Bitcoin traded largely unchanged near the $64,000 level at the start of the Wall Street session on Wednesday, showing little follow-through despite a broad risk-on push in traditional markets. The muted action stood in contrast to gold’s renewed strength, as the precious metal climbed to its highest levels in about six weeks.

While US equities continued to build on recent record highs, investors appear to be treating Bitcoin more cautiously—at least for now—amid signals that have to line up before a durable rebound can take hold.

Key takeaways

• BTC held steady around $64,000 as gold rose 2.8% to $4,213 per ounce, its highest since June 22.
• Gold’s strength has been linked to Chinese demand, including reported inflows into China-based gold-backed ETFs.
• US stocks maintained momentum, with the S&P 500 reaching 7,793 and a majority of constituents trading above their 50-day moving average.
• Bitcoin’s recovery still appears contingent on multiple factors, including spot Bitcoin ETF inflows, easing bond yields, and fewer expectations of Federal Reserve rate hikes.

Gold regains footing as China demand returns to focus

Market data reviewed by TradingView pointed to a notable divergence: precious metals and US equities were advancing, while Bitcoin lacked directional momentum. Gold was a clear leader, gaining 2.8% to $4,213 per ounce—its highest level since June 22.

Bloomberg attributed the push higher to Chinese buying and reported 14 consecutive days of inflows for domestic gold-backed exchange-traded funds. The broader backdrop has also been shaped by the World Gold Council’s description of China ETF flows earlier this year: the organization’s data indicates June delivered the worst month of outflows on record, yet year-to-date inflows still stand at 40 billion yuan (about $5.6 billion). Even with June’s weakness, the first half remains the second-best on record for inflows.

The World Gold Council noted that demand has stayed resilient amid geopolitical and economic uncertainties, while ongoing purchases by the People’s Bank of China have offered additional support for sentiment. The organization cited central bank activity totaling 82 tonnes over the 20 months through June.

US equities extend gains while Bitcoin lags

Risk assets in the US remained strong on the day. The S&P 500 pushed higher to 7,793, building on Tuesday’s all-time highs noted in earlier Cointelegraph coverage. That tone in equities came alongside a market breadth read from Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, who said 66% of S&P 500 stocks were above their 50-day moving average and 57% were outperforming a benchmark tracker.

For Bitcoin, the result was a second consecutive session of relative underperformance versus the optimism seen in US stocks. Instead of aligning with the day’s broader “buy the dip” behavior, BTC stayed pinned in a tight range, reinforcing the view that the market’s appetite for recovery is still fragile.

Analysis flags a recovery that needs several conditions to align

Bitcoin’s price action has largely centered on the $64,000 area on shorter time frames, with traders continuing to reference the broader “bear market” structure they believe is still in place. One of the more widely discussed technical themes comes from trader and analyst Rekt Capital, who argued that if the current support zone produces weaker rallies, BTC could form lower highs and eventually break down into the $58,000–$66,000 range.

On the fundamental and macro side, CryptoQuant’s research—published Tuesday—outlined three prerequisites it suggested for a more durable rebound: persistent inflows to US spot Bitcoin ETFs, cooling in US bond yields, and a reduced expectation of additional Federal Reserve rate hikes. In other words, Bitcoin may need both crypto-specific demand and a friendlier macro environment to sustain momentum beyond short-lived relief moves.

CryptoQuant also pointed to a market microstructure condition via the Coinbase Premium, which measures the price difference between Coinbase and Binance’s BTC/USDT pairs. The firm said that metric also needed to return to positive territory, reiterating earlier analysis from June. Cointelegraph previously reported that the Coinbase Premium had been negative for nearly 80 days, and the latest framing maintains that this imbalance has not yet corrected.

What investors should watch next

For BTC, the near-term question is whether gold-driven risk hedging and equity strength can translate into sustained crypto demand—or whether Bitcoin remains constrained until ETF inflows, bond yields, and rate expectations shift in sync. Watch for evidence that the Coinbase Premium improves alongside any acceleration in US spot Bitcoin ETF inflows, because multiple analysts now treat that combination as a prerequisite for a more credible recovery.

JPMorgan, which raised its price target to $240 from $225, said it now expects the space company’s capital expenditures to reach nearly $200 billion in both 2027 and 2028, adding more pressure on free cash flow. “We now project capex of nearly $200 billion in both 2027 & 2028, which further pressures free cash flow in 2027, a trend we see across the hyperscalers,” the analysts wrote.

The bank also pointed to Thursday’s lock-up expiration, when 911.5 million shares could become eligible for sale, potentially increasing the public float by 143%, though it said much of the event may already be priced in because investors have had months to prepare.

Raymond James reiterated its Street-high $800 price target, arguing the company’s operating performance remains strong.

Shares are currently changing hands at $111.80.

Prediction market platform Polymarket is in preliminary discussions to raise $1 billion at a valuation of above $20 billion, according to sources familiar with the ongoing negotiations.

The latest discussions come only a few months after the platform closed a $15 billion funding round in April.

Polymarket Looks To Raise $1 Billion

If the latest funding round is successful, it would likely double Polymarket’s October 2025 valuation of $9 billion. The company secured a $15 billion valuation during its April funding round, bringing hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Co. and venture capital firm G Squared on board as new investors. Polymarket also secured a $600 million investment from Intercontinental Exchange Inc. during April’s funding round, bringing the total investment close to $1 billion.

Since the April funding round, Polymarket has launched its US exchange and reported annualized revenue of over $1.2 billion. Daily notional volume on Polymarket’s US exchange has crossed $100 million, a substantial increase from the $75 million reported in May. Negotiations remain at an early stage, with no term sheet, closing date, or final investor sheet publicly available. A $20 billion valuation would value Polymarket nearly 33% higher than the April 2026 funding round, and more than twice Bloomberg’s October 2025 valuation.

Why Polymarket Has A Strong Case For Higher Valuation

Polymarket’s return to the US market as a regulated entity gives it a highly regulated growth channel and bolsters its case for a higher valuation. Polymarket US is listed as QCX LLC, a designated contract market, in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) official registry. Polymarket has submitted rule changes, liquidity programs, surveillance, and trading procedures since its listing. According to Bloomberg, Polymarket opened its US exchange after its April 2026 funding round.

Polymarket’s reported revenue growth supports the platform’s push for a higher valuation, and trading data revealed a significant jump in trading activity on the US platform.

Kalshi’s $22 Billion Valuation

Kalshi, Polymarket’s biggest rival, announced a Series F funding round at a $22 billion valuation. The funding round was led by Coatue, with investments from Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, IVP, Paradigm, AKR Invest, and Morgan Stanley. The prediction market reported an 800% increase in trading volume, while its annualized trading volume rose from $52 billion to $178 billion. Kalshi also claimed it controlled over 90% of the US prediction market when it announced the funding round, while independent data showed Kalshi processed over three times the combined volume of Polymarket’s international and US platforms.

Polymarket plans to leverage its crypto settlement infrastructure, international reach, brand recognition, and partnership with Intercontinental Exchange to narrow the valuation gap with Kalshi.

Ongoing Regulatory Disputes Could Hamper Funding

Polymarket US is facing lawsuits in several US states that argue sports events contracts equate to gambling and are subject to state, not federal, laws. Polymarket and QCX were also the subject of a civil complaint filed by the Nevada Gaming Control Board to stop companies like Polymarket from offering unlicensed wagering in Nevada. Both Polymarket and Kalshi are also locked in a dispute about whether the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive authority over prediction markets.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

What the regimes reveal

Splitting the window into bull, bear and sideways markets by the 200-day moving average sharpens the picture considerably. In bull regimes both approaches beat the plain 60/40, though the trend version retained much of the upside on a more controlled path. Bear regimes produced the widest gap. Spot exposure transmitted more of crypto’s drawdown into the broader portfolio, while the trend sleeve, designed to step away from persistent downtrends, kept losses shallower and the ride more survivable.

Sideways markets deserve more attention than they usually receive. Range-bound conditions, where prices churn without a clear direction, offer no strong trend to reward conviction and no clean rebound to rescue poor timing. Through those stretches, direct bitcoin exposure struggled to justify its added volatility, while the rules-based sleeve had a better chance of avoiding risk without reward. Real portfolios spend a great deal of time in exactly these noisy, indecisive transitions.

The forward case

Three structural forces will shape how these choices play out. The post-ETF market is more flow-sensitive, so demand shocks travel quickly and can amplify both trends and reversals. Supply growth is anchored by the 2024 halving and will keep shrinking. Regulatory clarity in major jurisdictions continues to separate investible projects from speculative noise, raising the premium on transparent benchmarks and institutional-grade products.

Strategy’s (MSTR) perpetual preferred stock, Stretch (STRC), has risen more than 30% from its June low. It is currently trading around $94, after gaining another 1% on Wednesday.

STRC bottomed in late June around $71 as bitcoin fell below $60,000. Since then, Strategy has sold 5,226 BTC for $321 million across three separate transactions, reducing its bitcoin holdings from 847,363 BTC to approximately 842,137 BTC. The sales were intended, in part, to demonstrate that the company can use bitcoin to meet its dividend obligations, rather than treating it as an idle asset.

Strategy has also repurchased $106 million of STRC as it seeks to return the preferred stock to its $100 stated value.

In addition, the company increased its U.S. dollar reserve by another $250 million on Monday, bringing the total to $4 billion. This provides approximately 2.3 years of coverage for dividend obligations on its preferred securities. Meanwhile, Strategy maintained STRC’s annualized dividend rate at 12%.

As for bitcoin, the price has at least stopped falling, stabilizing above $60,000 for several weeks in a row.

Bitcoin’s on-chain “capitulation” phase has stretched to its longest stretch since the aftermath of the FTX collapse, according to Glassnode. In a Monday update, the firm pointed to its composite cycle-tracking framework showing that a large share of Bitcoin price-related indicators has remained in its most defensive, low-conviction stage through 2026.

The key nuance is that, while conditions resemble late-cycle stress, Glassnode’s heatmap readings have not yet fully matched the deepest “floor” signatures that appeared during earlier bear-market bottoms. At the same time, Glassnode’s latest Market Pulse report suggested that on-chain activity has strengthened—an important counterpoint for investors weighing whether capitulation is finally giving way to stabilization.

Key takeaways

• Glassnode’s “Bitcoin Cycle Position Heatmap” shows 45 tracked BTC price metrics have been in the longest capitulation phase since late 2022’s FTX fallout.
• Rafael Schultze-Kraft said the current period sits in its coldest stretch since FTX, but still not at the unanimous deep-blue level that historically marked cycle floors.
• The heatmap uses a basket of 45 indicators, heavily incorporating investor profitability across short-term (STH) and long-term (LTH) holders.
• Glassnode reported stronger network engagement, including daily active addresses and entity-adjusted transfer volumes moving above upper statistical bands.

Heatmap extends capitulation longer than past cycles

Glassnode’s “Bitcoin Cycle Position Heatmap,” created by the platform co-founder Rafael Schultze-Kraft, aggregates data from 45 different Bitcoin price and market-health indicators. In the heatmap, blue shading is associated with capitulation conditions, while red is used to highlight the euphoria typical of late-cycle momentum toward peaks.

The tool flipped from a more euphoric configuration after November 2021 into a majority-blue dominance throughout 2022. That shift coincided with the collapse of FTX, which occurred in late 2022 and aligned with analysts pointing to Bitcoin’s bear-market bottom around $15,600, according to earlier coverage referenced from Cointelegraph.

Schultze-Kraft’s latest read of the heatmap emphasizes both duration and depth. He said the current stage is “its coldest stretch since FTX” and is late in the bear market cycle, but remains “not yet the unanimous deep blue” that had historically indicated a more definitive floor.

For traders and long-term investors, this matters because cycle-position models are often less about predicting a specific day and more about gauging whether market behavior is approaching the “reset” phase that follows widespread distribution and forced risk reduction.

Why profitability and holder behavior shape the signal

Beyond conventional price gauges like market cap, the heatmap places significant weight on the profitability of Bitcoin’s investor base. It divides participants into short-term holders (STH) and long-term holders (LTH), reflecting that these cohorts typically react differently during sell-offs and recoveries.

Schultze-Kraft also highlighted an additional complication: some indicators change character as the composition of the investor base ages. One example is dormancy, measured by how many days a unit of BTC spent idle before being moved on-chain. Because dormancy tends to increase as the chain ages, the dormancy signal can differ between cycles—meaning the same threshold may not “mean” the same thing across different bear markets.

That kind of calibration is crucial when interpreting heatmap results. A long capitulation stretch can be read two ways: either distribution is still ongoing, or the market has moved into a prolonged sideways grind where participants are not capitulating in the most extreme fashion yet. Glassnode’s framing—that the readings are colder than prior periods but not at maximum floor conditions—leans toward the second interpretation.

Network activity improves even as capitulation persists

While the cycle heatmap focuses on sentiment and cycle-stage indicators, Glassnode’s Monday Market Pulse report pointed to strengthening on-chain behavior. The firm reported that daily active addresses and entity-adjusted transfer volumes moved above their upper statistical bands, a change it characterized as a “notable increase” in network engagement and economic throughput.

That improvement matters because it suggests a degree of market function is returning even if the broader cycle signal still shows capitulation characteristics. In other words, activity may be shifting from panic-driven flows toward more sustained utilization, which can be an early ingredient of stabilization.

Glassnode also noted that stabilization of capital outflows persisted despite investor reaction to a separate security event: a low-entropy bug exploit in Coldcard hardware wallets. The implication is that even if some participants reacted defensively to the news, the broader on-chain throughput did not collapse further.

Supporting this, CryptoQuant data cited by Cointelegraph compared a rise in on-chain transfers of 1 BTC or less with the pattern seen after the FTX implosion. Specifically, it noted that on July 31 the daily tally reached 39,600 BTC, compared with 39,900 BTC on Nov. 16, 2022. The comparison underlines how transaction behavior can echo prior stress periods, even when the macro timeline differs.

What to watch next as the signal matures

Glassnode’s heatmap suggests Bitcoin is in the coldest stretch since FTX, but not yet in the “unanimous” conditions that previously aligned with a more decisive bottom. Investors should watch whether the heatmap continues deeper into its most extreme blue regime while on-chain activity remains elevated—especially daily activity and transfer volumes—as those combinations would strengthen the case that capitulation is transitioning into a more durable stabilization phase.

Coldcard has disclosed an entropy-generation flaw that affected multiple versions of its hardware wallets, prompting firmware updates and a fund-migration warning for users. The issue, first raised by Coinkite on July 31, has since been linked by Galaxy Digital researchers to thefts exceeding 1,596 BTC—reported as at least $100 million—via coordinated attacks.

The incident is a reminder that even long-established hardware wallets can fail at the most foundational step of self-custody: producing the randomness used to generate private keys. It has also reignited a broader debate in the industry over how wallets prove to users—technically and practically—that their entropy sources remain secure in production.

Key takeaways

• Coldcard attributed the problem to a specific fallback path in seed generation that could produce weak entropy on-device firmware, affecting certain firmware versions.
• Galaxy Digital researchers say attackers exploited the weakness to steal more than 1,596 BTC through multiple coordinated attacks.
• Coinkite states that devices where users generated their own entropy (for example via manual dice rolls) were not affected by the specific fallback path.
• Ledger, Trezor, and Foundation emphasize different trust models—secure hardware, layered randomness, and open-source transparency—but all agree entropy generation must not silently degrade.
• Security leaders argue that certification and testing should extend beyond components, requiring assurance that production firmware actually uses the intended randomness source.

Entropy flaws hit the core of Bitcoin key generation

Unlike bugs that directly break encryption or exploit Bitcoin’s consensus rules, the Coldcard vulnerability is rooted in something more subtle: randomness. Bitcoin wallets typically start by generating a seed phrase from random data; from that seed, private keys are derived. “Entropy” describes how unpredictable that randomness is.

If the randomness is weakened—or becomes predictable enough—attackers may narrow the set of possible keys, increasing the odds of reproducing private keys tied to affected wallet setups. In other words, the security failure is not merely about having “less randomness,” but about allowing determinism or partial predictability into a process designed to be unguessable.

Coinkite initially warned users that wallets created on affected firmware should be treated as at risk and that funds should be migrated to newly generated wallets. As researchers assessed the underlying cause over subsequent days, attention turned to how such an issue could persist for years without being detected.

How the issue may have entered production—and what’s confirmed

Core Lightning developer Dustin Dettmer suggested that the flaw may have originated from firmware changes in 2021. His theory centers on an intended interface with a hardware random number generator that was potentially disabled, causing wallet creation to fall back to a weaker pseudo-random number generator used by MicroPython.

Coinkite has not confirmed that exact chain of events, but it did describe the nature of the problem: “Certain firmware versions had a fallback path in seed generation that could produce weak entropy when generated on the device firmware itself.”

Coinkite also stated that manual-entropy setups—where users generated their own entropy via dice rolls or similar approaches—were not impacted by that specific fallback path. That distinction matters because it frames the incident not as a total break of the device, but as a conditional failure mode tied to how the seed was generated.

Experts note that RNG vulnerabilities are notoriously hard to detect. As stated by Ledger product security leader Vincent Bouzon, weak randomness can still pass output tests—meaning values may look random statistically even when the generator is compromised.

Different wallet architectures, different ways to earn trust

Hardware wallet makers generally agree on the principle that secure entropy generation is non-negotiable. Where they differ is in implementation and the methods used to establish confidence that the wallet is really using a strong randomness source.

Ledger’s model relies on dedicated security hardware. Bouzon said Ledger generates seeds using a true random number generator embedded in a certified Secure Element, with the entropy source certified under the AIS-31 PTG.2 standard and the Secure Element undergoing Common Criteria certification. He argued the Coldcard incident reflects a failure in one implementation rather than a verdict on secure self-custody, emphasizing that the architecture must prevent silent downgrade to an untrusted software-based source.

Trezor takes a layered approach. Its chief technical officer Tomáš Sušánka said Trezor combines randomness produced inside the device with randomness provided by the host computer, rather than depending on a single entropy input. He also pointed to entropy checks that are intended to confirm the device contributed unpredictable randomness during wallet creation. “The takeaway for the whole industry is that randomness cannot depend on a single source or a single line of code being correct,” Sušánka said.

Foundation’s Passport similarly uses multiple entropy sources and pairs that with transparency. Zach Herbert, Foundation’s CEO, said Passport combines randomness generated by separate hardware components before creating a wallet. He also highlighted that Passport firmware is published as free and open-source software with reproducible builds, enabling independent verification that what runs on the device matches the published code.

Certification gaps and the push for stronger assurance

The Coldcard event has underscored tension between what certifications and component testing can guarantee—and what users ultimately need to trust: that production firmware uses the intended entropy mechanism correctly under real conditions.

Security and infrastructure leaders argue that many existing validation schemes focus on individual parts, not the full behavior of the complete system in operation. Nick Percoco, chief security officer at Kraken (and formerly CSO at Uptake), called the entropy failure a “wake-up call” for the hardware wallet industry. He argued that certification often verifies components, but not whether production firmware actually invokes them correctly.

Percoco proposed an industry-specific assurance standard that would include independent validation of entropy sources, checks that firmware calls the intended hardware random number generator, and certification tied to specific hardware and firmware versions.

The debate also extends to how openness and security culture influence outcomes. Herbert argued that inviting external researchers and maintaining open-source practices are part of building resilient products, not just a matter of code transparency or auditing. The larger point from multiple stakeholders is that redundancy, verification, and accountability must span the full chain from hardware entropy to final seed generation.

What Bitcoin users should do after Coldcard’s warning

For Coldcard holders, the immediate action is straightforward: follow Coinkite’s migration guidance if the wallet was created using affected firmware versions. The purpose is to move funds to wallets generated with safe, newly created seeds.

More broadly, the episode reinforces a principle emphasized by custody-focused experts: designs that rely on a single device, single vendor, or single institution being correct can leave users exposed when that assumption fails. Michael Tanguma, head of product at Onramp Bitcoin, said the trust model for self-custody depends on vendors getting multiple layers right, while emphasizing that “architectural” mitigations—such as multisig setups with independently generated entropy—are the approaches that scale to real-world risk.

In short, Coldcard’s entropy issue appears to reflect a vulnerability in a particular implementation pathway rather than a claim that all hardware wallets are broken. Yet it demonstrates why randomness generation—the part most users never see—remains one of the hardest to verify and one of the most important to get right.

As Coinkite prepares a fuller technical postmortem “soon,” and as the industry responds to calls for stronger end-to-end assurance, the next thing readers should watch is whether wallet makers tighten their verification methods around entropy usage in production firmware—not just around isolated components.