Key takeaways

• Dogecoin is trading near $0.083 after finding support around its key moving averages.
• Spot DOGE ETF activity remains quiet, signaling weak institutional conviction.
• DOGE’s long-to-short ratio has fallen to a one-month low of 0.66, reflecting bearish positioning.
• Positive funding of 0.0010% provides a modest bullish signal but does not eliminate downside risks.

Dogecoin (DOGE) traded below $0.083 on Tuesday after finding support around a crucial technical zone during the previous session.

The meme coin remains above its 50-day and 100-day exponential moving averages, providing a foundation for a potential recovery. However, subdued institutional demand, bearish long-to-short positioning, and cautious on-chain signals indicate that buyers have yet to regain strong conviction.

DOGE is now at a make-or-break level. Holding above its nearby moving averages could support another advance, while a breakdown may expose the token to a deeper correction.

Dogecoin ETF demand remains subdued

SoSoValue data shows that US spot Dogecoin exchange-traded funds have recorded little activity since last week.

The lack of meaningful inflows suggests institutional investors remain hesitant to increase exposure despite DOGE’s recovery from approximately $0.070.

Continued stagnation would deprive the token of an important source of demand. If ETF flows turn negative, selling pressure could increase and undermine Dogecoin’s attempt to establish a short-term bottom.

Dogecoin’s derivatives market offers conflicting indications about trader sentiment. CoinGlass data shows that DOGE’s long-to-short ratio fell to 0.84 on Tuesday, its lowest level in more than a month. 

A reading below 1 means short positions outnumber longs, indicating that more traders expect the price to decline.

Funding rates paint a slightly more optimistic picture. Dogecoin’s open interest-weighted funding rate turned positive on September 9 and stood at 0.0010% on Tuesday.

A positive funding rate means long-position holders are paying short sellers, reflecting some demand for bullish leveraged positions. However, the rate remains modest and does not fully offset the bearish message from the long-to-short ratio.

CryptoQuant’s market summary also points to a mildly bearish outlook. Large whale orders are appearing in Dogecoin’s futures market, but sell-side activity remains dominant. Spot-market conditions are heating up, while several other indicators remain neutral.

Together, these readings suggest that larger traders are active but are not necessarily accumulating DOGE aggressively. The market remains vulnerable to further weakness unless buying pressure strengthens.

DOGE holds above short-term moving averages

Dogecoin is trading above its 50-day EMA at $0.081 and its 100-day EMA at $0.082. This cluster forms the token’s immediate support zone.

However, DOGE remains below the 200-day EMA at $0.092, keeping its broader technical structure neutral to bearish.

The Relative Strength Index sits near 47, indicating balanced momentum between buyers and sellers. Meanwhile, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence line remains slightly below zero, showing that bullish momentum is still limited.

DOGE’s first notable resistance sits near $0.088. A breakout above that level could allow buyers to challenge the 200-day EMA at $0.092. If that barrier is cleared, the next significant supply zone would emerge around $0.102.

On the downside, losing the $0.081–$0.082 EMA cluster would weaken the short-term recovery. The next major support lies at $0.070, and a daily close below that level could trigger a more substantial retracement.

Several years into our friendship, I found her essay “Revaluing Economics” in Moving Beyond Words. Published in 1994—years before the National Domestic Workers Alliance was even the germ of an idea—she wrote about care as an essential resource that our economic model has never adequately valued, in no small part because of its association with women.  She argued that if we are to not only survive but thrive in the future, we must fundamentally protect and revalue care.  The last 15 years of my work have been deeply shaped by these ideas. 

More recently, I spent much of my time with Gloria through an intergenerational, multi-racial circle of women who affectionately call ourselves the “G Squad”—composed of a writer, two artists, a pro-democracy organizer, me, and Gloria. We gathered over the years to celebrate Gloria’s birthday, to strategize big moments in the women’s movement, or vet a new love interest in the mix. We learned about Gloria’s life and adventures from one another, and we learned about other women through Gloria. 

Solana raised its maximum transaction size from 1,232 bytes to 4,096 bytes to allow developers to fit more complex operations into a single transaction, including zero-knowledge proofs and new onchain signature schemes.

The upgrade was activated on mainnet on Tuesday at the start of epoch 1,035 around 1:00 am UTC, according to blockchain data shared by the Solana Foundation.

The upgrade also introduced the v1 transaction format, which maintains full backward compatibility with legacy transactions. Existing transaction formats continue working for applications and wallet providers, but protocols that want to benefit from the size increase need to update to v1 transactions.

A spokesperson for the Solana Foundation told Cointelegraph that the upgrade mainly aims to help developers “do more” with applications such as zero-knowledge proofs, transactions requiring multiple signatures and new onchain signature schemes, by unlocking workloads that previously couldn’t fit inside a single transaction.

In August, Solana reduced its slot time from 400 milliseconds to 350ms. In June, the Solana Foundation shared plans to reduce slot times from 400ms to 200ms, arguing that it would improve latency and accelerate confirmations on the blockchain network.

Solana validators approved on Aug. 28 a proposal to double the network’s annual disinflation rate, reducing future issuance of Solana (SOL), the network’s native token.

Related: Solana sees record 263K tokens issued in a single day

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.

What’s different about today’s AI?

Momentum for the CLARITY Act in the US Senate has cooled sharply after a brief optimism spike on Polymarket. Odds that the bill would become law this year climbed the day before, then fell again on Monday as Democrats raised concerns that the latest Republican proposal still does not satisfy their conditions—particularly around ethics enforcement.

Republicans have reportedly offered revised language that expands ethics provisions, and Polymarket had earlier reflected that shift with odds rising to around 35%. By Monday, however, traders saw the prospects weaken, with the odds dropping as low as 16%. The outcome matters not just for legislative timing: the CLARITY Act would influence how the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) divide oversight responsibilities across the crypto market.

Key takeaways

• Polymarket odds for the CLARITY Act passing this year fell sharply again on Monday, after having spiked earlier.
• Democrats involved in negotiations reportedly said the revised Republican ethics language is still insufficient.
• Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill; a failed vote could delay legislation that affects SEC–CFTC jurisdiction.
• Separate opposition is coming from tribal gaming interests and multiple banking trade groups, citing both prediction-market concerns and stablecoin loopholes.

Why Polymarket’s odds reversed

Polymarket traders initially responded positively to a newly revised Republican proposal, viewing added ethics provisions as a step toward agreement. The event page tied to the claim that the act would be signed into law in 2026 showed odds reaching about 35% following the disclosure of the updated text, as covered earlier by Cointelegraph in reporting on “US Republicans send final CLARITY Act offer to Democrats” (https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-republicans-send-final-clarity-act-offer-to-democrats).

But as reservations about that revised language surfaced among Democrats, confidence cooled. The Polymarket odds slid again during Monday trading, indicating that market participants began pricing in a lower probability that the bill could clear the procedural hurdle required to move toward a floor vote.

Senator Mark Warner—who is described in negotiations coverage as being involved in the talks—reportedly indicated that the revised ethics provision did not go far enough. Separately, reporting referenced in the original coverage points to Democrats preparing a counterproposal on Monday, suggesting that talks had not yet reached the kind of consensus needed to lock down support.

Ethics provisions remain the sticking point

Much of Monday’s shift appears tied to how Democrats interpret the revised ethics terms. Punchbowl News’ Brendan Pedersen reported that Senator Raphael Warnock said Democrats should not advance legislation that fails to address corruption risks happening “in real time,” a formulation that underscores a broad enforcement concern rather than a narrow drafting dispute.

Pedersen also reported remarks from Senator Ruben Gallego that the latest ethics offer left “much to be desired,” and that he intended to work on a counterproposal. In addition, the reporting cited that staff for Senator Elizabeth Warren circulated talking points arguing that the proposed state attorney general enforcement mechanism could be overridden by a determination from White House ethics officials.

According to Politico’s Jasper Goodman, Democrats sent their counterproposal to Republican negotiators, citing three people with knowledge of the matter. At the same time, the negotiations do not have unanimous Democratic buy-in: Politico reported that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand privately urged colleagues to support the procedural motion, implying that while opposition is growing, there may still be enough support among certain members to prevent the measure from collapsing outright—unless the wider math fails.

On the other side, Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis said President Donald Trump had accepted two significant ethics provisions and claimed there was “nothing left to give.” This sets up a familiar tension in legislative bargaining: Democrats may view the remaining gaps as core to enforcement credibility, while Republicans may view further changes as unnecessary or politically costly.

Opposition broadens beyond party lines

The uncertainty around procedural success is compounded by objections from groups outside Congress. The original coverage highlighted opposition from a coalition of 18 state attorneys general, adding another layer of political risk around the bill’s ethics and enforcement framework.

Tribal gaming interests are also weighing in. The Indian Gaming Association urged member tribes to press senators to vote against the bill, arguing that its proposed decentralized finance changes do not address Indian Country’s concerns regarding prediction markets. The association’s key request was explicit language clarifying that federal commodities law does not preempt tribal or state gaming laws, including protections under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The call was issued through an alert urging senators to vote “no” on the CLARITY Act (https://indiangaming.org/urgent-tribal-action-alert-call-your-senators-today-vote-no-on-the-clarity-act/).

Banking trade groups also criticized the revised text. Eight banking groups said the latest version did not close what they described as loopholes enabling stablecoin rewards that function like deposit interest. They further argued that the proposed regulatory “circuit breaker” would activate only after substantial deposit flight from community banks had already occurred—an objection that frames the mechanism as too slow to prevent harm rather than too strict to be workable.

Meanwhile, crypto industry advocacy groups pressed senators to move the bill forward. In a statement released Monday, Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger argued that the industry had made significant concessions to build bipartisan support and urged a yes vote. Her reasoning, as reflected in the source coverage, emphasized clearer rules, consumer protections, and deterrence of illicit activity, along with concerns that uncertainty could push jobs and innovation abroad.

What happens next for Senate voting

The next test is whether Republicans can secure the 60 votes needed to advance the bill. If that support falls short on Tuesday, the legislation could stall, extending the timeline for any SEC–CFTC jurisdiction framework that the CLARITY Act would establish. That makes Monday’s negotiations signals particularly important: when Democrats describe the ethics package as still inadequate, it can rapidly undermine the coalition needed to reach the procedural threshold.

For now, readers should watch two developments closely: whether Democrats’ counterproposal gains traction with Republicans, and whether external opposition—from state attorney general groups, tribal organizations, and banking trade groups—translates into additional voting pressure. If the ethics dispute continues to widen rather than narrow, Polymarket’s swing suggests traders will likely keep treating passage as less likely, even if supporters argue that a final push is still possible.