.

One concrete reason for that improvement is the ETF flow reversal. According to SoSoValue, the $221.7 million net inflow on July 2 stands out not only for its size, but for what it ended: 10 consecutive days of outflows. In practice, ETF flows can act as a steady channel for fresh spot demand, and a single-day reversal can sometimes be the first sign of a broader turn—though it is not, by itself, proof that a sustained trend has formed.

For traders, the key question is whether ETF buying holds up beyond one session. If inflows remain consistent, it strengthens the case that the market’s earlier drawdown was being countered by institutional-style accumulation. If inflows fade quickly, the rally could be more prone to reversal, especially given how low sentiment already is.

Derivatives: leverage is growing, but that can cut both ways

Spot data and ETF flows are only part of the picture. Futures and margin conditions can amplify moves—and also reveal when positioning is becoming fragile.

According to figures cited from Hyblock, funding rates have stayed positive for the past eight days and have climbed during that stretch. Funding is the periodic payment between traders who are effectively betting in opposite directions; persistent positivity typically signals that the market is leaning toward higher prices, with longs paying shorts.

Hyblock data also indicates that the total amount of outstanding leveraged Bitcoin positions is near its highest level over the past several days, even while price action has mostly moved sideways. This combination—leverage building up without a clear upward trend—has historically been a caution sign. The risk is that if the market fails to push higher soon, highly leveraged positions can become vulnerable to liquidation cascades, turning a choppy market into a fast reversal.

In other words, derivatives are confirming interest on the long side, but they are also raising the stakes if follow-through does not arrive quickly.

What to watch in the next sessions

With the rally gaining traction, near-term technical reference points have regained importance. One level highlighted is whether BTC can hold above roughly $61,000, where a large cluster of leveraged buy positions sits. When leverage is concentrated at a specific price zone, that area can act as a support “magnet” during turbulence—either absorbing weakness if buyers defend, or triggering stop-and-liquidation activity if it breaks.

On the upside, another threshold to monitor is a move back above $62,500. The logic is tied to positioning: returning above that level could bring BTC closer to price areas where leveraged shorts become more exposed. If spot ETF buying continues while funding remains constructive, it can reinforce the pattern seen over the preceding days.

Even with these bullish triggers, the broader market read described in the underlying data is mixed rather than uniformly bullish. Spot ETF inflows and the rebound in prices suggest sentiment may be improving faster than the Fear & Greed number implies. But when the market is as fearful as reflected by “Extreme Fear” and leverage is already elevated, the environment tends to be more fragile than it would be after a more orderly, less-positioned rally.

Compounding that uncertainty is the calendar. The upcoming US holiday-weekend stretch typically brings thinner trading conditions, which can reduce liquidity and increase the odds that price moves overshoot in either direction.

Closing perspective

Investors and traders should watch whether the July 2 ETF inflow becomes the start of a sustained bid, and whether BTC can hold the ~$61,000 support zone or reclaim ~$62,500 before liquidity thins further. The next few sessions will reveal whether this is a durable shift away from extreme fear—or a short-lived bounce amplified by improving flows and crowded leverage.