Bitcoin (BTC) passed $80,000 after Monday’s Wall Street open as bulls built on last week’s snap BTC price rally.

Key points:

• Bitcoin hits $80,000 for the first time since mid-May as bullish momentum gathered pace.
• BTC price analysis warns that the market still needs to sustain higher levels to challenge the bear-market thesis.

Bitcoin returns to $80,000 after 100-day hiatus

Data from TradingView showed BTC/USD passing the $80,000 for the first time since May 15, up another 3% on the day before pulling back following the European close.

Source: TradingView

The move spurred an uptick in crypto short liquidations, with these passing $220 million over the 24 hours to the time of writing, per data from CoinGlass. A band of bid liquidity centered on $76,700, potentially offering support in the event of a downward BTC price reversal.

BTC liquidation heatmap. Source: CoinGlass

Analyst: BTC rebound must prove staying power

Bitcoin was up 25% month-to-date, seeing its best August performance since 2017 and increasingly diverging from bear-market norms. Earlier, Cointelegraph reported on concerns among some traders that bearish history could still repeat, with downside reemerging from September onward to spark a final capitulation to new macro lows. 

Related: BTC price loses 200-week trend line as 2022 repeats: Five things to know in Bitcoin this week

“Bitcoin has Weekly Closed at the highs. Now starts the real test,” trader and analyst Rekt Capital wrote in his latest market commentary on X.

“If this is a Bear Market Relief Rally, then Bitcoin could pullback as early as this week, or at least over the next few weeks. Now it’s all about Bitcoin proving sustained strength.”

Rekt Capital had eyed the 50-week exponential moving average in particular, currently at $77,251, as price achieved its first weekly close above it since November 2025. During Bitcoin’s 2022 bear market, BTC/USD achieved two weekly closes above that trend line before dropping to cycle lows.

Magazine: Bitget CEO isn’t buying the Bitcoin rally — She’s waiting for $50K

This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research.

Strive Asset Management has made its latest Bitcoin purchase, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Nasdaq-listed company bought 1,110 BTC during the week of Aug. 17 through Aug. 21, spending about $81.5 million in total and bringing its Bitcoin treasury to 21,356 BTC.

The purchase price averaged $73,409 per Bitcoin, inclusive of fees and expenses, based on the company’s disclosures. As of the same period, Strive reported that its cash and cash equivalents increased by $17.1 million to $171.9 million, while its Class A shares outstanding rose by 3.65 million to 79.89 million.

Key takeaways

• Strive purchased 1,110 BTC for about $81.5 million between Aug. 17 and Aug. 21, per its SEC filing.
• The average all-in cost was $73,409 per Bitcoin, with Strive adding to a total holding of 21,356 BTC.
• Bitcoin was trading around $79,000 on Monday, roughly 8% above Strive’s reported average purchase price for the latest buys.
• Company data cited by BitcoinTreasuries.NET places Strive among the largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holders.
• Separately, Strive’s SATA preferred stock returned to its $99-to-$101 trading corridor after dipping earlier in June.

Another corporate Bitcoin buy—and what the pricing implies

In the SEC filing, Strive details how it executed the most recent tranche of Bitcoin purchases. The company’s average cost—$73,409 per BTC including fees and expenses—was below the approximate $79,000 level at which Bitcoin traded on Monday, according to the article’s market reference. That gap suggests Strive acquired the latest Bitcoin inventory at a discount relative to the spot price at the start of the following trading day, though investors will be watching how the treasury’s realized cost basis compares as new purchases continue.

The timing also matters for corporate-holding strategies that aim to maintain a consistent allocation rather than attempt precise market timing. Strive’s cash position, which rose to $171.9 million, indicates it had room to continue deploying capital into its treasury approach during the covered week. At the same time, growth in Class A shares outstanding to 79.89 million points to ongoing corporate balance sheet activity beyond the Bitcoin buy itself.

BitcoinTreasuries.NET data, cited alongside the filing, ranks Strive as the seventh-largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder, positioning it behind Bullish and ahead of SpaceX. For traders, that kind of ranking can be more than trivia: it can influence investor perception around liquidity, follow-on demand, and how visible corporate BTC strategies are to the broader market.

Strive links the strategy to “scarcity” and share structure

Alongside the purchase news, Strive’s CEO Matt Cole framed the company’s broader thesis in terms of relative scarcity and how Strive’s share structure is intended to participate. In a post on X ahead of Monday’s market open, Cole said the “upside” is not only tied to Bitcoin moving higher, but to Bitcoin “becoming the fastest horse inside an expanding scarcity trade,” adding that $ASST is “structured to amplify” that outcome while remaining “responsibly” supported.

This is essentially an investor-facing explanation of why the treasury strategy is paired with the company’s capital structure. Investors should treat such statements as strategic framing—not performance guarantees—while monitoring how the firm actually funds purchases and how its market-linked products behave during BTC volatility.

Beyond Bitcoin: SATA preferred stock returns to its target range

While the Bitcoin purchase grabbed attention, Strive’s other major development was movement in its SATA preferred stock. The filing context notes that SATA closed at $100.01 on Friday, returning to a management targeted trading range of $99 to $101 after trading as low as $83.30 in late June.

According to the article, Strive previously narrowed SATA’s targeted corridor from $95–$105 to $99–$101 in March. Around that time, the company also stated it would not issue SATA through at-the-market or follow-on offerings below $100, a commitment that is designed to limit dilution at prices the company considers off-target.

SATA was launched in November 2025, initially selling 2 million shares at $80 each for $160 million in gross proceeds. The preferred stock is described as variable-rate and perpetual, with a stated amount and an initial liquidation preference of $100 per share—key features that differentiate it from Strive’s common equity.

Functionally, SATA is intended to operate as an income-focused instrument. The variable dividend rate is meant to encourage trading near $100, and the article notes Strive raised the annualized dividend rate to 13% in April. It also switched from monthly to daily dividend payments beginning June 16, referencing an SEC filing for the change in payment schedule.

How SATA compares to Strategy’s STRC

SATA is presented as similar to STRC, the variable-rate perpetual preferred stock issued by Strategy, which is widely regarded as the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. The article states STRC traded near $97 on Monday, below Strategy’s $100 target, while Strategy reported no Bitcoin purchases for the week ended Aug. 23.

For market participants, this comparison is useful because both SATA and STRC are designed to tie investor outcomes to corporate Bitcoin holdings while using dividend mechanics to influence preferred-share pricing. If Strategy is paused on new purchases while Strive is actively adding BTC, the relative behavior of their preferred instruments could become a proxy for how markets are weighing treasury accumulation versus dividend/rate adjustments.

However, investors should be careful not to assume one day’s price action directly reflects the treasury’s longer-term economics. Preferred stocks can respond to yield expectations, liquidity, and broader risk sentiment, and variable-rate structures can shift quickly as dividend calculations change.

Next, readers should watch whether Strive continues its steady cadence of Bitcoin purchases and how that activity filters into the market’s expectations for both ASST and its preferred share suite. The sustainability of SATA staying near the $100 corridor will also be important, especially if Bitcoin volatility increases or if Strive’s treasury strategy funds new buys alongside changes in dividends and share issuance.

Bitcoin has recovered above $79,000 after briefly falling toward $78,200 as President Donald Trump threatened 50% tariffs on Canadian vehicles, automotive parts and steel from Jan. 1, 2027.

Trump tariffs target Canadian vehicles and steel

A Truth Social post published by Trump on Aug. 24 said the United States would raise tariffs on all Canadian cars, trucks, automotive parts and steel to 50% at the start of 2027.

“Build in the U.S. and there are ZERO TARIFFS,” Trump wrote before criticizing Canada’s approach to trade with the United States.

The announcement followed the collapse of negotiations between Washington and Ottawa on Aug. 21. According to Reuters, the proposed agreement would have reduced the main U.S. tariff on Canadian cars and light trucks from 25% to 15%. Duties on Canadian aluminum and steel would also have fallen from 50% to 25%.

Negotiators did not resolve several points, including whether tariff relief would cover medium- and heavy-duty trucks. With no agreement in place, Trump increased the pressure on Ottawa through his latest tariff threat.

Canada, for its part, plans to impose retaliatory tariffs on selected U.S. products from Sept. 8 in response to existing 50% U.S. duties on about $20 billion of Canadian goods. Prime Minister Mark Carney described the dispute as a trade war after the talks failed.

“You’re at war when you get attacked,” Carney said on Aug. 22.

Trump also claimed Canada conducts 95% of its business with the United States, although official trade figures cited by Reuters show Canada sends more than three-quarters of its goods exports to the U.S. and receives almost half of its goods imports from its southern neighbor.

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled $872.3 billion in 2025, making the country one of America’s two largest trading partners. The high level of integration means parts can cross the border several times before a finished vehicle reaches a dealership.

Bitcoin price has recovered from its tariff-driven dip

Bitcoin initially moved lower after Trump published the tariff announcement, falling from above $79,000 to around $78,200. Buyers soon absorbed the decline, helping BTC return above the psychological $79,000 level.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin traded near $79,300, up more than 2% over the previous 24 hours. The cryptocurrency also came within roughly $500 of the $80,000 level after reaching an intraday high close to $79,900.

The limited reaction contrasts with Bitcoin’s behavior during earlier tariff disputes. In February, BTC lost the $65,000 support level as new U.S. global duties approached, while the total crypto market value fell as traders reduced exposure to risk assets. Earlier crypto.news coverage of that decline recorded a roughly 5% Bitcoin drop from a previous high of $66,465.

Monday’s price move has been smaller because Bitcoin entered the announcement with strong upward momentum. BTC climbed from about $62,679 on Aug. 17 to a three-month high near $79,500 on Aug. 21, adding almost 27% between the weekly low and high.

After pulling back toward $76,600 over the weekend, the asset resumed its advance on Aug. 24. The latest tariff news briefly interrupted that recovery but did not erase the day’s gain.

Treasury buybacks have supported Bitcoin’s rally

Behind Bitcoin’s recent advance, the U.S. Treasury has expanded its liquidity-support buybacks for longer-dated government securities. The department raised the maximum size of each operation from $2 billion to at least $4 billion for bonds in the 10-to-20-year and 20-to-30-year maturity ranges.

Scheduled to take effect on Sept. 9, the revised program will also increase the number of long-end operations from two to four per quarter through Nov. 4. No money has been deployed under the expanded schedule yet.

The announcement prompted a rapid repricing in the bond market. The 30-year Treasury yield fell from a 19-year high of about 5.34% to 5.19%, while the 10-year yield declined to around 4.65%.

As earlier buyback coverage detailed, Bitcoin jumped 8.2% from an intraday low near $64,100 to $69,500 in less than 12 hours after the Treasury disclosed the change. About $1.44 billion in short positions was liquidated across major crypto exchanges during the move, including $1.29 billion within one hour.

The buyback program does not amount to Federal Reserve quantitative easing. The Treasury purchases older and less liquid bonds using proceeds from newly issued debt, changing the composition of government liabilities without reducing the total federal debt stock.

Continued demand through regulated U.S. investment products has provided another source of buying. Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds attracted approximately $1.92 billion across five sessions during the latest rally.

On Aug. 20 alone, the funds recorded about $606 million in net inflows after drawing roughly $517 million during the previous session. BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for a large portion of the demand, while the combined assets held by U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs rose above $90 billion.

Canadian tariffs carry risks for U.S. prices

For American consumers and investors, the proposed duties could affect vehicle prices and the earnings of automakers with supply chains spanning the U.S.-Canada border. Canadian plants supply engines, transmissions and other components to assembly facilities in the United States, while U.S.-made parts also move north for vehicle production.

Flavio Volpe, president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, told Reuters that U.S. assembly plants depend on specific Canadian components and could face production stoppages if the tariff threat disrupts their supply.

Auto industry executives also questioned whether the 50% rate would take effect as announced, noting that Trump has previously withdrawn or revised tariff threats during negotiations. More than four months remain before the planned Jan. 1 implementation date, leaving time for Washington and Ottawa to restart discussions.

Canada’s retaliatory measures are scheduled to begin sooner. Starting Sept. 8, Ottawa plans to apply duties to selected American products in response to tariffs already ordered by the Trump administration, while the White House has not released the detailed rules governing the proposed 2027 automotive levies.

Ethereum developer Eric Conner has proposed a common status interface for tokenized assets, as onchain stocks trade continuously while the New York Stock Exchange opens for only 32.5 hours each week.

ERC-8392 separates market closures from feed failures

EthHub founder Eric Conner introduced the proposal in an Aug. 24 X post, describing it as an asset status interface for tokenized stocks and real-world assets.

Conner referred to the proposal as ERC-8391 in the post. However, the subsequent Ethereum Magicians discussion and associated draft identify it as ERC-8392, titled “Asset Status Interface for Tokenized Assets.”

The proposal addresses a mismatch between continuous blockchain activity and the limited operating hours of traditional markets. Tokenized stocks can move between wallets or trade through smart contracts at any hour, while their reference shares may not be trading on an exchange.

During a weekend, for example, the latest available stock price may be several hours old because the market is closed. A similar onchain price could also result from an oracle failure, a trading halt, or a corporate event that occurred while the exchange was shut.

Although the price data may look identical in each case, Conner said smart contracts should respond differently. A lending protocol might tolerate an old price during a scheduled closure but suspend liquidations when a data provider has failed.

“Both produce identical bytes onchain. The correct response is opposite,” Conner wrote.

Price feeds alone also cannot show whether the reference stock is under a price restriction, whether the issuer has paused a token program, or whether holders can currently redeem their tokens. ERC-8392 proposes separate queries for each form of operational information.

Tokenized stocks would expose four status categories

At the center of the draft is IAssetStatus, a required interface covering the token program’s lifecycle and operational condition. Three optional extensions would supply information about the reference market, valuation feed, and primary issuance or redemption process.

The market-status extension would identify whether the reference venue is in regular trading, an extended session, an auction, or a closed period. A separate field would report interruptions such as an asset-level halt, venue-wide halt, or price constraint.

For assets tied to listed shares, the proposal also includes a market identifier based on the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code. Integrators could use the code to compare a reported status with a public exchange calendar.

A valuation-status query would separate an expected lack of updates from a genuine delay. During a normal weekend closure, the interface could report that no new price is due. If an oracle misses an update during an active session, the same interface could show that the valuation has become delayed or unavailable.

Issuance and redemption receive a separate status because a valid market price does not guarantee that investors can create or redeem the token. Funds may operate with net asset value cutoffs, while issuers can set defined subscription periods or temporarily stop redemptions.

Each status category includes an UNKNOWN value. According to the draft, making unknown the default prevents empty storage in a newly deployed or upgraded contract from being interpreted as a healthy operating state.

The proposed views would not depend on the caller and would not revert. Conner also excluded required events because scheduled market sessions can change with the clock even when no blockchain transaction occurs.

ERC-8392 provides information rather than a safety verdict

ERC-8392 does not instruct applications to buy, sell, liquidate, or freeze an asset. Instead, the interface standardizes the questions that a contract can ask, leaving each application to set its own response.

A lending market could reduce loan-to-value limits when a reference exchange closes, while another protocol might continue operating if it has enough liquidity and other pricing sources. Wallets could present a warning when a valuation is delayed or redemption is unavailable.

Conner said the status information would remain advisory because the interface cannot guarantee that an issuer or oracle has supplied correct data. Oracles could report the relevant conditions, and token contracts would return the status through a common format.

Existing products currently use different methods. According to the proposal, Ondo provides an offchain status interface, Robinhood Chain tokens use a proprietary oraclePaused() query, and several other assets expose only a general paused() function. Lending markets must therefore build separate handling rules for each listing.

ERC-8392 has been designed to work alongside other token standards. The draft leaves stock splits to ERC-8056 and transfer restrictions to ERC-7943 or ERC-3643. Merger and spinoff economics are also outside its scope, although their operational effects could appear through a halt or other status update.

Early feedback on Ethereum Magicians has raised questions about historical data and settlement. One respondent working from a lending perspective said status events could help protocols measure how often an asset was halted or its valuation was delayed. The respondent also proposed a status digest that applications could verify at settlement if conditions changed after an earlier check.

Conner has requested feedback from issuers, lending-market teams, and market-structure specialists. The draft has been reviewed on paper against conditions including Hong Kong lunch breaks, German exchange interruptions, London auctions, Gulf trading weeks and price limits in mainland China, but it has not reached final status.

Tokenized stock growth raises the need for common controls

The proposal has arrived as tokenized equity activity expands across several blockchain networks. As crypto.news reported on Aug. 21, combined tokenized-stock trading through Uniswap on Robinhood Chain reached $1 billion.

Robinhood launched 95 Stock Tokens for eligible customers in more than 120 countries, with instruments tracking companies such as Nvidia, Apple, and Alphabet. The products remain unavailable in the United States, and Robinhood describes them as debt securities that track referenced shares rather than direct ownership of the underlying stock.

Separate Token Terminal figures cited in an Aug. 15 report placed the tokenized stock market at about $2.7 billion, up from roughly $80 million one year earlier. Ondo held the largest issuer position, while Binance’s bStocks and Kraken-backed xStocks each accounted for more than $600 million.

Continuous trading can expose investors and lending systems to prices set while the underlying U.S. exchanges are closed. Under Conner’s proposal, applications could check whether an equity reference market is open before accepting a token as collateral, processing a liquidation, or displaying a valuation.

For U.S. investors, a technical status interface would not change the legal treatment of a tokenized security. The Securities and Exchange Commission says issuer-sponsored, custodial, and synthetic tokenized securities can carry different ownership rights, while tokenized securities remain subject to federal securities laws.

Legal ownership may also depend on records maintained outside the token contract. An Aug. 20 report found that an Injective affiliate had secured SEC transfer agent registration, allowing it to maintain securities ownership records, process ownership changes and support distributions and corporate actions.

The ERC-8392 draft remains open for technical review, and Conner said a reference implementation with a Foundry test suite is still being prepared for the proposal.

Two major crypto advocacy groups, the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association (BA), have filed a lawsuit challenging Illinois’ new 0.2% tax on cryptocurrency transactions. The measure is expected to take effect in January 2027 and is designed to tax crypto users based on transaction volume rather than income.

The legal challenge, filed Friday in Illinois’ Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Sangamon County, argues the tax violates multiple constitutional and statutory protections, including provisions related to due process and interstate commerce.

Key takeaways

• CCI and BA filed suit in Sangamon County against Illinois officials over the state’s 0.2% digital asset “privilege tax.”
• The groups say the law is constitutionally problematic, including arguments that it is unconstitutionally vague and risks duplicative taxation.
• Illinois enacted the tax in June as part of its fiscal year 2027 budget, with enforcement anticipated to begin in January 2027.
• The lawsuit follows earlier litigation by another industry group, the Digital Chamber, which raised similar discrimination concerns.
• Illinois’ crypto-related push has also intersected with high-profile prediction market litigation and policy actions earlier this year.

Illinois’ transaction-volume tax faces constitutional challenges

According to the lawsuit filed by CCI and BA, Illinois’ digital asset tax was enacted by Gov. JB Pritzker in June as part of the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget. The measure was signed as a “privilege tax,” and—critically—its structure is intended to apply to transaction volume rather than income.

In the complaint, the groups allege the tax is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois state constitution, and they also invoke claims tied to federal and state due process requirements. They further argue that the tax conflicts with the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act.

On the due process question, CCI and BA contend the law is “unconstitutionally vague,” focusing on how residents and brokers would be expected to determine which digital assets fall under the tax—and how those assets should be treated for reporting and compliance—while facing “serious civil and criminal penalties” for mistakes.

The lawsuit’s constitutional argument also highlights what the groups describe as the potential for duplicative taxation. Their Commerce Clause theory rests on the claim that the tax “creat[es] the specter of duplicative taxation,” particularly in the context of a digital asset economy that relies heavily on cross-border activity.

Why the “vagueness” and compliance pressure matters

Beyond the headline rate, the lawsuit underscores a practical compliance concern: if rules are unclear, businesses and individuals can be left guessing. CCI and BA argue the Illinois law shifts that burden onto residents and intermediaries under the threat of substantial penalties.

That claim matters for traders, platforms, and service providers because transaction-volume taxes can require robust tracking, classification, and reporting. If tax categories or the mechanics of how assets should be treated are ambiguous, the compliance workload—and the risk of enforcement—can rise quickly, even before the first tax period begins in January 2027.

At the same time, the groups’ Commerce Clause argument signals a broader investor and operator concern: state-level taxation of digital commerce can become fragmented when each jurisdiction applies its own standards to the same underlying economic activity.

Summer Mersinger, CEO of BA and a former U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission commissioner, said in connection with the lawsuit that while states may have a role in fostering innovation, their authority has constitutional limits. She argued Illinois cannot impose a tax regime that discriminates against digital commerce, creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses, and threatens to fragment a “rapidly growing national market.”

Illinois crypto tax opposition builds on earlier lawsuits

CCI and BA’s filing did not arrive in a vacuum. The complaint follows a July lawsuit from the Digital Chamber that challenged the Illinois tax on the grounds that it “discriminates against people who transact in digital assets.” Taken together, the cases highlight how industry groups are framing the Illinois tax as both a constitutional and policy issue—rather than merely a technical revenue measure.

Cointelegraph previously reported on the Digital Chamber’s suit, which the new CCI/BA action closely parallels in its focus on discriminatory effects. The two initiatives also reflect the increasing influence of digital asset industry organizations during an election year, when state-level policy changes can influence voter perceptions and broader regulatory direction.

For Illinois residents and crypto participants, the timeline is important: the state approved the tax in June, but enforcement is slated to begin in January 2027. That lag means legal outcomes could shape whether the tax ultimately takes effect as written, gets narrowed, or is delayed further.

Illinois also faces prediction-market fights and related policy steps

Illinois’ crypto and crypto-adjacent policy agenda has faced additional scrutiny beyond taxation. Earlier this year, prediction market platform Kalshi sued Illinois officials over a law that took effect on July 1. According to Kalshi, the legislation “expressly bans sports event contracts” and requires state licensing in a way that the company argues violates federal law.

Separately, Cointelegraph reported that Pritzker signed an executive order in April banning state employees from betting on prediction markets. The stated goal was to “prevent insider trading” amid the growth of online prediction markets and event-based gambling contracts.

While Kalshi’s case concerns prediction markets rather than the 0.2% crypto tax directly, it signals a larger theme: Illinois appears to be actively reshaping how parts of the digital economy intersect with traditional state regulation—whether through taxation, licensing rules, or employment restrictions designed to address perceived conflicts.

For crypto market participants, these parallel legal and policy threads raise the stakes around compliance expectations and the scope of state authority. Even if the tax case proceeds independently from prediction-market litigation, the combined environment can affect sentiment, operational planning, and how platforms assess regulatory risk in Illinois.

As the CCI and BA case moves through Illinois courts, investors and builders should watch how the court addresses the lawsuit’s constitutional theories—particularly the due process and Commerce Clause arguments. The outcome could clarify what states may require for digital asset taxation, and whether Illinois’ transaction-volume approach can survive legal scrutiny before January 2027.