The largest crypto liquidity provider registered with FINRA on August 6. The move signals something larger than one firm’s expansion: the infrastructure that runs crypto markets is migrating onto Wall Street rails.

On August 6, 2026, Wintermute announced that its affiliate Wintermute USA LLC had registered as a broker dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission and joined the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The registration allows the firm to trade traditional equities and equity options, act as an authorized participant for exchange traded products including crypto ETPs, and self clear digital asset securities transactions. The filing is narrow in scope. The implications are not.

Wintermute is not the first crypto firm to obtain a broker dealer license. Crypto.com acquired Watchdog Capital in 2024. Coinbase has held a broker dealer registration through its institutional arm for years. But Wintermute’s registration is different in kind because Wintermute is not an exchange or a consumer platform. It is a market maker. Its business is providing liquidity, and its advantage is speed, capital efficiency, and infrastructure that operates across dozens of venues simultaneously. Bringing that infrastructure inside the regulatory perimeter of U.S. securities law is not an incremental compliance exercise. It is a positioning move for a market structure that does not fully exist yet but is being built in pieces.

What the registration actually allows

Wintermute USA LLC’s broker dealer registration covers three specific activities, each with distinct strategic significance.

First, the firm can trade traditional equities and equity options on U.S. national securities exchanges. This means Wintermute’s algorithmic trading infrastructure, built to provide liquidity on crypto exchanges, can now operate on the NYSE, Nasdaq, and options exchanges. The technology is different in implementation but similar in concept: market making is the business of quoting bid and ask prices, managing inventory, and profiting from the spread. Wintermute has been doing this on Binance, Coinbase, Uniswap, and over 60 other venues. Doing it on the NYSE is an extension of the same capability into a regulated venue with stricter rules but more stable counterparties.

Second, the firm can act as an authorized participant for exchange traded products. An AP is one of a limited number of entities that can create and redeem ETF shares directly with the fund issuer. When a Bitcoin ETF’s market price rises above its net asset value, APs create new shares by delivering bitcoin to the fund and selling the newly created shares on the exchange, pushing the price back down. When the market price falls below NAV, APs redeem shares for bitcoin and sell the bitcoin, pushing the ETF price back up. This arbitrage mechanism is what keeps ETFs trading near their fair value.

Being an AP for crypto ETPs is strategically valuable because it places Wintermute at the intersection of crypto spot markets, where it already operates, and the regulated ETF market, where institutional capital flows. The firm can now arbitrage between the two markets from a single balance sheet, capturing the spread that exists when ETF prices deviate from spot. The AP role also gives Wintermute visibility into real time ETF demand patterns, which provides information about institutional positioning that is not available through crypto exchange order books alone. This information asymmetry, while legal and standard among APs, is one of the competitive advantages that makes the registration valuable beyond the direct revenue it generates.

Third, the firm can self clear digital asset securities transactions. Self clearing means Wintermute does not need to route its trades through an external clearing firm, reducing costs and operational dependencies. For a proprietary trading firm that may eventually trade tokenized securities, self clearing is a prerequisite for efficient settlement.

The broader pattern: crypto firms buying Wall Street licenses

Wintermute’s registration is part of a pattern that has accelerated since 2024. Crypto native firms are systematically acquiring or building the regulatory infrastructure needed to operate in traditional markets, rather than waiting for traditional firms to build crypto capabilities.

Crypto.com acquired Watchdog Capital, an SEC registered broker dealer, in 2024. The acquisition gave Crypto.com the ability to offer securities trading to its users and to participate in the regulated securities market. In March 2026, the SEC approved a Nasdaq rule change that enables tokenized share trading on the exchange, creating a new venue where digital representations of traditional securities can trade alongside their conventional counterparts.

These moves reflect a strategic calculation. The firms that can provide liquidity across both crypto and traditional venues will have a structural advantage as the boundary between the two markets blurs. Tokenized equities, which represent ownership of traditional stocks on a blockchain, already trade on platforms like Kraken’s xStocks. As regulatory frameworks like the CLARITY Act define the rules for digital assets, the infrastructure for trading tokenized securities will need market makers who understand both the crypto settlement layer and the traditional securities regulatory framework.

Wintermute’s CEO, Evgeny Gaevoy, framed the registration in these terms: “Digital assets and traditional finance will continue to develop in parallel, intersect in new ways, and ultimately integrate more deeply. As the landscape evolves, the firms that succeed will be those that have technical and operational know how to operate in both.”

https://x.com/cryptodotnews/status/2085792086394343734

Why market makers matter more than exchanges

The public conversation about crypto’s integration with traditional finance has focused on exchanges: Coinbase’s IPO, Robinhood’s crypto trading, Kraken’s xStocks. But exchanges are marketplaces. They set the rules and collect the tolls. Market makers are the firms that actually provide the liquidity that makes trading possible.

On a crypto exchange, when you submit a buy order and it fills instantly, it fills because a market maker had a sell order sitting at that price. The market maker does not care about the direction of the trade. It makes money by buying at the bid price and selling at the ask price, capturing the spread between the two. The spread is narrow because multiple market makers compete for order flow.

Wintermute’s advantage in crypto is infrastructure. The firm’s systems can quote prices across 60 plus venues simultaneously, manage inventory across chains and exchanges, and adjust prices in milliseconds as market conditions change. This infrastructure is expensive to build and difficult to replicate, which is why the market making business is concentrated among a handful of firms: Wintermute, Jump Crypto (now Jump Trading), Cumberland DRW, and a few others.

Bringing this infrastructure to traditional equities is a competitive move against incumbent market makers like Citadel Securities, Virtu Financial, and Susquehanna. These firms dominate equities market making but have been slower to build crypto native capabilities. Wintermute is approaching from the other direction: it has the crypto infrastructure and is now adding the equities license.

The competitive dynamics are unclear. Traditional market makers have decades of experience with SEC regulations, exchange connectivity, and risk management frameworks that crypto firms lack. Wintermute has speed and cross venue capabilities that traditional firms are still building. The winner will likely be determined not by which side is better at its home game but by which side adapts faster to the integrated market that is emerging.

The cross venue advantage extends beyond simple price comparison. When Wintermute quotes a bid price on Coinbase and an ask price on Binance, it is effectively creating a private bridge between two liquidity pools that do not otherwise interact. This bridging function reduces fragmentation across the crypto market, which is structurally more fragmented than equities because it operates across hundreds of independent venues with no centralized national best bid and offer (NBBO) system. In traditional equities, the NBBO requires all exchanges to route orders to the venue displaying the best price. In crypto, no such requirement exists. Market makers like Wintermute serve as informal NBBO providers, arbitraging price differences across venues and in the process making prices more consistent for all traders. Extending this capability to equities gives Wintermute a perspective on market microstructure that spans both regulated and unregulated venues, an informational advantage that no purely traditional or purely crypto market maker currently possesses.

There is also a personnel dimension. Wintermute has been hiring compliance and operations staff with traditional finance backgrounds throughout 2025 and 2026. Building a broker dealer is not just a licensing exercise; it requires risk officers, compliance surveillance systems, trade reporting infrastructure, and relationships with clearing houses. The firm’s ability to recruit people who know these systems while retaining the engineers who built its crypto infrastructure will determine whether it can operate effectively across both worlds or becomes bogged down trying to manage two distinct operational cultures under one roof.

The capital requirements are also worth noting. Broker dealers must maintain minimum net capital under SEC Rule 15c3-1. For a proprietary trading firm, the requirement scales with the size and risk profile of its positions. Wintermute’s existing capital base, built from years of profitable crypto market making, gives it a head start. But operating in equities means deploying capital into markets where the competition is better capitalized, the margins are thinner, and the regulatory penalties for errors are steeper. The firm is entering a game where the incumbents have been playing for decades.

The personnel challenge is compounded by compensation dynamics. Traditional finance compliance officers and risk managers command high salaries, and they typically expect the stability and predictability of established financial institutions. Convincing these professionals to join a firm whose primary revenue comes from crypto market making requires both competitive pay and a credible narrative about the firm’s long term trajectory. Wintermute’s registration provides that narrative, but retaining traditional finance hires through the inevitable volatility of crypto revenue cycles will test the firm’s organizational culture in ways that a regulatory filing alone cannot address.

The AP arbitrage opportunity

The authorized participant role for crypto ETPs is arguably the most immediately valuable component of Wintermute’s registration. Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs hold billions of dollars in assets, and the AP mechanism is the primary tool for keeping those ETFs trading at prices that reflect their underlying holdings.

When Bitcoin’s price moves sharply, the ETF price and the spot price can diverge temporarily. APs profit from closing this gap. If the ETF trades at a 0.5 percent premium to spot, an AP can buy bitcoin at spot, deliver it to the ETF issuer to create new shares, and sell those shares at the premium. The profit is the 0.5 percent spread minus transaction costs.

For Wintermute, this trade is especially attractive because the firm already holds bitcoin and ETH inventory across dozens of venues. It can source the underlying asset at the best available price across its venue network and deliver it to the ETF issuer at a lower effective cost than an AP that trades only on one or two exchanges. The cross venue sourcing advantage is the same edge that makes Wintermute effective in crypto market making, applied to a new product.

The creation and redemption process also introduces a timing dimension that favors firms with existing crypto market infrastructure. When an AP creates new ETF shares, it must deliver the underlying asset, whether bitcoin or ether, to the fund custodian within a specified settlement window. Sourcing that asset quickly and at a predictable price requires access to deep liquidity pools across multiple venues. A market maker that already maintains inventory on dozens of exchanges can fill this requirement faster and at a lower cost than an AP that must first purchase the asset on a single exchange and then transfer it to the custodian. The settlement timing advantage compounds during periods of high volatility, when ETF premiums and discounts are widest and the arbitrage opportunity is most profitable. During the March 2025 bitcoin correction, for example, Bitcoin ETF discounts briefly exceeded 1.5 percent, creating an arbitrage window that APs with fast crypto settlement infrastructure could exploit within minutes while others waited for next day delivery.

The volume opportunity is significant. Bitcoin ETF trading volumes have averaged billions of dollars per day since the January 2024 launch. Each trade represents a potential AP opportunity when the ETF price deviates from NAV. Wintermute’s registration gives it access to this revenue stream alongside established APs like Jane Street, Virtu, and Goldman Sachs.

https://x.com/cryptodotnews/status/2083825629414490177

The tokenized securities bet

The long term strategic logic behind Wintermute’s registration extends beyond current products to a market that is still being built: tokenized securities.

Tokenized securities are digital representations of traditional financial instruments, stocks, bonds, ETFs, issued on a blockchain. They trade using crypto settlement infrastructure (24/7, near instant settlement, programmable) but are subject to securities regulation (registration, disclosure, investor protection). The market is small today but growing. The SEC’s approval of Nasdaq’s tokenized share trading rule in March 2026 was a significant regulatory milestone.

For tokenized securities to achieve meaningful trading volume, they need market makers who can provide liquidity on both the tokenized venue and the traditional venue where the underlying security trades. An investor buying tokenized Apple stock needs to receive a price that is competitive with the price on Nasdaq. That price alignment requires a market maker that can trade on both venues and arbitrage any price differences.

Wintermute’s broker dealer registration positions it to be that market maker. The firm can trade traditional Apple stock on Nasdaq through its broker dealer and tokenized Apple stock on a blockchain based venue through its existing crypto infrastructure. The ability to operate on both rails simultaneously is the competitive moat.

This is a five year bet, not a quarter to quarter revenue play. Tokenized securities volumes are still a fraction of traditional market volumes. But the infrastructure investment required to be ready when the market scales is substantial, and Wintermute is making it now.

The tokenized securities thesis also has a settlement advantage that is easy to overlook. Traditional equities settle on a T+1 basis, meaning the buyer does not receive the shares and the seller does not receive cash until the next business day. Tokenized securities on a blockchain can settle in minutes or seconds. For a market maker, faster settlement means lower capital requirements. Every dollar tied up waiting for settlement is a dollar that cannot be deployed elsewhere. If tokenized securities achieve significant volume, the market maker that can settle both the tokenized and traditional versions simultaneously will have a capital efficiency advantage that compounds across thousands of daily trades.

https://x.com/cryptodotnews/status/2080820829823152211

What this does not resolve

The registration does not make Wintermute a retail broker. The firm trades exclusively for its own proprietary account. It cannot accept customer deposits, manage customer accounts, or provide investment advice. Users will not interact with Wintermute USA directly. They will interact with it indirectly through tighter spreads on the venues where it provides liquidity.

The registration also does not resolve the broader regulatory uncertainty facing digital asset securities. The CLARITY Act, if passed, would define which digital assets are securities and which are commodities. Until that framework exists, trading in digital asset securities carries compliance risk that even a broker dealer registration does not fully mitigate.

Finally, the registration does not eliminate the conflicts of interest inherent in market making. Market makers profit from the spread, which is a cost to traders. They have information advantages from seeing order flow across multiple venues. And their automated systems can react faster than any human trader. These dynamics exist in traditional equities and are well understood by regulators. How they apply to a market maker that operates across both crypto and traditional venues simultaneously is a newer question.

The cross venue information flow is particularly sensitive. A market maker that sees order flow on both Binance and the NYSE possesses information about demand in two markets that are increasingly correlated. If bitcoin’s price moves sharply on Binance, Wintermute’s systems could theoretically adjust equity quotes on Bitcoin ETFs before other market participants process the same information. This is the same type of latency arbitrage that high frequency trading firms have exploited in equities for years, but applied across a market boundary that regulators are only beginning to monitor. FINRA and the SEC will be watching how Wintermute manages information barriers between its crypto and equities desks.

What to watch

Wintermute’s equities and options trading volume. The firm’s performance in traditional markets will signal whether crypto native market makers can compete with incumbents. Initial volumes will be small, but the trajectory matters more than the starting point.

Additional crypto firms seeking broker dealer status. If other major crypto market makers (Jump, Cumberland, Amber Group) pursue similar registrations, it confirms that the industry views traditional market access as a competitive necessity rather than an optional expansion.

Tokenized securities volume growth. Wintermute’s long term thesis depends on tokenized securities becoming a meaningful asset class. Tracking volume on platforms like Kraken’s xStocks and Nasdaq’s tokenized trading framework will indicate whether this bet is paying off.

SEC rulemaking on digital asset securities. The regulatory framework for trading digital asset securities is still being built. SEC guidance on custody, settlement, and disclosure requirements for tokenized securities will shape the market that Wintermute is positioning to serve.

AP market share for crypto ETPs. Wintermute’s share of the creation and redemption flow for Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs will be an early indicator of the firm’s ability to compete with established APs in a regulated market.

Regulatory scrutiny of cross market information flows. As Wintermute begins trading equities while maintaining its crypto operations, FINRA and the SEC will monitor how the firm manages information barriers between its trading desks. Any enforcement action related to cross market information use would signal that regulators view the convergence of crypto and equities market making as a systemic risk requiring new supervisory frameworks.

Hiring patterns at competing crypto market makers. If Jump Trading, Cumberland, and Amber Group pursue similar registrations and begin hiring traditional finance compliance and trading staff, it confirms that the industry views Wintermute’s move as setting a competitive standard rather than pursuing a niche strategy. The pace of these hires will indicate how quickly the broader crypto market making industry expects the integrated market to materialize.

DATUM moves that decision back to the individual miner. An operator can build its own block using its own bitcoin software while still contributing computing power to Ocean and sharing in the pool’s payouts.

Simple Mining used that control to leave the BIP-110 signal out of block 961,634.

“We chose not to signal and the chain extended on our block,” the company said.

That also explains why Ocean has appeared on both sides of the weekend split.

A miner using Ocean produced the first block accepted by the BIP-110 branch on Saturday, according to fork tracker Mempool. Simple Mining then used the same pool and made the opposite choice, producing a block for the dominant bitcoin chain.

Computers running BIP-110 software began rejecting blocks that did not carry its signal at block 961,632, after miner support peaked at about 2.6%, far below the 55% the proposal needed.

The minority branch has struggled since. It produced blocks 961,632 and 961,633 before stalling, while bitcoin kept producing blocks roughly every ten minutes.

By Monday a live monitor showed the main chain at 961,725, putting the BIP-110 branch more than 200 blocks behind.

The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority is discussing standards for tokenized gold with major banks and other market participants, according to an Aug. 10 Financial Times report. 

The discussions are examining how digital representations of physical gold could operate in wholesale markets, including as collateral.

The talks have not yet produced a standalone FCA rulebook specifically for tokenized gold. They build on a May 18 joint policy paper from the FCA and Bank of England, including the Prudential Regulation Authority, which explicitly identified tokenized gold as a possible form of collateral for uncleared over the counter derivatives.

FCA tokenized gold plan builds on May roadmap

The May paper says the FCA and PRA are reviewing tokenized collateral eligibility and recognize potential benefits from tokenized money market funds and tokenized gold. Any use would be subject to standards developed with industry. Regulators also plan further policy later this year explaining how tokenized collateral can operate under the existing regulatory framework.

UK FCA Plans Regulatory Framework for Tokenized Gold

According to the Financial Times, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is discussing a regulatory framework for tokenized gold with major banks and other industry participants. The framework could support the use of… pic.twitter.com/oTyV5WlQOb

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 10, 2026

Advertisement

That points toward adapting existing wholesale market rules rather than automatically creating a separate regulatory category for each tokenized asset. The PRA has also said tokenized traditional assets should generally receive the same prudential treatment as conventional equivalents when their legal rights and underlying risks are comparable.

As crypto.news reported in earlier UK regulatory coverage, the broader initiative covers issuance, trading, settlement, collateral and the infrastructure needed to move tokenized finance beyond pilot projects.

Tokenized gold could enter wholesale collateral markets

The Bank of England plans to consider how tokenized versions of assets already accepted as regulatory collateral could qualify at central counterparties under UK EMIR. The FCA and PRA are separately examining tokenized gold for uncleared derivatives collateral.

There is already a precedent involving funds. An April FCA policy statement confirmed that a range of money market funds, including tokenized versions, can qualify as collateral for uncleared trades under UK EMIR. The same statement said authorized U.K. funds are not prevented from investing in tokenized forms of otherwise eligible assets.

The regulatory work therefore centers not only on whether an asset is digital, but whether its legal rights, custody arrangements and risks remain comparable with the conventional asset it represents.

London’s bullion position gives the project added weight

The Financial Times reported that London accounts for roughly 70% of global gold trading volume. It said the regulatory discussions come as London faces stronger competition from Asian financial centers seeking a larger role in bullion trading.

The size of the existing London market is substantial. LBMA data show London vaults held 9,339 tonnes of gold valued at about $1.384 trillion at the end of March. LBMA describes London as the center of the international bullion market.

The World Gold Council is also developing a wholesale digital gold structure known as Pooled Gold Interests. Its proposed model combines physical ownership with digital transfer and is aimed primarily at institutional and wholesale participants.

What happens next for UK tokenization rules

The FCA and Bank of England closed their broader tokenization consultation on July 3. Their published timetable calls for industry workshops, a response statement during the summer and a full cross authority roadmap later in 2026. The Financial Times now reports that an announcement on developing tokenized gold standards is expected within the next few months, citing a person familiar with the FCA’s plans.

Infrastructure work is advancing alongside those rules. Sixteen firms are working through the Digital Securities Sandbox, while the Bank of England plans upgrades to its securities and collateral system in 2027. It is also targeting 2028 for a synchronization service connecting digital asset ledgers with sterling central bank money.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported on the UK digital gilt rollout, which is targeting its first transaction by the end of Q1 2027 using HSBC’s Orion platform.

The next step for gold is therefore regulatory detail. Authorities still need to determine standards covering eligibility, legal ownership, custody and risk before tokenized gold can become a routine source of collateral across U.K. wholesale markets.

Empery Digital sold 1,635 Bitcoin for $102.2 million between July 1 and Aug. 6, cutting its total holdings to 1,279 BTC, according to an Aug. 7 SEC filing. 

Of that balance, 954 BTC remained pledged to a lender, leaving a derived 325 BTC unrestricted.

The latest disclosure extends a sharp reduction in the Nasdaq listed company’s Bitcoin treasury. Empery held 2,914 BTC on June 30, including 1,375 unrestricted coins. The available pool therefore fell by 1,050 BTC, or about 76.4%, in just over five weeks.

Empery Digital’s unrestricted Bitcoin pool falls 76%

The July and August sales came after Empery had already sold 1,167 BTC for $80.1 million during the first half of 2026. Those earlier disposals produced a $56.8 million realized loss based on the original cost of the Bitcoin sold, according to the filing.

Empery Digital Sold 1,635 BTC Since July, Unrestricted Holdings Fell to 325 BTC

According to CryptoSlate, Bitcoin treasury company Empery Digital sold 1,635 BTC for approximately $102.2 million from July 1 to August 6, reducing its total holdings to 1,279 BTC. Of this amount,… pic.twitter.com/NvcqcUuhD6

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 10, 2026

Advertisement

The latest figures also move beyond the company’s July 10 filing. At that point, Empery said it held 1,514 BTC and about $73.9 million in cash after selling 1,400 BTC since May 7. As crypto.news reported in earlier July coverage, the company said those proceeds were intended for debt repayment, a planned property purchase, legal expenses and operations.

The filing also shows how the treasury sales fit into a broader capital allocation plan. Through Aug. 6, Empery had repurchased 26.24 million shares for $149.7 million at an average price of $5.71. The company said proceeds from $105 million of borrowings, together with Bitcoin sales, helped finance the repurchases. Digital asset losses totaled $106.3 million in the first half and represented 87% of operating expenses.

That marks a major change from the company’s original treasury expansion. In August 2025, Empery reported holding more than 4,000 BTC as it pursued a strategy centered on increasing Bitcoin exposure. Its balance sheet now combines a much smaller Bitcoin reserve with debt reduction, share repurchases and new infrastructure investments.

Debt fell, but most remaining BTC is still pledged

Empery repaid another $20 million under its master loan arrangement after June 30, reducing outstanding borrowings from $55 million to $35 million. The lender returned 585 BTC, bringing pledged collateral down from 1,539 BTC to 954 BTC.

The loan still carries tight collateral conditions. A February amendment set the collateral call level at 153% and the liquidation level at 143%, while reducing the period to restore collateral at the liquidation threshold to 12 hours. Empery had already supplied 576 BTC after a February collateral call and another 186 BTC after a June call. In related March coverage, the company was already selling Bitcoin while reducing leverage and repurchasing shares.

Data center funding could create another cash requirement

Empery is also expanding beyond its Bitcoin treasury strategy. Through its EMHU venture with TexStack Infrastructure, the company contributed $2.9 million and committed another $62.1 million if a proposed Midwest property acquisition closes. The roughly $230 million property is intended to be converted into an AI data center.

The Aug. 7 filing adds a new deadline. EMHU extended its due diligence review period by 15 days to Aug. 13 and can extend it another 15 days. Empery said it expects the acquisition to close during the third quarter but cautioned that “there can be no assurance that it will occur.”

Separately, Empery closed a $20 million investment in Cardinal Data Power on July 20 for an approximately 8% stake, according to an SEC release. In recent data center coverage, crypto.news tracked a broader shift by several digital asset treasury companies toward AI infrastructure as the treasury model came under pressure.

Management said cash, operations, borrowing and potential Bitcoin sales should “be sufficient to fund planned operations beyond one year.” The statement is forward looking. Empery had $3.6 million of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash and a $5.6 million working capital deficit at June 30, while its unrestricted Bitcoin cushion has since narrowed to 325 BTC.

What happens next depends partly on the Aug. 13 property review deadline and whether EMHU extends the review again or moves toward closing. Any further Bitcoin disposal would require another company decision. The current filing lists potential Bitcoin sales among possible funding sources but does not say additional sales are certain.

Bitcoin pushed above $65,000 during early trading on Aug. 10 before slipping back below the level, extending its recovery as investors reassessed the U.S. interest rate outlook. 

BTC was trading near $64,955 at the time of writing, up 0.3% over 24 hours and 3.4% over seven days. Its intraday high reached $65,363.

The move leaves traders with a clear macro event ahead. The Bureau of Labor Statistics will release July consumer inflation data at 8:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, Aug. 12. The report follows Friday’s unexpectedly weak employment numbers, which reduced expectations that the Federal Reserve would need to raise rates again soon.

Bitcoin gets relief from weaker U.S. jobs data

The U.S. economy lost 23,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in July, while unemployment held near 4.1%, according to official BLS data. May payroll growth was revised down by 66,000 and June by 37,000, removing 103,000 jobs from the two previous estimates combined. Average hourly earnings rose 3.2% from a year earlier.

Bitcoin moved above $65,000 after the report as rate expectations shifted. As crypto.news reported in Friday’s payroll reaction, BTC initially gained almost 2% as investors interpreted weaker hiring as reducing pressure on the Fed to tighten policy. The move has since held, although $65,000 has not yet become firm support.

The policy backdrop remains divided. The Federal Reserve held its target range at 3.50% to 3.75% on July 29, but three voting officials preferred a 25 basis point increase, according to its statement. The central bank also said inflation remained above its 2% goal, partly because of energy related supply pressures.

Bitcoin ETF demand strengthened throughout last week

Institutional demand also improved as Bitcoin approached resistance. SoSoValue reported $854 million in net inflows into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs from Aug. 3 through Aug. 7, with BlackRock’s IBIT accounting for about $694 million. The figure marked a reversal from the weaker fund flows seen around the end of July.

There is a small difference between ETF datasets. Farside’s current flows show daily totals of $170.1 million, $211.5 million, $244.4 million, $137.6 million and $101.7 million over the same five sessions, which sum to about $865.3 million. For that reason, the $854 million weekly total is best attributed specifically to SoSoValue rather than treated as a universal figure.

The demand followed several sessions in which ETF buying failed to produce an immediate breakout. In earlier ETF flow coverage, Bitcoin remained near $64,200 on Aug. 7 even after funds recorded four consecutive positive sessions. Friday’s additional inflows extended that streak while BTC continued challenging the same resistance area.

$65,800 remains a closely watched Bitcoin barrier

The price structure has improved since Bitcoin traded near $62,500 at the beginning of last week, but the market has repeatedly struggled between $65,000 and $66,000. Crypto.news previously identified the same area in recent resistance analysis, where $65,000 to $65,500 also contained a concentration of liquidation liquidity.

The Relative Strength Index stood at 55.07, above its moving average of 50.44 and the neutral 50 level. The reading points to moderate bullish momentum, with buyers holding a slight advantage. However, RSI remains well below overbought territory, suggesting momentum has strengthened without becoming stretched.

The Awesome Oscillator was positive at about 664.19, supporting the improving momentum picture. Its histogram bars remained relatively small compared with those recorded during stronger directional moves, so the indicator points to improving momentum rather than confirming a major breakout.

Analyst Michaël van de Poppe has placed the next level slightly higher. In an Aug. 9 post, he called $65,800 the “critical level” and said BTC was “ready for a breakout to at least $73,700.” 

He also cited bullish divergence in longer duration RSI and MACD readings. Those figures are his technical targets, not confirmed price objectives, and Bitcoin still needs to clear the resistance he identified.

$BTC is ready for a breakout to atleast $73,700.

To me, there’s one critical level to break.

Advertisement

That’s the weekly level at $65,800.

When I’m looking at the charts, I don’t think we’ll test lower as the arguments are simply not there.

➡️ The MACD of multiple #Altcoins look… pic.twitter.com/uZ9FlMjz4B

— Michaël van de Poppe (@CryptoMichNL) August 9, 2026

Advertisement

What happens next as U.S. inflation takes focus

Wednesday’s CPI report is now the nearest scheduled U.S. catalyst. June consumer prices fell 0.4% from May while rising 3.5% from a year earlier. Core CPI was unchanged during June and rose 2.6% annually. Economists surveyed by Reuters expect July headline inflation to ease to 3.4% annually and core inflation to slow to 2.5%.

The market is also dealing with renewed energy pressure. Brent crude rose 1% to $84.40 on Monday as uncertainty around shipping through the Strait of Hormuz continued. Meanwhile, the U.S. 10 year Treasury yield traded near 4.66%. Futures markets put the probability of a September Fed rate increase near 44%, down from 67% one week earlier.

A hotter CPI reading could rebuild expectations for another increase and put renewed pressure on risk assets. A softer reading could reinforce the interpretation traders drew from Friday’s weak employment report, but it would not guarantee a Bitcoin breakout. The Fed’s next scheduled policy meeting runs Sept. 15 to Sept. 16, leaving policymakers with several more economic releases before deciding whether rates should change.

For Bitcoin, the immediate test therefore remains narrow: holding the recovery around $65,000 while attempting to clear the $65,800 area. Wednesday’s inflation numbers will provide the next evidence on whether the U.S. macro environment supports that move or sends traders back toward the lower end of Bitcoin’s recent range.

A Bitcoin security researcher says he has been forced to go back to using open-source Chinese AI models after finding himself restricted from analyzing further codebases by OpenAI, highlighting a growing concern that the most capable AI tools aren’t being made available to defenders. 

In an X post on Tuesday, AnchorWatch CEO Rob Hamilton said he had begun integrating OpenAI’s Trust & Cyber capabilities into his Bitcoin Red Team work on Saturday, only to find his access restricted the following morning. 

“It absolutely guts me as a patriotic American to have to do this, but I will be going back to using Chinese open source models to conduct my research to protect Bitcoin infrastructure,” he added. 

Bitcoin Red Team, a group of volunteers, has been using AI tools and human review to scan hundreds of open-source Bitcoin-related repositories for vulnerabilities, with efforts accelerating days after the Coldcard hardware wallet hack, which has seen over $100 million in Bitcoin stolen. 

Last month, crypto executives told Cointelegraph that many of crypto’s biggest players are still waiting to gain access to powerful new AI models to strengthen their code from attacks, with only a select few having been able to get it.  

“I am now prevented from being able to continue the investigation in a further effort to make sure their code changes are sufficient, as well as understand if there are other issues that have yet to be discovered,” said Hamilton. 

“Black hats will not hit these issues. The white hats will. We’ve hit a local minima in policy,” said Hamilton. “Intelligence is unrestricted for those who don’t follow rules, and those who engage in harm reduction are left on the sidelines.” 

Related: Crypto firms still seeking frontier AI access; only select few have it

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