Try selling ten million dollars of stock at once, watch the price crater before you fill half the order. Wealth moves differently past a certain size, and the tools that handle it (block trades, dark pools, algorithmic execution, and an OTC crypto trading desk for digital assets) rarely make headlines. Worth knowing how they work.

How High Net-Worth Individuals Execute Large Volume Trades?

Why Size Becomes a Problem?

Liquidity isn’t free, and it isn’t infinite. Public markets match lots of small orders, not a handful of enormous ones. When a $50 million sell order hits a stock’s order book, every algorithm watching that ticker notices. Front-running isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s just math. 

The Crypto Version of the Same Problem

Crypto amplifies this. Bitcoin’s daily volume looks massive in headlines, but a huge chunk is bot activity, not real depth. Push a $20 million market order through a standard exchange and the price slides five, ten percent against you. Avoidable, though, which is why an OTC Crypto Trading Desk exists. Someone matches your order privately, off the public book, often at one negotiated price. No slippage spiral, no audience watching you panic-sell. 

Three broad tools cover most of this territory: 

• Block trades: Large orders negotiated directly between two parties, reported after the fact 
• Dark pools: Private venues where institutional orders meet without hitting public order books beforehand 
• OTC desks: Bilateral deals, common in crypto, where price locks before execution 

None of these are exotic. Just unfamiliar to anyone who’s never needed them. 

Block Trades: Still the Workhorse

Block trading isn’t new, Wall Street’s been doing it since the 1960s, when institutional money first started outgrowing the floor. The structure is simple enough to explain over coffee: a broker finds a counterparty (or several) willing to take the other side of a massive order, negotiates a price, and only then reports the trade. The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq both have specific rules for this, and most large banks run dedicated block-trading desks for exactly this purpose. 

What makes it work is timing. Public disclosure happens after execution, not before. That gap, sometimes minutes, sometimes longer depending on jurisdiction, is what protects the seller from the market front-running their own trade.

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, they all run desks built for nothing else. Family offices managing nine-figure portfolios lean on these relationships constantly, often without anyone outside their inner circle ever knowing a trade happened. 

Does this always work perfectly? No. Block trades still move markets once disclosed, and counterparties sometimes demand a discount for taking on size risk. But compared to dumping the same order on the open market? Night and day. 

Dark Pools: Invisible Until It’s Done

Dark pools get a bad reputation in financial media, vaguely sinister name, vaguely sinister coverage. Reality’s less dramatic. These are private exchanges, often run by major banks (Credit Suisse pioneered the model with CrossFinder back in 2004, and most major banks followed), where institutional buyers and sellers can post orders that nobody sees until after they’ve matched. 

Why does this matter for someone with serious capital? Because visibility is the enemy of a good price. If every trader on Earth can see you’re trying to sell 200,000 shares, they’ll price that information into the stock before you’ve sold a single one. Dark pools strip that visibility away. Your order sits there, unseen, until a matching order shows up on the other side. 

Regulators have tightened oversight here over the past decade, the SEC’s Regulation ATS requires these venues to register and report volume, even if individual trades stay anonymous. Worth noting if you’re researching this for yourself: dark pools aren’t loopholes. They’re regulated venues operating under different disclosure rules than public exchanges, not outside the rules entirely. 

Where Crypto Fits the Pattern?

Crypto markets are younger, thinner, and far more fragmented than equities, which makes the liquidity problem worse, not better. A whale moving $30 million in ETH through Binance’s order book will see real price impact. Multiple exchanges, inconsistent depth, time-zone-driven volume swings, none of it adds up to a smooth execution environment for size. 

That’s the gap an OTC crypto trading desk fills. The mechanics mirror traditional block trading: a desk, sometimes attached to an exchange, sometimes standalone, finds counterparties willing to take the other side of a large order, locks in a price, settles privately.

Inqud’s operates on this same logic, structuring large crypto transactions away from public order books so size doesn’t become a liability the moment someone tries to act on it. 

Why has this grown so much? A few real reasons: 

1. Institutional crypto holdings have ballooned since the 2024 Bitcoin ETF approvals, BlackRock’s IBIT alone holds billions in assets under management 
2. Stablecoin settlement has made cross-border OTC deals faster and less dependent on banking-hour windows 
3. Family offices that once avoided digital assets entirely now treat them as a normal allocation, which means normal-sized problems with abnormal-sized money 

None of this means crypto OTC desks are risk-free. Counterparty risk is real, you’re trusting a private entity to actually deliver what was promised, with far less regulatory backstop than a registered exchange. Due diligence on the desk itself matters enormously here. Sounds obvious, but it’s the step people skip when they’re moving fast. 

Algorithmic Execution: Slicing the Order

Not every large trade goes through a human negotiation. A lot of size gets moved by algorithms designed to break one giant order into hundreds or thousands of smaller pieces, fed into the market gradually so no single piece moves the price. 

Two acronyms come up constantly here: VWAP (volume-weighted average price) and TWAP (time-weighted average price). Both are strategies, not products, instructions telling an algorithm how to slice and pace an order.

VWAP tries to match the trade’s average price to the day’s overall volume pattern. TWAP just spreads execution evenly across a set time window, ignoring volume entirely. 

Quick comparison, since the differences matter more than they sound: 

Hedge funds and prop trading desks have run these strategies for two decades now. What’s changed is access — platforms once reserved for institutions have started trickling down to sophisticated individual investors, particularly through prime brokerage relationships. 

The Human Layer Nobody Talks About 

Here’s something the technical explanations miss: most of this still runs on relationships. A block trade happens because a desk head picked up the phone and called someone they’ve worked with for fifteen years. An OTC crypto deal closes because two parties trust each other enough to wire funds before the asset technically changes hands in some cases.

Technology has compressed timelines and expanded access, sure. But the trust layer underneath hasn’t disappeared, if anything, it matters more once the numbers get large enough that a mistake can’t be quietly absorbed. 

Sounds almost old-fashioned for an industry obsessed with disruption, doesn’t it? Maybe that’s the point. When the stakes are this high, nobody wants to be the test case for a new system that hasn’t proven itself yet. 

A Few Things Worth Remembering

Wealthy individuals don’t play by different rules, they use tools built for a scale problem regular markets weren’t designed to solve. Every method here carries its own risk: counterparty exposure, regulatory gaps, execution risk during volatile windows. None guarantees a better outcome, just different trade-offs. 

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Consult a licensed professional familiar with your specific circumstances.

Crypto losses fell 46.8% year-on-year to $1.32 billion in the first half of 2026, but crypto security firm CertiK says the drop is misleading, warning that attackers are becoming more sophisticated and destructive. 

Phishing drove the bulk of losses in the first quarter, totaling $508.2 million. Wallet compromises were the biggest attack vector in the second quarter, contributing to $807.5 million in losses, CertiK said in a report. 

More than 70% of the losses in Q2 came from the KelpDAO and Drift Protocol hacks, which are believed to have been carried out by North Korean state-sponsored hackers. 

“A headline reading of ‘losses down nearly 50%’ would suggest a meaningfully safer ecosystem. The data does not support that conclusion,” CertiK told Cointelegraph, explaining that the losses in the prior year period were skewed by the $1.4 billion Bybit hack — the largest crypto exploit in history.

The data shows that North Korean hackers continue to pose one of the biggest threats to the crypto industry, having stolen more than $6 billion worth of crypto since 2017, TRM Labs estimated in April.

Monthly change in crypto exploit amounts and number of incidents across H1. Source: CertiK

North Korean state actors blamed for crypto attacks

The KelpDAO and Drift Protocol incidents even sparked a meeting between US, Japanese and South Korean authorities late last month over how the nations can mitigate North Korea’s malicious cyber activity and illicit revenue generation. 

The state officials also acknowledged that North Korean IT workers are increasingly using AI to enhance their schemes — a development that some cybersecurity leaders believe has significantly increased the scale, speed and sophistication of protocol exploits.

CertiK cautioned that the “industry is absorbing a structurally higher rate of attack activity” than last year and that — excluding the Bybit incident — attacks are becoming “targeted and more financially destructive per event.” 

TRM Labs reached a similar conclusion in its H1 2026 report on Wednesday, stating that the “decline in total dollars stolen should not be mistaken for a safer environment.”

“The lower total reflects the absence of another record setting theft, not a reduction in attacker capability.”

TRM’s analysis found that the number of incidents more than doubled from 83 to 207 in H1, the highest number TRM has recorded across a six-month period.

Smart contract exploits accounted for 125 or 60% of the incidents in H1, TRM added.

Protecting private keys

CertiK said private keys and multisignature wallet management remain the “most consequential security surface” for attackers to exploit.

Related: Crypto hack losses top $630M in April, highest since February 2025 

CertiK urged crypto protocols and institutions holding significant onchain assets to harden every layer of private key management — from hardware security and multisignature governance to even geographically spreading out where signers are based.

This is an “area where security investment yields asymmetric returns,” CertiK said.

Crypto hardware wallet providers like Ledger have also long warned users to store seed phrases offline and never share them as a basic safeguard against phishing.

Magazine: The end of anonymity? AI could unmask crypto’s hidden identities

The biggest fight in American finance right now is over a single clause: whether digital dollars can pay their holders interest. Banks say yield-bearing stablecoins would drain trillions in deposits and break the lending machine. Crypto says the banks are defending a monopoly on other people’s money. The CLARITY Act is hostage to the answer, and this week the standoff escalated on every front.

The week of June 29, 2026, was supposed to move the CLARITY Act toward the Senate floor. Instead, Coinbase publicly pulled its support for the bill it had spent two years championing, Senate Banking Committee chairman Tim Scott postponed the markup, and President Trump posted that the banks lobbying against stablecoin yield were threatening and undermining his own signature crypto law. The proximate cause of all three events was the same unresolved question: can a stablecoin pay interest?

The question sounds technical. It is not. It is a fight over roughly $6 trillion, which is the amount of deposit money that Bank of America chief executive Brian Moynihan has warned could migrate out of the banking system if digital dollars are allowed to pass their reserve earnings to holders. Behind the number sits the basic architecture of American credit: banks fund loans with deposits that pay savers little, and anything that gives savers a better default option attacks the cheapest funding source in finance.

Both sides understand the stakes with total clarity, which is why neither will yield. The banks have the oldest lobby in Washington and a century of regulatory capture to draw on. Crypto has the GENIUS Act already signed, a president publicly on its side, and products that customers demonstrably want. Between them sits a Congress trying to pass a market structure bill that both industries claim to support and each is willing to kill over this clause.

For nearly a decade, venture capital has chased one transformative technology after another. From mobile apps to cloud computing, from blockchain to generative AI, investment dollars have always followed the next big narrative. Today, that narrative belongs overwhelmingly to artificial intelligence.

In 2025 and into 2026, AI startups have secured some of the largest funding rounds in technology history. Companies developing frontier AI models have attracted tens of billions of dollars in fresh capital, while enterprises racing to integrate AI have become venture capital’s highest priority. In contrast, the once-explosive Web3 funding environment has become quieter, more disciplined, and far more selective.

To many observers, this appears to signal a clear winner. AI is booming, while crypto has faded into the background.

But that conclusion misses the bigger picture.

Rather than signaling the decline of blockchain, today’s capital migration is forcing the crypto industry to evolve beyond speculation. More importantly, it is laying the foundation for a future where AI and blockchain become deeply interconnected technologies rather than competing ones.

The real story isn’t AI versus crypto.

It’s AI because of crypto—and eventually, AI powered by crypto.

The Great Migration of Venture Capital

Venture capital has always been driven by two powerful forces: limited capital and unlimited fear of missing out.

Whenever a new technology demonstrates explosive growth potential, investors naturally redirect capital toward the highest perceived returns. Over the past two years, AI has become that destination.

Large Language Models, autonomous agents, enterprise AI platforms, robotics, and AI infrastructure have collectively absorbed billions that might once have flowed into decentralized finance, NFT ecosystems, or Layer-1 blockchain projects.

This migration has dramatically changed the investment landscape.

Where crypto startups once raised enormous seed rounds based largely on future potential, today’s investors demand measurable adoption, sustainable revenue, and realistic business models. Meanwhile, nearly every startup pitch deck now includes an AI strategy because founders recognize that artificial intelligence has become almost mandatory for attracting early-stage investment.

Crypto has effectively lost its speculative premium.

Instead of existing as a separate asset class driven primarily by narrative, blockchain projects are increasingly evaluated like traditional technology companies.
While painful for many projects, this transition may ultimately be one of the healthiest developments the industry has experienced.

Why AI Is Winning the Short-Term Investment War

The reasons behind AI’s dominance are surprisingly straightforward.

Immediate Utility Beats Long-Term Infrastructure

Artificial intelligence delivers value almost instantly.

A developer can purchase access to an AI API and automate software development within minutes. Businesses can deploy customer service agents overnight. Marketing teams can generate content at unprecedented speed.

The productivity gains are visible immediately.

Blockchain, on the other hand, operates differently.

Its value proposition isn’t instant automation—it’s rebuilding the infrastructure of digital trust.

Creating decentralized financial systems, secure identity networks, tokenized assets, or censorship-resistant infrastructure requires years of engineering, regulatory clarity, and user adoption. These projects solve foundational problems, but they often lack the immediate “wow factor” that attracts short-term investors.

Simply put:

• AI delivers productivity today.
• Blockchain builds infrastructure for tomorrow.

For venture capital seeking rapid returns, today’s value often outweighs tomorrow’s architecture.

The Valuation Gap

AI has also created an increasingly uneven investment environment.

Many venture firms now treat AI integration as a baseline requirement rather than a competitive advantage.

As a result, pure-play Web3 startups frequently compete for a shrinking pool of specialized blockchain investors, while AI startups enjoy broader access to general technology funds.

This has effectively created a two-tier venture ecosystem:

Tier One: AI-native companies attracting premium valuations.

Tier Two: Blockchain companies face significantly higher scrutiny before receiving funding.

The imbalance is substantial—but it is unlikely to remain permanent.

Faster Exit Opportunities

Investors also prefer AI because commercialization appears more predictable.

Enterprise software companies regularly acquire AI startups.

Major cloud providers continuously expand their AI capabilities.

Corporate demand already exists.

Crypto investments follow a different path.

Returns often depend on token launches, network adoption, evolving regulations, and volatile market cycles.

For venture capital firms measured on fund performance, AI currently offers a shorter and more visible path toward liquidity.

Crypto’s Evolution: From Hype to High-Beta Technology

Ironically, losing speculative capital may be exactly what blockchain needed.

The crypto industry has spent years funding countless variations of decentralized exchanges, yield farms, Layer-2 networks, and meme-driven ecosystems.

That era is fading.

Today’s investors increasingly demand fundamentals.

Projects are expected to generate revenue.

Tokenomics must align with sustainable economic models.

Communities alone are no longer enough.

This shift has given rise to what many describe as Tokenomics 2.0.

Modern blockchain projects increasingly emphasize:

• Revenue-linked token value
• Fee-sharing mechanisms
• Token buyback programs
• Treasury sustainability
• Real protocol cash flows

Instead of rewarding speculation, markets are beginning to reward measurable utility.

Crypto is becoming less of an isolated financial experiment and more of a high-beta extension of the broader technology sector—still volatile, but increasingly tied to real economic activity.

The Turning Point: Where AI Meets Blockchain

The assumption that AI and crypto compete for the same future overlooks one fundamental reality:

Artificial intelligence cannot fully scale using traditional financial infrastructure.

As AI systems become autonomous, they begin encountering problems that existing payment systems were never designed to solve.

This is where blockchain re-enters the story.

The Machine-to-Machine Economy

Imagine an autonomous AI agent managing an international supply chain.

It needs to:

• Purchase satellite imagery.
• Rent cloud computing.
• Pay for API requests.
• Buy proprietary datasets.
• Hire another specialized AI agent.

Each transaction may cost fractions of a cent.

Traditional banking struggles with this model.

Credit cards require human identities.

Bank accounts require legal ownership.

International wire transfers take days.

Card networks charge fixed transaction fees that make micropayments economically impossible.

An AI agent cannot simply apply for a corporate credit card.

Nor should it.

Machines need a native digital payment infrastructure.

Blockchain as the Economic Rail for AI

Blockchain networks solve many of these challenges naturally.

Crypto wallets allow software agents to control digital assets independently through cryptographic signatures.

Stablecoins enable programmable global payments without relying on traditional banking hours.

Transactions settle within seconds.

Fees can be measured in fractions of a cent.

This creates entirely new possibilities.

An AI assistant reading premium research could instantly pay a publisher $0.001 for access.

A coding agent could purchase compute power by the second.

Autonomous robots could negotiate and pay one another for services without human intervention.

These tiny machine-to-machine payments are practically impossible using legacy financial systems.

On blockchain, they become routine.

Increasingly, blockchain ecosystems are building this infrastructure precisely through AI-focused development kits, agent frameworks, and stablecoin payment rails. As autonomous software becomes more common, decentralized networks may become the default settlement layer for machine commerce.

From “Vibes” to Value

Another important shift is occurring beneath the surface.

Global regulation is gradually pushing crypto beyond its speculative origins.

Frameworks such as Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation are establishing clearer rules for digital asset markets, while regulators in the United States continue developing more standardized oversight for crypto businesses.

As legal uncertainty decreases, blockchain projects face increasing pressure to operate like mature financial infrastructure rather than experimental internet communities.

Ironically, AI’s dominance has accelerated this transition.

With speculative capital flowing elsewhere, blockchain builders have been forced to focus on products that solve real-world problems.

The industry has become leaner, more disciplined, and arguably stronger.

Is AI Becoming Overvalued?

History suggests that no investment narrative dominates forever.

Today’s AI market is attracting enormous amounts of capital, producing increasingly expensive funding rounds and premium valuations.

While artificial intelligence undoubtedly represents a transformative technology, concentrated investment can also create valuation risk.

If future funding becomes more selective or AI valuations begin normalizing, investors will naturally search for underpriced sectors with strong long-term fundamentals.

Blockchain infrastructure may become one of the most attractive destinations.

Especially projects enabling:

• AI payments
• Stablecoin infrastructure
• Decentralized identity
• Compute marketplaces
• Agent coordination
• Cross-chain settlement

Rather than competing with AI, these technologies enhance AI’s ability to operate autonomously.

The Future Is Convergence, Not Competition

The narrative that AI and crypto are enemies reflects a short-term investment mindset rather than a long-term technological reality.

Artificial intelligence may become the brain of tomorrow’s digital economy, making decisions, learning continuously, and performing increasingly sophisticated work.

But every brain requires a nervous system.

Blockchain provides that infrastructure.

It supplies programmable ownership, verifiable identity, decentralized coordination, and instant global settlement—the economic rails that autonomous machines will increasingly depend upon.

The future is unlikely to belong exclusively to AI or crypto.

It belongs to the intersection where intelligent agents transact securely, coordinate independently, and exchange value without friction.

Investors abandoning blockchain entirely in pursuit of AI’s latest megadeals may be overlooking the next major opportunity.

The smartest capital rarely chases yesterday’s headline.

It quietly positions itself where two transformative technologies begin to converge.

And that convergence—where autonomous AI meets decentralized economic infrastructure—could become the foundation of the next multi-trillion-dollar digital economy.

REQUEST AN ARTICLE

Key Highlights

• Russia’s largest bank Sberbank will introduce cryptocurrency wallet services via its digital platforms.

• New digital asset legislation in Russia may become active from September 1.

• The bank intends to establish a digital depository for cryptocurrency custody by year-end.

• Other major institutions including Moscow Exchange, VTB, and T-Bank are developing similar offerings.

• Russia’s approach to digital assets is evolving from restriction toward licensed market participation.

Russia’s dominant banking institution Sberbank is preparing to enter the cryptocurrency sector with a digital wallet and custody solution as federal authorities advance comprehensive digital asset regulations. The financial giant intends to integrate licensed cryptocurrency functionality into its existing consumer-facing platforms. This strategic initiative represents a significant reversal in a market historically characterized by governmental constraints.

Banking Giant Develops Crypto Infrastructure Under Legislative Framework

The institution plans to roll out its cryptocurrency wallet functionality through both Sberbank Online and SberInvestments platforms following parliamentary approval of pending legislation. During remarks at the Bank of Russia Financial Congress, Kirill Tsarev, who serves as first deputy chairman at Sberbank, detailed the institution’s roadmap. He emphasized that consumer-facing services would be developed in alignment with evolving regulatory guidelines.

The legislative proposal, formally titled “On Digital Currency and Digital Rights,” is anticipated to enter into force on September 1. This implementation date was confirmed by Vladimir Chistyukhin, First Deputy Chairman at Russia’s central bank, according to RBC reporting. Sberbank awaits the publication of finalized legislative text to establish more precise operational timelines.

Beyond wallet services, Sberbank is developing comprehensive infrastructure to support cryptocurrency trading and digital asset record-keeping. The financial institution has set a December 1 target date for launching a digital depository designed to safeguard and track cryptocurrency holdings. Distribution through mobile app marketplaces could present challenges, particularly regarding platform-specific approval processes.

Federal Authorities Establish Licensed Digital Asset Ecosystem

The emerging regulatory structure will authorize licensed entities to provide various cryptocurrency-related financial services. These organizations may be permitted to facilitate trading operations, asset custody, fiat-to-crypto conversion, and international cryptocurrency settlement functions. Traditional banking institutions and established exchanges will gain market entry under direct oversight from financial authorities.

Sberbank is evaluating the possibility of serving as a domestic gateway for international cryptocurrency trading platforms. Such an arrangement would require compliance with Russian regulatory standards and acceptance of terms established by foreign exchanges. This intermediary model could enable Russian citizens to participate in global cryptocurrency markets through domestically approved channels.

Moscow Exchange has announced intentions to commence cryptocurrency trading operations before 2026 concludes. The exchange anticipates moving forward after legislative approval and subsequent regulatory guidance. Concurrently, VTB and T-Bank have disclosed plans to establish their respective digital custody solutions.

Russian Policy Evolves From Prohibition Toward Supervised Market Participation

For several years, Russian authorities maintained restrictive policies regarding cryptocurrency within the domestic financial ecosystem. The Bank of Russia advocated for extensive limitations in 2022, citing potential threats to financial system stability. The Finance Ministry, however, favored a regulatory approach rather than comprehensive prohibition.

President Vladimir Putin subsequently enacted regulations prohibiting cryptocurrency as a payment method for commercial transactions. Nevertheless, international sanctions created demand for alternative settlement mechanisms after Russian financial institutions encountered barriers in traditional payment networks. Consequently, Russia authorized cryptocurrency mining operations and pilot programs for cross-border crypto settlements during 2024.

The forthcoming regulatory framework will permit domestic cryptocurrency trading within experimental parameters and impose annual transaction limits for retail participants. Market participants will receive a transition window extending to July 1, 2027, to complete official registration procedures. Sberbank’s strategic initiative demonstrates how Russia’s leading financial institutions now anticipate the emergence of a supervised cryptocurrency marketplace.

Belgium’s financial markets regulator warned consumers against six crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) it said were operating in the country without authorization, days after the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) licensing deadline took effect. 

On Monday, the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) identified several CASPs active in Belgium without authorization under MiCA regulation. FSMA named Aurum Foundation, Bank Bit, Bithf Pro, Dxago, Global Dynamic Trade and ZeriaFunding. The regulator said it had added these entities to its list of fraudulent CASPs. 

The warning indicates that national regulators are beginning to apply the MiCA licensing perimeter following the EU’s transitional period, which ended on July 1. 

The Brussels-based regulator strongly advised consumers not to accept offers from the named companies and told users to check whether a provider is listed in its official CASP register. The FSMA also warned that crypto assets can be volatile, may suffer from liquidity limitations and are not covered by a compensation scheme that could reimburse users for potential losses. 

Cointelegraph contacted FSMA for more information but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

List of unregistered CASPs. Source: FSMA

MiCA deadline starts enforcement phase across Europe

MiCA entered into force at the end of 2024, creating a harmonized EU framework for CASPs and issuers. Under Belgium’s FSMA guidance, only authorized CASPs are permitted to offer crypto asset services like custody, trading platforms, crypto-to-fiat exchange, crypto-to-crypto exchange, order execution, transfer services, advice and portfolio management.

Belgium’s transitional regime expired on July 1, the same date by which existing providers across the EU generally had to obtain authorization or stop offering crypto-asset services.

Related: Germany leads MiCA crypto authorization race as Europe’s deadline looms

The deadline has been a major pressure point for crypto companies operating in the bloc. On June 24, crypto exchange Binance withdrew its MiCA application filed in Greece and planned to seek authorization in another EU jurisdiction just days before the July 1 deadline. 

At the time, the exchange said it was “not leaving Europe” but acknowledged some users could be affected as it worked to comply with applicable requirements.

Magazine: Bitcoin slides to $58K, XRP hits $1 but onchain data promising: Market Moves

Key Takeaways

• Shares of Intel began Monday’s session at $120.35, helping drive a semiconductor sector recovery following two weeks of declines in the SOX benchmark.
• Information technology earnings projections have jumped 10% throughout Q2; Intel and Sandisk show the strongest estimate growth.
• Wall Street now forecasts Intel’s Q2 earnings per share at $0.21, a significant increase from the $0.08 projection on March 31.
• Several institutional players expanded their INTC holdings during Q2, with institutions and hedge funds controlling 64.53% of shares outstanding.
• HSBC maintains a Buy rating with a $200 price target, while Goldman Sachs assigned a neutral stance with a $150 objective.

Intel shares opened Monday’s trading at $120.35 as semiconductor stocks recovered from back-to-back weekly declines that pressured the PHLX Semiconductor Index (SOX).

Intel Corp., INTC

Sandisk (SNDK) and Western Digital (WDC) also experienced approximately 4% gains after suffering significant losses during Thursday’s selloff.

The semiconductor recovery materialized as market participants shifted focus toward the approaching earnings reporting period, where technology sector expectations have been strengthening.

FactSet data reveals that information technology sector earnings forecasts have advanced 10% since the second quarter’s April 1 start date. This positions IT just behind the energy sector, which has witnessed a dramatic 50% surge in estimates during the identical timeframe.

Intel and Sandisk are spearheading the technology sector’s earnings-per-share estimate improvements on a percentage basis since the end of March. Sandisk also appears near the top when measured in absolute dollar terms, alongside Micron (MU), Nvidia (NVDA), and Apple.

Regarding Intel’s specific outlook, Wall Street analysts currently project Q2 EPS of $0.21, representing a substantial increase from the $0.08 forecast that existed at the quarter’s beginning. Intel’s management has issued Q2 guidance calling for $0.20 EPS.

Institutional Ownership Continues Growing

Numerous institutional investment firms expanded their Intel holdings during the second quarter. Walkner Condon Financial Advisors established a fresh position valued at approximately $224,000 through the purchase of 5,068 shares. Sivia Capital Partners expanded its Intel stake by 271.7%, bringing its total to 34,201 shares valued at $766,000. NewEdge Advisors increased its position by 29.6%, now holding 158,277 shares.

In total, hedge funds and institutional investors maintain ownership of 64.53% of Intel stock.

On the insider transaction front, Executive Vice President April Miller divested 40,256 shares on May 1 at an average price of $99.53 per share, generating proceeds exceeding $4 million. This transaction decreased her ownership percentage by 27.7%.

Street Price Targets Show Wide Dispersion

Analyst price objectives for Intel demonstrate considerable variance across Wall Street. HSBC elevated its target to $200 while maintaining a Buy recommendation, citing advancement in Intel’s foundry operations and possible collaborations with Apple, Nvidia, and Amazon.

Goldman Sachs launched coverage on June 25 with a neutral assessment and a $150 price objective. Mizuho established a $135 target on June 21. TD Cowen maintains a Hold rating with a $75 price goal. Rosenblatt carries a Sell rating alongside a $50 target.

The aggregate consensus among 49 Wall Street analysts establishes a “Hold” rating with an average price target of $96.69.

Intel’s latest quarterly results, disclosed on April 23, revealed Q1 EPS of $0.29, surpassing the $0.01 consensus estimate by $0.28. Revenue totaled $13.58 billion, exceeding the $12.32 billion projection and representing a 7.4% year-over-year increase.

The stock’s 52-week trading range spans from $18.97 to $142.35. Its 200-day moving average stands at $71.20, considerably below current trading levels. Intel maintains a market capitalization of $604.88 billion with a beta coefficient of 2.18.

Strategy (MSTR) sold 3,588 bitcoin for approximately $216 million last week, reducing its total holdings to 843,775 BTC, according to a Monday SEC filing.

The company said proceeds from the bitcoin sales will be used to fund distributions on its preferred stock and replenish the portion of its U.S. dollar reserve used for those payments. As of July 5, the USD reserve totaled $2.55 billion.

The latest sales were executed at an average price of roughly $60,000 per bitcoin and are dramatically higher than the 32 bitcoin sold by the company about one month ago, which sent crypto prices plunging. Strategy currently holds 843,775 BTC acquired for approximately $63.69 billion, or an average purchase price of $75,476 per bitcoin.

Strategy also said it did not sell any shares under its at-the-market equity program during the week ended July, and did not repurchase any shares under its buyback programs. The company added that the full $1.25 billion capacity under its recently announced BTC Monetization Program remains available.

Strategy shares are down 2% in pre-market trading and bitcoin has given up much of its weekend gain, trading down to $61,900 from $62,900 prior to the announcement.

TLDR

• Solana added 1.60 million new addresses in two weeks, showing stronger network participation.
• SOL held its short-term uptrend as buyers defended key support levels.
• Analysts identified $85.81, $88.79, and $93.95 as the next upside targets.
• The $86 to $94 zone remains the main resistance area for Solana’s breakout setup.

Solana price prediction remains positive after on-chain activity strengthened and technical support stayed intact. Network data showed 1.60 million new addresses joined within two weeks. Meanwhile, SOL continued holding higher lows while resistance near $94 remained the next focus.

Network activity strengthens Solana’s market outlook

Solana price prediction gained attention after fresh on-chain data highlighted steady network expansion. Ali Charts reported 1.60 million new addresses during the past two weeks. The figures reflected stronger participation across the broader Solana ecosystem.

The total address count increased from about 6.8 million to 8.6 million during the measured period. That increase suggested rising activity beyond short-term market movements. Consequently, stronger network participation supported improving market conditions.

Solana price prediction also received support because expanding addresses often reflect growing ecosystem usage. However, address growth alone cannot confirm a sustained price breakout. Even so, consistent participation strengthened the broader bullish structure.

Price structure keeps the bullish trend intact

Solana price prediction remained constructive because SOL preserved its short-term upward trend. More Crypto Online said, “there is still no clear sign that a local top has formed.” The Elliott Wave structure continued pointing toward higher resistance levels.

The analyst identified immediate support near $80.38 for the ongoing structure. Additional support rested near $78.22 and $76.52. Therefore, holding those levels would preserve the current higher-low pattern.

Solana price prediction continued favoring upside targets while buyers defended key support levels. The chart highlighted resistance near $85.81, $88.79, and $93.95. Those levels represented the next technical objectives if momentum continued.

Resistance near $94 remains the next target

Solana price prediction focused on the $86-$94 resistance area as buying pressure persisted. Market structure remained positive because price respected higher lows. Consequently, traders monitored resistance without disrupting the prevailing trend.

A deeper decline could return the $71.17-$64.68 region into focus. That move would weaken the current short-term technical picture. However, it would still fit a broader corrective structure.

Solana price prediction continued to rely on network growth and stable price action together. Strong address creation supported the technical outlook during recent sessions. Therefore, sustained participation and higher lows kept the $94 breakout scenario active.