Crypto World
Bitcoin Caught Between Hawkish Fed and Dovish Warsh
The Federal Reserve’s January meeting minutes revealed a surprisingly hawkish committee. Several officials openly discussed rate hikes. That sets the stage for a dramatic policy clash when Kevin Warsh takes over as chair this summer.
The Fed’s hawkish stance now threatens to box in Warsh before he even starts, raising the stakes for both monetary policy and crypto markets.
Sponsored
Sponsored
A Committee Tilting Hawkish — Right Before a Leadership Change
The FOMC voted 10-2 on Jan. 28 to hold rates at 3.5%-3.75%. Governors Christopher Waller and Stephen Miran dissented. Both preferred a quarter-point cut, citing labor market risks.
But the broader committee leaned the other way. Several participants warned that further easing amid elevated inflation could signal a weakened commitment to the 2% target. A larger group favored holding rates steady. They wanted a “clear indication that disinflation was firmly back on track” before cutting again.
Most strikingly, several officials wanted the post-meeting statement to reflect possible “upward adjustments” to the federal funds rate. This was a direct reference to potential rate hikes.
Powell Out, Warsh In — And a Policy Collision Looms
Chair Jerome Powell’s term ends in May. He has two more meetings at the helm. Trump announced on Jan. 30 that former Fed Governor Warsh would replace him.
Warsh has spoken in favor of lower rates. That aligns with Trump’s repeated calls for cheaper borrowing. The White House on Wednesday insisted recent data showed inflation was “cool and stable.”
But the committee’s hawkish majority may not cooperate. Rate decisions are made by 12 voting members. Only a few lean dovish. The rest see inflation risks as the top priority.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Analysts noted that the committee’s hawkish tone could complicate Warsh’s confirmation process and limit his room to pivot toward cuts early in his tenure.
If confirmed, Warsh’s first meeting as chair would be in June. Futures traders price the next cut around the same time. But the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge — the PCE Price Index — is expected to re-accelerate in the coming months. That could delay any easing further.
Asian Liquidity Returns, Amplifying the Selloff
Bitcoin began sliding shortly after the minutes dropped during US afternoon trading. It fell from around $68,300 to below $66,500 by early Asian morning hours. That marked a 1.6% decline over 24 hours.
The timing mattered. Asian traders were returning from the Lunar New Year holiday. Rising volumes and turnover amplified the move lower. Escalating US-Iran tensions added fuel. Oil prices surged more than 4%, further weighing on risk appetite across crypto markets.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong called the decline psychological rather than fundamental. He said the exchange was buying back shares and accumulating Bitcoin at lower prices.
What Comes Next
The Fed’s next meeting is on March 17-18. A cut there is effectively off the table. Markets now look to June as the earliest window.
But the real question extends beyond timing. It is whether Warsh can steer a deeply divided committee toward cuts while inflation remains sticky. The hawkish majority has made its position clear. Changing that will require more than a new chair.
For Bitcoin, the macro backdrop remains challenging. The combination of a hawkish Fed, a contested leadership transition, and returning Asian liquidity points to continued volatility in the weeks ahead.
Cryptocurrency CFD trading typically involves taking a leveraged position on price movements without owning the underlying asset. The process can be broken down into five core stages, from market selection to trade execution and risk management.
In crypto markets, where price moves can be sharp and liquidity conditions change quickly, the way a position is structured often matters as much as the direction itself. Leverage amplifies both outcomes, while spreads and funding costs can gradually affect performance over time.
Understanding how these elements interact is important when exploring how to trade cryptocurrency CFDs.
What Are Crypto CFDs?
A cryptocurrency CFD (contract for difference) is a derivative that tracks the price of a digital asset without requiring ownership. You never hold the underlying coin. Your potential return or loss depends entirely on the difference between the entry price and the exit price of the contract.
CFDs allow both long and short exposure. A long position might generate a return when the price rises. A short position might generate a return when the price falls. Your P&L (Profit and Loss) equals the price movement multiplied by the contract size, minus any trading costs. This two-way flexibility is one reason CFD trading has become common across cryptocurrency markets.
Leverage is a core mechanic. It lets you control a larger position with a smaller deposit, called margin. With 1:2 leverage, a £3,500 margin gives you exposure to £7,000 worth of Bitcoin. This amplifies both returns and losses in equal proportion. If the market moves against you, losses accumulate just as quickly.
Because no actual asset changes hands, there is no digital wallet to manage and no private keys to store. The contract sits between you and your broker. All settlement is in cash, based purely on price movement during the life of the trade.
How Does Crypto CFD Trading Work?
Cryptocurrency CFD trading works by placing a directional order through a broker’s platform. You select an instrument, choose a contract size, deposit margin, and take either a buy or sell position. Your account then tracks the unrealised P&L in real time until you close the trade and lock in the realised result.
Contract size determines your exposure to price movements. In cryptocurrency CFDs, this may represent a portion of the underlying asset or a fixed value per price move, depending on the contract.
For example, a position equivalent to 0.1 BTC means your P&L reflects price changes on that amount. Crypto CFD margin is the capital required to maintain the position and depends on the leverage used.
Every instrument has a spread, which is the gap between the bid (sell) and ask (buy) price. This is a direct trading cost. Tighter spreads reduce the initial cost of entering a trade, meaning the market does not need to move as far for the position to reach breakeven. Overnight funding (also called a swap) is charged when a position is held past the daily rollover time. For cryptocurrency CFDs, this charge typically applies seven days a week.
Broker pricing matters because CFD prices are derived from underlying exchange feeds. An ECN broker like FXOpen aggregates prices from multiple liquidity providers, which may result in tighter spreads and faster execution compared to a single-source pricing model.
Key Mechanics
- Contract size determines your exposure per point of price movement
- Margin is the capital locked as collateral while the trade is active
- Spread is the cost embedded in every entry and exit
- Overnight funding accrues daily on positions held past rollover
- Unrealised P&L becomes realised P&L only when the position is closed
Cryptocurrency CFD Trading in 5 Steps
Most cryptocurrency CFD trades follow a consistent sequence, regardless of the platform or instrument.
- Choosing a market. Traders typically start by selecting a pair based on liquidity and price behaviour. BTC/USD and ETH/USD might offer the tightest spreads. Smaller altcoin pairs often come with wider spreads and lower volume.
- Analysing the setup. A common next step is studying price action, chart patterns, or fundamental catalysts before committing capital. Many traders combine technical indicators with macro awareness, such as regulatory announcements or central bank policy shifts.
- Defining risk and position size. Traders often set the maximum amount they are willing to lose on a single trade, then calculate contract size based on margin and stop-loss distance. Sizing positions as a fixed percentage of account equity (e.g. 1%) is a widely used approach.
- Placing the order with a stop-loss and take-profit. It is common to attach both levels at the point of execution. A stop-loss potentially caps the downside. A take-profit locks in returns at a predetermined target.
- Monitoring and closing or adjusting. Traders track unrealised P&L and evolving market conditions throughout the trade. Some move stop-losses to breakeven after a position moves in their favour. Others scale out in portions. If the original reason for the trade no longer holds, early closure is common.
Example of a Cryptocurrency CFD Trade
A trader takes a long BTC/USD position at $70,000 with a contract size of 0.1 BTC. At 1:2 leverage, the required margin is $3,500. The price rises to $72,000 and the position is closed. The gross return is 0.1 × $2,000 = $200. The trader then subtracts spread costs at entry and exit, plus any overnight funding charges. Had the price fallen to $68,000, the result would have been a $200 loss, plus the same costs on top.
Cryptocurrency CFDs can be traded on FXOpen’s TickTrader platform, which provides access to over 700 markets, including forex, shares, indices, commodities, and ETFs, within a single trading environment.
What Should You Know Before Trading Cryptocurrency CFDs?
Before placing a trade, there are several practical considerations that separate cryptocurrency CFDs from other asset classes. Volatility is typically higher, sessions run around the clock, and liquidity varies sharply between instruments. Each of these factors affects execution, cost, and risk in ways that traders account for before entering a position.
Cryptocurrency markets trade 24/7, including weekends. This means positions remain exposed to price gaps and news events even when traditional markets are closed. Traders who hold positions over weekends often factor in the added uncertainty, since liquidity tends to thin out during those periods and spreads may widen.
Liquidity differences between instruments are significant. BTC/USD and ETH/USD tend to attract the deepest order flow, which might result in tighter spreads and more consistent execution. Smaller altcoin pairs often carry wider spreads and can experience sharper price moves on lower volume, making slippage more likely during fast markets.
Event risk carries particular weight. Regulatory announcements, exchange outages, network upgrades, and macroeconomic data releases can all trigger sudden and outsized moves. Many traders build a specific plan for each trade before execution, including entry, stop loss, take profit, and a maximum position size. This plan-based approach may help reduce reactive decision-making during periods of high volatility, where emotional responses tend to increase trading costs.
What Moves Cryptocurrency CFD Prices?
Cryptocurrency CFD prices are driven by the same forces that move the underlying spot market. Bitcoin tends to set the tone for the broader space, so BTC/USD direction often pulls altcoin pairs along with it. Beyond that, a mix of macro, regulatory, and token-specific factors shapes price action on any given day.
Macro risk appetite plays a major role. When equity markets rally and the US dollar weakens, capital tends to flow into riskier assets, including cryptocurrencies. Rising Treasury yields or a stronger dollar often have the opposite effect. For example, BTC/USD dropped in Q1 2026. One of the reasons was a market shift from pricing in rate cuts to expecting holds or hikes.
ETF and fund flow headlines move sentiment quickly. Institutional inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs have become a regular catalyst since their approval, and large single-day inflows or outflows often trigger short-term price reactions.
Regulation is another persistent driver. Announcements from bodies like the FCA, SEC, or ESMA can shift market confidence within hours. The FCA’s 2021 ban on cryptocurrency derivatives for retail consumers is one example that reshaped how UK traders access these markets.
At the token level, network upgrades, security breaches, and exchange outages can all trigger sharp moves in individual pairs. The collapse of FTX in late 2022 wiped billions from the total market capitalisation in days.
What Are the Main Risks of Trading Crypto CFDs?
The primary crypto CFD risks stem from leverage, volatility, and the cost of holding positions. Because cryptocurrency CFDs amplify exposure beyond the capital deposited, losses can exceed expectations quickly. A sharp move against a leveraged position may erode margin within minutes, particularly in a market that trades around the clock.
Leverage in crypto CFDs is the most direct concern. At 1:2 leverage, a 10% adverse move wipes out 20% of the margin posted. At higher ratios available in some jurisdictions, the impact accelerates further. Brokers are required to issue margin calls when equity falls below a set threshold, and if the account is not topped up, positions are liquidated automatically. In fast markets, this liquidation can occur at a worse price than expected.
Gap risk is elevated in cryptocurrency markets. Although they trade 24/7, liquidity drops during weekends and around major news events. Prices can move beyond stop-loss levels, resulting in slippage and fills that differ from the intended exit.
Overnight funding creates a cumulative drag on longer-duration positions. These charges accrue daily, and over weeks they can materially reduce potential net returns or deepen losses.
Counterparty and jurisdiction risk also apply. CFDs are contracts with a broker, not an exchange. The regulatory protections available to you depend on where the broker is licensed and how your account is classified.
Crypto CFDs vs Buying Crypto: What Is the Difference?
The core difference is ownership. Buying cryptocurrency means holding the actual token in a wallet, with full control over storage and transfer. Trading a CFD means holding a contract that tracks the token’s price, with no underlying asset changing hands. Each route carries a different cost structure, risk profile, and set of operational requirements.
The table above outlines the structural differences, but the cost structure requires closer attention. CFD traders typically incur spreads and overnight funding, which can accumulate over time. Spot buyers pay exchange and network transaction fees, but do not face ongoing holding costs.
As a result, CFDs are more commonly associated with shorter-term trading strategies, including going both long and short on crypto CFDs with leverage. Spot ownership is more often linked to longer holding periods or specific on-chain use cases.
What Are the Costs of Trading Crypto CFDs?
The main crypto CFD costs are the spread, any commission charged per lot, overnight funding (swap), and slippage. These apply to every trade in some combination, though the exact structure varies by broker, account type, and instrument. Understanding each cost individually may support more accurate trade planning.
The spread is paid on every entry and exit. On ECN accounts, crypto CFD spreads tend to be tighter but a separate commission is charged per lot. On STP accounts, the spread is marked up and no commission applies.
Overnight funding is charged once per day on positions held past the rollover time. For crypto CFDs, overnight funding accrues seven days a week. On longer-duration trades, it adds up and can meaningfully affect the final result.
Slippage occurs when an order is filled at a different price than expected. It is more common during low-liquidity windows or around high-impact news events, and it affects both entries and exits.
The Bottom Line
Trading crypto with CFDs offers two-way exposure to digital asset prices without the need for wallets, private keys, or direct ownership. The mechanics are straightforward, but the risks are real. Leverage amplifies both sides of a trade, overnight funding accumulates daily, and volatility in these markets can move prices sharply with little warning.
For traders wondering how to start trading crypto CFDs within a structured, plan-based approach, FXOpen provides access to 40+ cryptocurrency CFD markets with ECN pricing and 24/7 execution. You can consider opening an FXOpen account to explore the available instruments on TickTrader, MT4, or MT5.
FAQs
How Do Cryptocurrency CFDs Work?
Cryptocurrency CFDs work by tracking the price of a digital asset through a contract between a trader and a broker. No underlying token is bought or sold. The trader selects a direction, deposits margin, and the P&L is determined by the difference between the entry and exit price, minus any trading costs such as spreads and overnight funding.
Can You Trade Cryptocurrency CFDs Without Owning the Asset?
Yes. Cryptocurrency CFDs do not involve ownership of the underlying coin at any point. The contract is settled entirely in cash based on price movement. There is no wallet, no private key, and no on-chain transaction. This structure reduces operational complexity compared to buying and storing the asset directly through an exchange.
Can You Go Short With Cryptocurrency CFDs?
Yes. CFDs allow traders to take a short position, which might generate a return when the price of the underlying asset falls. This is done by placing a sell order at the outset. If the market drops, the trade is closed at a lower price and the difference is the gross return, minus trading costs.
What Are the Main Risks of Cryptocurrency CFD Trading?
The main risks are leverage, volatility, and holding costs. Leverage amplifies potential losses at the same rate as potential returns, and cryptocurrency markets are volatile enough to trigger rapid margin erosion. Gap risk and slippage can result in exits at worse prices than intended. Overnight funding charges accumulate daily, which may reduce potential net returns on longer-duration trades.
What Costs Apply When Trading Cryptocurrency CFDs?
The primary costs are the spread, commission (where applicable), overnight funding, and slippage. Spreads are paid on every entry and exit. Overnight funding is charged daily on positions held past rollover. Slippage occurs when orders fill at a different price than expected, typically during low-liquidity periods. The exact cost structure depends on the broker and account type.
*Important: At FXOpen UK, Cryptocurrency trading via CFDs is only available to our Professional clients. They are not available for trading by Retail clients. To find out more information about how this may affect you, please get in touch with our team.
This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.
Bitcoin funding rates have hit their most negative levels since 2023, a signal that has historically coincided with market bottoms, as BTC continues to push higher through $75,000.
On a seven-day moving average, funding rates have dropped to around -0.005%, according to Glassnode data.
Funding rates are periodic payments exchanged between long and short traders in perpetual futures contracts, designed to keep prices aligned with the underlying spot market. When the rate is positive, long traders pay short traders, reflecting bullish positioning. When the rate turns negative, shorts pay longs, indicating a market skewed toward downside bets.
Despite the current sustained stretch of negative funding throughout March and April, bitcoin has continued to grind higher, climbing from the low to mid $60,000s to around $75,000.
Historically, deeply negative funding rates have often coincided with local bottoms in bitcoin’s price. This dynamic typically reflects crowded short positioning, which can create the conditions for a squeeze higher as bearish bets are unwound.
This pattern has played out across multiple market cycles. In March 2020, during the COVID-19 induced market crash, bitcoin fell to around $3,000 as funding rates turned sharply negative.
A similar setup emerged in mid 2021 amid China’s mining ban, when prices dropped to $30,000. Funding rates were also at their most extreme during the FTX collapse in November 2022, when bitcoin bottomed near $15,000.
The trend continued into 2023, when funding rates flipped negative during the Silicon Valley Bank crisis, coinciding with bitcoin briefly dipping below $20,000 before recovering. More recently, episodes such as the yen carry trade unwind in August 2024 and the April 2025 “Liberation Day” selloff also saw negative funding align with local lows.
The persistence of negative funding rates suggests that bearish positioning remains elevated, even as price action trends higher. This divergence may indicate that the market is climbing a wall of worry, with short positioning potentially acting as fuel for further upside.
A review of more than 150 major crypto protocols shows that disclosure of market-making arrangements is almost nonexistent, despite their central role in token trading.
The research, conducted by crypto advisory company Novora, found that fewer than 1% of protocols disclose any terms related to market makers. Across the full dataset, only one protocol, decentralized liquidity platform Meteora, was found to have publicly disclosed details of its market-making arrangements, citing the project’s 2025 Annual Token Holder Report.
The study covered leading sectors, including decentralized exchanges, lending platforms, perpetual futures, layer-1 and layer-2 networks, bridges and centralized exchange tokens, with protocols ranging in size from roughly $40 million to $45 billion in fully diluted valuation.
Novora said the protocols were assessed using a binary transparency framework covering disclosure practices and third-party data coverage, with checks against public sources including Artemis, Token Terminal, Dune, DefiLlama and Blockworks Research.
“This is the single most consequential transparency gap in the industry,” Novora founder Connor King wrote on X, saying that such material agreements are routinely disclosed in traditional markets. “In crypto, every market participant operates without this information,” he added.
Related: Polymarket expands into equities and commodities with Pyth price feeds
Crypto’s investor reporting gap
The finding points to a broader investor relations (IR) gap in crypto. Novora said 91% of the protocols it reviewed generated trackable revenue, but only 18% published quarterly updates and just 8% issued token holder reports, suggesting the data exists but is rarely packaged into structured investor communication.
At the same time, third-party analytics infrastructure has matured, with coverage rates exceeding 85% across major platforms, suggesting the underlying data is widely accessible but rarely formalized in reporting.
Sector-level breakdowns show uneven transparency. Perpetual futures protocols and decentralized exchanges tend to lead on disclosure and value accrual mechanisms, while L1 and infrastructure projects lag despite larger market capitalizations.
Related: US crypto wash trading case reaches court as 3 extradited, 10 charged
Market-maker deals draw scrutiny
Opaque market-maker arrangements have long fueled scrutiny in crypto, especially around token loan structures that critics say can create incentives to dump borrowed tokens into the market. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has even previously charged so-called crypto market makers with price manipulation.
As Cointelegraph reported, some market-maker arrangements are poorly structured and can quickly turn harmful. One widely used arrangement, the “loan option model,” involves projects lending tokens to market makers who then deploy them for liquidity provision and trading activity, often tied to listing agreements.
In practice, critics say this structure can create strong incentives to sell borrowed tokens into the market, triggering price declines that benefit the market maker while leaving early-stage projects with weakened liquidity and damaged token performance.
Magazine: Bitcoin’s ‘biggest bull catalyst’ would be Saylor’s liquidation — Santiment founder
Key Takeaways
- Advanced Micro Devices has posted gains for 11 straight trading days, marking its longest winning run in nearly two decades
- Shares have climbed 32% during this 11-session streak and have surged 192% year-over-year
- Bernstein SocGen Group lifted its price objective to $265 from $235 while maintaining a Market Perform stance
- The firm’s updated 2027 revenue forecast of $76.7 billion significantly exceeds the $67.5 billion Street estimate, driven by the Meta AI partnership
- Taiwan Semiconductor’s strong quarterly earnings announcement coincided with AMD’s rally
Advanced Micro Devices has orchestrated a remarkable performance that ranks among its strongest in the past two decades. Through Wednesday’s market close, shares had appreciated 32% across 11 consecutive positive sessions — representing the company’s longest uninterrupted winning sequence since 2005, per Dow Jones Market Data.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD
Premarket activity Thursday showed shares climbing an additional 0.3%, positioning the stock for a potential 12th straight day of advances.
Looking at the broader picture, AMD has delivered a 192% return over the trailing 12-month period. In 2025 alone, the stock has appreciated 21%. The current momentum has benefited from widespread market strength, including renewed investor confidence following developments related to the Iran ceasefire situation.
Thursday also brought positive news from Taiwan Semiconductor — the global leader in contract chip manufacturing — which posted a substantial increase in quarterly earnings, further bolstering sentiment across the semiconductor industry.
The broader chip sector displayed mixed performance heading into Thursday’s opening bell. Nvidia traded lower, Intel moved higher, and Marvell held steady.
Bernstein Elevates Price Objective, Highlights Meta Partnership
Bernstein SocGen Group increased its AMD price target to $265 from a previous $235, while reaffirming its Market Perform rating. At the time of the upgrade, shares were changing hands near $258, approaching the 52-week peak of $267.08.
The firm revised its financial model to incorporate more robust server market expectations while tempering PC market projections. Bernstein now anticipates EPYC CPU revenue will expand approximately 50% year-over-year in 2026.
A critical component of the enhanced outlook centers on AMD’s strategic agreement with Meta, which Bernstein believes remains underappreciated by the investment community.
For the first quarter of 2026, Bernstein projects $9.9 billion in revenue alongside $1.27 earnings per share. The full-year 2026 estimate calls for $45.8 billion in revenue and $6.48 EPS — trailing Wall Street’s consensus of $47 billion and $6.74.
2027 Projections Show Dramatic Upward Revision
The most significant adjustment appears in Bernstein’s 2027 outlook. The investment bank now forecasts $76.7 billion in revenue and $13.23 EPS for that fiscal year — a substantial increase from its previous projection of $56.7 billion and $9.25, and notably above the Street consensus of $67.5 billion.
This substantial upgrade stems primarily from the Meta AI collaboration and elevated server market assumptions.
Bernstein did sound a cautionary note regarding one aspect: consensus PC estimates for 2026 appear overly optimistic, which could create headwinds for near-term performance.
Other Wall Street firms have expressed bullish views as well. Erste Group elevated AMD to Buy from Hold, emphasizing data center momentum and margin improvement. Aletheia Capital maintained its Buy rating, highlighting AMD’s expanding presence in AI infrastructure.
AMD is scheduled to announce quarterly results on May 5. Management previously provided guidance indicating 32% year-over-year revenue expansion in Q1 2026, propelled by data center CPU and GPU sales.
At present valuations, InvestingPro’s Fair Value analysis suggests the stock trades above intrinsic value, though AMD maintains an attractive PEG ratio of 0.59.
On Wednesday, World Liberty Financial published a governance proposal that would burn 4.5 billion WLFI tokens and restructure vesting for 62 billion “early supporters” including Justin Sun.
Tron founder Sun, who sank $75 million into the project plus nearly $150 million in commitments to other Trump-linked crypto projects, called the proposal “tyranny” and “coercion.”
Tokenholders who don’t accept the new terms could remain locked on the blockchain indefinitely.
A vote that punishes no votes
Sun posted his disagreement within hours of World Liberty’s proposal arguing that its design is a logical trap. Reject it and risk a permanent token freeze.
His own tokens, which he says represent roughly 4% of the project’s voting power, have remained frozen since September 2025. Because his tokens are frozen, Sun holds no ability to participate in the vote.
“This is not a governance vote,” Sun wrote. “This is a performance where the police have already barricaded the doors of parliament and only let their own people inside to raise their hands.”
Laura Shin wholeheartedly agreed with Sun. “I’ve seen a lot of crazy things in crypto, but this might be one of the nuttiest,” she said in reference to the proposal. “Like, truly, WTF.”
MyEtherWallet co-founder Taylor Monahan disagreed, noting the legal disclosures available to Sun when he initially bought WLFI tokens.
“Everyone bought these tokens literally accepting the fact that they would be locked till somebody decided on a future date that something else will be done to change the circumstances.”
Read more: Every token in World Liberty Financial’s portfolio is down bad
Sun invested $223M in Trump crypto ventures
The proposal added to the escalating social media battle between the Trump family and Sun.
On April 12, Sun demanded that the people behind the WLFI account identify themselves. He accused the team of implanting backdoor controls and freezing investor funds without disclosure.
Incredibly, his complaints arrived months after Sun had already committed $223 million into the Trump family’s crypto ventures and received a $10 million slap-on-the-wrist settlement of his ominous SEC lawsuit.
A lead developer from Yearn Finance published an analysis of WLFI’s smart contracts, highlighting a special vesting category for Sun individually. Sun’s special vesting category contrasts with 519 other investors sitting in an otherwise identical yet distinct smart contract category.
It also notes that one administrative wallet of World Liberty Financial can freeze any holder unilaterally.
That same wallet runs a stablecoin borrowing loop on Dolomite. The lending protocol’s co-founder, Corey Caplan, also serves as a WLFI technical adviser.
World Liberty deposited 5 billion WLFI tokens as collateral, representing the vast majority of all WLFI on Dolomite at the time, to borrow roughly $75 million in stablecoins.
After over $40 million of those proceeds moved to Coinbase Prime, World Liberty later repaid $25 million.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
As bitcoin continues to trade sluggishly near $75,000, several other crypto projects are showing notable developments.
Among them is XRP (XRP), the payments-focused token used by fintech firm Ripple to facilitate cross-border transactions. U.S.-listed spot XRP ETFs drew more than $17 million in inflows on Wednesday, the most since Feb. 2, according to data source SoSoValue. While that is smaller than the flows seen in bitcoin ETFs, it nonetheless points to a revival in demand for XRP after a prolonged period of muted activity marked by little to no uptake.
News flow has been encouraging, too. Ripple has partnered with Kyobo Life Insurance to pilot South Korea’s first real-time tokenized government bond settlement system on blockchain.
In addition, XRP’s derivatives market is flashing bullish signals with open interest (OI) rising alongside positive funding rates and cumulative volume delta. The OI has jumped to 1.89 billion XRP, a level last seen in late March, per Coinglass data.
The other noteworthy development is stablecoin-focused layer-1 blockchain Plasma, which has emerged as the world’s seventh-largest blockchain by total value locked (TVL), a measure of the dollar value of assets on the network.
At the time of writing, TVL stood at $2 billion, up 27% over the past week and more than 80% over the past 30 days, according to DeFiLlama. The driver behind the growth is not clear, but could be linked to rising optimism around the CLARITY Act nearing approval in the U.S., as noted by JPMorgan.
The act is a proposed U.S. bill that seeks to clarify how digital assets, including stablecoins, are regulated and which agencies oversee them.
In addition, Plasma is among a select group of networks, alongside Ethereum and Arbitrum, chosen to support Tether’s new self-custody wallet, Tether Wallet, announced earlier this week.
Lastly, there is , the meme-inspired token. Bollinger Bands, volatility indicators plotted two standard deviations above and below the token’s price, are currently at their tightest since February 2024, typically signaling a period of low volatility that is likely to end with significant price swings.
As for the market leader, bitcoin, the combination of onchain profit-taking, uneven spot demand, and cautious options suggests continued rangeplay near $75,000. Stay alert!
Read more: For analysis of today’s activity in altcoins and derivatives, see Crypto Markets Today . For a comprehensive list of events this week, see CoinDesk’s “Crypto Week Ahead.”
What’s trending
Today’s signal
The chart shows dogecoin’s (DOGE) daily price swings in candlestick format. Overlaid on the chart are Bollinger bands, which have compressed to their narrowest in over two years
The squeeze signals an extended period of low volatility, characterized by muted price action, with neither buyers nor sellers able to establish a clear trend. Such situations eventually get resolved in a decisive breakout. This often leads to an outsized move and volatility boom.
Note that this does not provide any signal about direction. A volatility expansion could just as easily result in a strong rally as it could in a steep decline.
The key takeaway is magnitude. Once dogecoin eventually breaks out of this low-volatility regime, the resulting move is likely to be significant and fast. For now, however, the market remains in a holding pattern.
A viral clip from the Jack Neel Podcast reignited debate over Bitcoin’s (BTC) origins after Professor Jiang argued that game theory points to the CIA as its most likely creator.
The Beijing-based educator and commentator, whose Predictive History channel has 2.3 million YouTube subscribers, framed Bitcoin as a deep state surveillance tool. The claim drew swift and pointed criticism from across the crypto community.
Did The CIA Create Bitcoin?
In the podcast, Jiang posed three questions. He asked who had the technical capability to build Bitcoin, who benefits from it, and why the creator stayed anonymous.
“When you do game theory analysis, you look at all possibilities, you end up with a deep state, the American deep state. You end up with a CIA,” he said.
Jiang speculated that blockchain may have been developed by the same institutions that developed technologies such as the internet and GPS. Next, he argued that the CIA could benefit from such a framework.
According to him, blockchain could serve dual purposes: enabling large-scale surveillance and potentially acting as a covert financial mechanism to support off-the-books operations.
Finally, he claimed that secrecy would be essential to maintaining trust in the system. In his view, if users believed blockchain was influenced or controlled by a government agency, it could undermine confidence and deter participation.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Jiang also questioned where blockchain servers are physically located, arguing that whoever controls the hardware controls the software, regardless of open-source claims.
“Because I imagine if you’re able to control the hardware, you can also control the software. I don’t care what they tell me about open source and all that. I want to know where the databases are, where the servers are physically.It’s interesting too that it’s it’s designed like a religion,” he noted.
In addition, he flagged the Winklevoss twins’ large early bet on BTC after their Facebook settlement.
Bitcoin Community Challenge Professor Jiang
Critics called out the server question. An analyst explained that Bitcoin runs on tens of thousands of independently operated nodes globally, with no central server infrastructure and no single point of failure.
“Bitcoin is ultimately an IQ test and this ‘Professor’ has failed. It’s been 17 years and they still fail to understand the basics. It’s okay to say ‘I don’t know’ sometimes, you know,” the analyst added.
Ansel Lindner called it the “opinion of so many midwits.” He argued that such views explain why some gold advocates still struggle to understand Bitcoin and why others gravitate toward centralized, low-quality tokens.
According to him, the core issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of decentralization.
“People with this view don’t truly understand the open source aspect or the proof of work aspect fully. A strong point about Bitcoin is that it literally doesn’t matter who created it. It can be assessed on its own merits since it’s transparent and decentralized,” Lyn Alden, an investor and author, added.
BeInCrypto previously analyzed Jiang’s claims, concluding that they align more with a conspiracy narrative than a substantiated account of Bitcoin’s origins. To date, no public evidence has linked Bitcoin’s creation to agencies such as DARPA, the Pentagon, or the CIA.
Meanwhile, speculation surrounding Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity is nothing new. Over the years, numerous theories have emerged pointing to various individuals.
Most recently, The New York Times published an extensive investigation suggesting that Blockstream CEO Adam Back is the strongest candidate for the person behind Bitcoin’s creation. Back, however, has rejected these claims.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Crypto Community Pushes Back at Professor Jiang’s Viral CIA Bitcoin Theory appeared first on BeInCrypto.
A multi-million dollar influx from crypto-aligned donors is set to shape the 2026 Ohio Senate race as the Sentinel Action Fund commits $8 million to support Republican Senator Jon Husted.
Summary
- The Sentinel Action Fund and its affiliate Right Vote pledged $8 million to back Republican Senator Jon Husted in the 2026 Ohio Senate race.
- Husted remains a primary legislative ally for the digital asset industry through his support of the GENIUS Act and his advocacy for a pro-innovation regulatory framework.
Sentinel Action Fund officials announced Wednesday that the super PAC, alongside its affiliate Right Vote, will direct the funds toward Husted’s bid to retain his seat in the upcoming November midterms.
The move signals a concerted effort by the digital asset industry to solidify its influence in Washington following significant shifts in the 2024 election cycle.
Husted, a consistent advocate for blockchain technology, has built a reputation as a “strongly supports crypto” candidate through his backing of the GENIUS Act and calls for a pro-innovation regulatory framework.
“Digital asset technology represents the next wave of economic opportunity for working families,” Husted stated, advocating for a federal approach that encourages domestic growth rather than restrictive oversight.
Federal Election Commission records show that the Solana Institute and Multicoin Capital are the primary drivers behind Sentinel’s current war chest, contributing $750,000 and $250,000, respectively.
The PAC has also drawn support from traditional Wall Street heavyweights, including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Fisher Investments Chairman Kenneth Fisher, bringing together Silicon Valley capital and established finance in a way that sets Husted apart from his predecessor, Sherrod Brown, who lost his seat in 2024 after frequently challenging the industry over concerns tied to sanctions evasion and illicit finance.
“[Brown] has stood in the way of pro-innovation policies when it comes to digital assets,” Sentinel Action Fund President Jessica Anderson said in an accompanying statement, positioning Husted as the necessary correction to that legislative approach.
Strategic expansion into the 2026 midterms
The Ohio commitment is part of a larger nationwide strategy by crypto-focused political groups to secure a friendly Senate majority.
Husted is the third candidate to receive Sentinel’s formal endorsement this cycle, joining Maine Senator Susan Collins and Michigan’s Mike Rogers.
This surge in spending follows the blueprint established by Fairshake, a massive super PAC backed by Coinbase and a16z, which spent $12 million to help Republican Bernie Moreno defeat Brown in the previous election.
Fairshake has already reported a balance of $193 million to deploy as the midterms approach. Other players are also entering the fray, with Cantor Fitzgerald contributing $10 million to the Fellowship PAC, which recently appointed Tether executive Jesse Spiro as its chairman.
This level of early-cycle spending suggests that the intersection of digital finance and federal policy will remain a primary battleground for the foreseeable future.
Crypto World
BTC price holds near $75,000 as short-term holders look for profit opportunities: Crypto Markets Today
Bitcoin is still hovering near $75,000 as it hits a wall of supply while institutional demand remains steady, with traders weighing progress in U.S.-Iran peace talks during a two-week ceasefire.
The CoinDesk 20 (CD20) index rose around 1.9% in the past 24 hours, compared with bitcoin’s 1%, amid reports of a ceasefire extension, improving risk sentiment.
The increases come alongside a softer U.S. dollar, which slipped to a near six-week low, and easing Treasury yields, conditions that often support crypto prices by lowering the relative appeal of holding cash. Gold also gained, pointing to a market balancing risk appetite with hedging demand.
Still, the backdrop remains tense. The U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and Iran’s threats to disrupt shipping routes in the Persian Gulf and nearby waterways continue to cloud the outlook for the global economy.
Energy supply shocks have already begun feeding into inflation expectations, a factor that could shift central bank policy and ripple into crypto markets.
Onchain data also show bitcoin supply tends to appear when prices reach key cost-basis levels for short-term holders. That’s around $76,800, a level that could act as resistance as investors cash out when breaking even.
Derivatives positioning
- Crypto futures open interest (OI) has risen 2.5% in the past 24 hours even as trading volume dropped 16% and liquidations fell 48% to $220 million.
- The divergence suggests traders are adding or holding positions despite a slowdown in activity, pointing to a buildup of exposure without strong conviction. The sharp decline in liquidations indicates reduced volatility and fewer forced exits.
- Among the biggest tokens, XRP and DOGE stand out with OI increases of at least 3%, showcasing a bullish combination of positive perpetual funding rates and OI-adjusted cumulative volume delta (CVD).
- DOGE has the most positive 24-hour CVD, indicating that buyers have been more aggressive in lifting offers and driving trades.
- On decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, perpetuals tied to commodities continue to do solid business and now account for 30% of the platform’s total notional open interest.
- Bitcoin and ether’s 30-day implied volatility indexes, BVIV and EVIV, continue to hover below their 200-day averages, indicating market calm.
- In the BTC options market, the one-week implied volatility is now trading cheaper relative to realized or actual volatility. In other words, short-dated options are now cheap. This kind of setup often has traders taking bullish volatility bets via straddle/strangle strategies that involve buying both call and put options.
- The Deribit-listed bitcoin and ether options continue to show a bias for puts. The persistent demand for downside hedges indicates that the sustainability of recent rally is still being questioned.
Token talk
- CoW Swap, a decentralized exchange aggregator tied to CoW Protocol, on Tuesday suffered a domain name system (DNS) hijacking attack that redirected users to a malicious site and drained funds from connected wallets.
- The breach did not touch the protocol’s smart contracts or back-end systems. Instead, attackers used social engineering to gain control of the project’s domain registrar, allowing them to reroute traffic from cow.fi to a cloned interface designed to capture wallet approvals.
- Losses appear limited to affected users rather than the protocol itself. Onchain data points to at least $1 million drained, including a single wallet that lost 219 ETH.
- The COW token fell about 2.6% that day, with trading volume spiking as news spread. Prices continued to drift lower in the following sessions, and are now 11% lower.
- CoW DAO reclaimed control of the cow.fi domain little over half a day ago, but sentiment for the protocol doesn’t appear to have improved. The token is down another 6% since then.
- World Liberty Financial is reshaping WLFI token supply.
- About 4.52 billion insider tokens may be burned if the vote passes.
- WLFI token price stays volatile, driven by governance vote expectations.
World Liberty Financial’s WLFI token has been in the spotlight after a major governance proposal that is expected to reshape the token’s supply structure.
The proposal centres on unlocking 62.28 billion tokens over time while also burning about 4.52 billion tokens tied to insider allocations.
The market reaction has been quick, mixed, and heavily driven by speculation rather than steady trend building.
At the time of writing, WLFI traded around $0.081, slightly higher on the day by about 1%.
However, the broader picture is less stable. Over the past week, the token has dropped more than 10%, and losses extend beyond 20% over the past month.
Despite occasional intraday recoveries, the overall trend still reflects sustained pressure from earlier selloffs.
A major shift in WLFI’s token structure
The core of the current debate is the proposed restructuring of a large portion of WLFI’s supply.
Roughly 62.28 billion tokens that were previously locked will no longer remain in indefinite restriction.
Instead, they would be released gradually over a multi-year period, estimated between four and five years.
This change is important because it replaces uncertainty with a defined timeline.
Investors will no longer have to guess if or when a large amount of tokens might enter circulation at once.
Instead, the release becomes structured and predictable, which reduces the fear of sudden supply shocks.
Alongside this unlock plan is a separate but closely connected mechanism: a burn of approximately 4.52 billion tokens.
This burn is targeted mainly at insider allocations, including team and advisor holdings, and is expected to take effect only if participants accept the new governance terms.
The combination of these two moves creates a balancing effect. On the one hand, more tokens are gradually introduced into the system.
On the other hand, a portion is permanently removed from supply expectations.
This dual approach is designed to ease concerns around dilution while still improving liquidity over time.
Market reaction driven by speculation and vote expectations
The market response to the proposal has been far from calm.
WLFI has seen sharp bursts of trading activity, including sudden volume spikes that suggest short-term speculation rather than long-term positioning.
In one instance, trading activity surged dramatically within a short window, showing how sensitive the token is to governance-related headlines.
Price action has also been closely tied to broader crypto sentiment.
Recent strength in the wider market has provided temporary support, helping WLFI hold small gains even as its medium-term trend remains weak.
Still, these gains have not been strong enough to reverse the overall downward structure that has been in place for weeks.
Whale activity has added another layer of volatility.
Large holders have been seen both selling into strength and accumulating during dips, creating a choppy and unpredictable price environment.
This kind of behaviour is typical when traders are positioning ahead of a major governance decision rather than reacting to long-term fundamentals.
Short-term WLFI token price outlook
In the short term, WLFI’s direction appears tightly linked to the outcome of the ongoing governance vote.
If support around $0.078 holds and the proposal gains approval, WLFI could attempt another move toward the $0.084 area, which has acted as a near-term resistance zone.
This scenario would likely be driven by renewed confidence in the tokenomics restructuring and reduced fear of uncontrolled supply expansion.
However, if the vote fails or sentiment weakens, the downside risk becomes more visible. A break below $0.078 could open the door to a retest of recent lows near $0.072.
In that case, selling pressure could accelerate as traders unwind short-term positions built around the proposal hype.
Beyond short-term volatility, the proposal signals a deeper restructuring of WLFI’s economic model.
By turning previously locked tokens into a structured vesting system, the project is attempting to replace uncertainty with long-term predictability.
The 4.52 billion token burn adds another layer to this strategy, acting as a signal of commitment from insiders while also reducing perceived excess supply pressure.
Combined with a multi-year unlock schedule, the goal is to smooth out future token distribution rather than allowing large, sudden changes in supply dynamics.
Parenting Influencer Accidentally Runs Over Son With Car
Leigh MP meets residents at Richmond House care home
Wipro share buyback: IT major announces Rs 15,000 crore offer at 19% premium. Key things to know
-
Politics6 days agoUS brings back mandatory military draft registration
-
Sports6 days agoMan United discover Nico Schlotterbeck transfer fee as defender reaches Dortmund agreement
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Veronica Beard
-
Politics6 days agoMalcolm In The Middle OG Turned Down ‘Buckets Of Money’ To Appear In Reboot
-
Politics4 days agoWorld Cup exit makes Italy enter crisis mode
-
Crypto World7 days agoCanary Capital Files SEC Registration for PEPE ETF
-
Business6 days agoTesla Model Y Tops China Auto Sales in March 2026 With 39,827 Registrations, Beating Cheaper EVs and Gas Cars
-
Crypto World3 days agoThe SEC Conditionalises DeFi Platforms to Be Avoided for Broker Registration
-
Crypto World3 days agoSEC Signals Exemption for Crypto Interfaces From Broker Registration
-
News Videos1 day agoSecure crypto trading starts with an FIU-registered
-
NewsBeat4 days agoPep Guardiola and Gary Neville agree over Arsenal title problem that benefits Man City
-
Business6 days agoOpenAI Halts Stargate UK Data Centre Project Over Energy Costs and Copyright Row
-
Business5 days agoIreland Fuel Protests Enter Day 5 as Blockades Spark Shortages and Government Prepares Support Package
-
Crypto World6 days agoFederal judge blocks Arizona from bringing criminal charges against Kalshi
-
Politics6 days agoLBC Presenter Mocks Trump Over Iran War Failures
-
NewsBeat2 days agoTrump and Pope Leo: Behind their disagreement over Iran war
-
NewsBeat4 days agoJD Vance announces ‘no agreement’ with Iran over nuclear weapons fear
-
Crypto World2 days agoSEC Proposes Certain Crypto Interfaces Don’t Need to Register as Brokers
-
Tech7 days agoA version of Windows 10 released a decade ago is now eligible for additional security patches
-
Business6 days agoIMF retains floor for precautionary balances at SDR 20 billion
You must be logged in to post a comment Login