Crypto
CLARITY Act failure shifts US crypto rules to agencies: experts
The failed Senate vote on the CLARITY Act has shifted attention toward the SEC and CFTC, while crypto founders and investors prepare for a longer period without a federal market structure law, industry experts told crypto.news.
Summary
- The SEC and CFTC may shape near-term crypto rules after the Senate failed to advance the bill.
- Founders are expected to keep building, but some may place more operations outside the United States.
- Bitcoin faces less regulatory uncertainty than altcoins, DeFi platforms, exchanges and token issuers.
- Institutional adoption may slow as banks and asset managers wait for more durable legal certainty.
- Experts said rates, yields and liquidity remain larger near-term market forces than the failed vote.
The U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on Sep. 15. The procedural vote recorded 49 votes in favor and 50 against, leaving the measure 11 votes short of the 60 required to open debate.
The result did not formally kill the bill, but it removed its immediate route through the Senate. The legislation sought to divide oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission while creating registration paths for crypto trading platforms and other intermediaries.
CLARITY Act setback turns attention to US agencies
Sid Powell, CEO and co-founder of Maple Finance, said the regulatory focus would now move from lawmakers to federal agencies. He expects the SEC and CFTC to use existing law, rulemaking and guidance to define the industry’s operating boundaries over the next year.
“The SEC and CFTC can do a great deal within existing law, through rulemaking and guidance, and that is where the perimeter actually gets drawn over the next year.”
Powell said market structure legislation was always more difficult to pass than to introduce. He expects meaningful near-term direction to come from regulators, with comprehensive legislation more likely to return in the next Congress.
Gabor Gurbacs, founder and CEO of OpenAssets, reached a similar conclusion, saying the vote did not resolve questions about regulatory authority, asset classifications or the framework institutions can use.
“The vote may have stalled. Regulatory work has not.”
Gurbacs, however, favors industry-led standards over broad top-down requirements. He argued that large regulatory bodies rely on committees, precedent and risk avoidance, which can produce rules that move more slowly than the technology.
Courtney Olujobi, principal at Moon Pursuit Capital, also expects regulators to deliver most of the immediate progress. She distinguished between agency action, which can change under later administrations, and legislation that gives founders and investors greater long-term confidence.
“What this vote means is that, for now, most of the progress will come from regulators rather than Congress.”
Edwin Mata, co-founder and CEO of Brickken, agreed that government action does not end when Congress stalls. He said agencies can use their current authority to issue rules and guidance, although the quality of those rules matters more than the mere existence of a framework.
“The SEC, CFTC and other regulators still have to do their jobs, and we are already seeing them use their existing powers to provide their own rules and guidance.”
Former CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo made a similar argument after the vote, saying the two agencies could continue developing digital asset frameworks under existing law, crypto.news reported.
Founders may build globally instead of waiting for Congress
The experts broadly rejected the idea that the vote would stop crypto development. Several said it could instead affect where companies hire employees, seek licenses, raise capital and launch products.
Kyle Sonlin, president and co-founder of Global Settlement Network, said founders serving institutions need to know how regulators will treat assets and which agency will supervise their businesses. He expects companies to retain an interest in the United States while considering clearer jurisdictions from the beginning.
“I do think more companies will build with a global footprint from the start and keep jurisdictions with clearer rules firmly in the mix.”
Varun Datta, founder and CEO of Truth Ventures, also said serious founders would continue operating in the United States. However, he expects regulatory predictability to take on greater weight when companies compare the country with competing markets.
“Founders deciding where to incorporate, hire, raise money will increasingly compare the US not just on access to capital, but on regulatory predictability.”
Olujobi described uncertainty as a cost that appears before a company faces a formal legal bill. It can influence whether an early hire is an engineer or compliance specialist, whether a product launches in the United States, and whether founders first approach American or overseas investors.
Mata pointed to the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework as an example of both the benefits and costs of clear regulation. MiCA gave companies a defined entry point, he said, but also introduced compliance costs and rules that he considers excessive.
Bobby Gray, founder of TEXITcoin, offered a stronger version of the builders-will-continue argument. He said founders should create businesses that can withstand changes in the political and regulatory environment instead of relying on Congress to deliver certainty.
“Policymakers will eventually have to decide how America participates in this industry, but builders have already decided to keep building.”
The United States still offers deep capital markets, institutional buyers and an expanding base of regulated custody and investment products, according to Olujobi. Mata warned, however, that overseas decisions can become permanent once companies establish teams, banking relationships, licenses and customers in other jurisdictions.
Institutional adoption could become slower and more selective
The lack of legislation may have a larger effect on institutions that require stable compliance standards before committing capital or building products.
Raj Kamal, CEO and founder of TransFi, expects the setback to slow institutional adoption in the United States and other markets that take cues from American regulation. He also sees a risk that more activity will move to jurisdictions such as the United Arab Emirates and Singapore.
“In terms of the impact on the sector, this is going to delay institutional adoption and slow down the pace of stablecoin usage across payments and other parts of the financial sector, as well as the growth of tokenised deposits.”
Kamal expressed concern that the delay could bring back regulation through enforcement. Sonlin made a related point, saying financial infrastructure needs rules that can remain in place beyond one administration.
Jeff Ko, chief analyst at ViaBTC, drew a distinction between institutions that already hold Bitcoin through regulated exchange-traded funds and the next group considering broader crypto services. He expects banks exploring custody and trading, asset managers developing multi-token products and companies studying tokenization to move more slowly rather than leave the market entirely.
“The impact falls on the next wave of adoption, like banks building custody and trading desks, asset managers launching multi-token products, and corporates exploring tokenisation in the US.”
HashKey Group senior researcher Tim Sun also expects institutions to divide their capital according to regulatory risk rather than abandon crypto altogether. Assets and products that already fit established rules could continue attracting demand, while sectors that depend on new legislation may face more caution.
“This does not imply a total institutional retreat, but rather a sharp bifurcation in capital allocation strategies based on risk stratification.”
Sun said Bitcoin benefits from its relatively settled non-security status. Tokenized securities and real-world assets could also face less disruption because they can operate within existing securities and fund rules. DeFi developer liability and exchange token-listing standards remain more dependent on future policy decisions, he added.
Bitcoin remains more insulated than altcoins and DeFi
Bitfinex head of derivatives Jag Kooner said the muted initial response showed that traders had not positioned heavily for the bill to pass. With limited bets on approval, the failed vote produced fewer positions that needed to be closed.
“With few market participants betting on the bill’s approval, there were correspondingly few positions to unwind after it failed, which helps explain the market’s modest reaction.”
Kooner said the more important effect was the extension of regulatory uncertainty rather than a sudden repricing. His assessment matches Powell’s view that the failed vote was the more likely outcome throughout the legislative process.
Ko similarly said the bill had stalled without becoming legally dead. He argued that Bitcoin already has access to regulated ETFs and that the GENIUS Act has established a framework for payment stablecoins, leaving the largest regulatory gap elsewhere in the market.
“The real impact falls on the rest of the market.”
Ko expects altcoins, token issuers, DeFi protocols and U.S. exchanges to carry the largest regulatory discount because the divide between securities and commodities remains unresolved. He said that could keep Bitcoin dominance elevated and widen performance differences among tokens, favoring assets with clearer legal status and cash-generating businesses.
Sun offered a similar view, noting that crypto-linked companies could react more sharply than Bitcoin because their business models depend more directly on regulatory boundaries. Ko and Sun therefore both expect the delay to produce a more selective market rather than an equal effect across digital assets.
Rates and liquidity may matter more than the Senate vote
The regulatory setback is only one of several forces shaping the market. Ko said sticky inflation, oil prices above $95 and increased expectations of further interest-rate increases remained the larger headwinds.
“Crypto has rarely sustained a bull run while yields are rising and liquidity is tightening.”
Ko said a bull-market return this year was possible but not his base case. Such a recovery would likely require sustained ETF inflows, softer inflation readings and improved liquidity, with capital concentrating in fewer assets than in previous cycles.
Sun similarly said rising risk-free rates and the loss of regulatory optimism both pressured crypto following the vote. He expects Federal Reserve policy, long-term Treasury yields and U.S. dollar liquidity to determine Bitcoin’s next sustained move more than the timetable for legislation.
Despite differences over the severity of the delay, the experts largely agreed that development and investment would continue. The failed vote changes who shapes U.S. crypto rules in the near term, while making regulatory strength, jurisdiction and access to liquidity more important in decisions about what to build and where to allocate capital.
UK Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey has compared Nigel Farage’s fiscal policies to a “BTC account” handled by one of the UK’s most financially irresponsible prime ministers.
UK Chancellor of the Exchequer! “Don’t make me laugh,” John Healey has compared Nigel Farage’s fiscal policies to a “BTC account” handled by one of the UK’s most financially irresponsible prime ministers.
This is from Healey the most useless piece of communist crap ever appointed to this position. This man is really as stupid as they come. Support the British people? NO, he supports the communist socialist failed agenda and the EU, like the rest of Labour’s traitor MPs. Certainly not you the British people, and you voted for the new Communist socialist Islamic republic of Britain.
Now he and Burnham are going to piss all over you while calling for another referendum on rejoining the dictatorship called the EU, OH, AND THEY WILL USE THE WORD DEMOCRACY, SOMETHING THEY DON’T SUPPORT AND NEVER HAVE.
Healey’s jab at the Reform leader during Labour’s 2026 party conference referred to the perceived economic failure of the UK’s shortest-serving prime minister, Liz Truss.
Truss’s financial policies were widely criticised for their negative impact on financial markets. This led to a rebellion from several Tory MPs, and she was forced to resign within 44 days of her premiership.
Healey appeared to suggest that a “BTC account” is an equally financially irresponsible form of finance, and that only by pairing it with Truss would you recreate the “fantasy funding” ideals of Nigel Farage.
Healey’s comments upset a lot of Bitcoiners, who claimed his “derogatory” description of a “BTC account” demonstrated “staggering ignorance.”
Freddie New, CEO of the BTC Lightning transaction fee firm B HODL, said Healey is “gleefully ignorant that he thinks it is possible to have a ‘BTC account.’”
UK podcaster Peter McCormack said, “Healey making a dismissive joke about Bitcoin shows that he likely has a woeful understanding of economics, particularly scarcity.”
Most criticisms were technical and took offence at the use of the word “account,” which contrasts with the phrase “crypto wallet” used by crypto holders.
Healey wants a ‘new age of industrialisation’
Healey was defence secretary under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership before he resigned in June. He argued that the government wasn’t willing to spend enough on national defence.
During yesterday’s conference, Healey announced new measures to support a “new age of industrialisation,” which includes a £300 million investment from Rolls-Royce toward its factories, and £6 billion in government contracts to build new submarine docks.
A so-called “Union Learning Fund” was also announced, as were a National Wealth Fund to help create 130,000 jobs by 2030, and a £100 million-backed local apprenticeship scheme.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Source link
Hut 8-owned BTC mining firm, American Bitcoin, has dramatically underperformed BTC since its reverse merger which allowed it to become publicly listed.
American Bitcoin has lost approximately 92% of its value (after accounting for its reverse stock split) since its merger.
BTC by comparison has lost a mere quarter of its value.
American Bitcoin claims that it “was formed through the strategic contribution of substantially all of Hut 8’s ASIC fleet into a new venture led by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.”
More specifically, Eric Trump served as chief strategy officer during this >90% decline.
Donald Trump Jr. provides advice to the firm in his role as senior adviser.
Together they’ve led this firm which is supposedly “a pure-play BTC accumulation platform that integrates scaled BTC mining operations with disciplined accumulation strategies” into a substantial decline that has far outpaced the decline of BTC.
Read more: Trump promised bitcoin ‘made in America’ then ruined it with tariffs
American Bitcoin reported a net loss of over $150 million for 2025.
For the first six months of 2026 it has added to those with an additional $138 million in net losses, largely driven by the falling price of BTC.
The recent rebound in BTC prices will likely reduce some of those losses in future quarters if it doesn’t fall again.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
“Onchain transactions between two individuals shouldn’t mean publishing your financial history to the world,” Joe Andrews, CEO of Aztec Labs, said in a statement.
Andrews added that Aztec Labs chose DAI because it considers it “the most decentralized of the mass-market stablecoins used today on Ethereum.” He said the wallet could support other assets later.
Ethereum already has apps that hide payments, though transfers from an ordinary wallet remain public. Its developers are weighing changes for the planned 2027 Hegotá upgrade that could let privacy apps handle transaction approvals and fees with less help from outside services. Those proposals are still under consideration, while Aztec Labs is bringing back a wallet people can use on its own network.
Read More: Ethereum’s next big upgrade has 66 proposals, including a major privacy fix
What zk.money can and cannot hide
Moving money into the system still leaves a public trace, however. Aztec’s documentation says a deposit from Ethereum reveals the sender and amount, even though the recipient on Aztec can remain private.
The relaunch comes with limits, however. Each deposit, payment and withdrawal must be below $2,500. All users share a $50,000 daily deposit allowance, which replenishes over time. The documentation describes those caps as a safeguard while the system is new and says raising them would require a new contract.
Author: Cryptoman
Cryptocurrency is edging further into the financial mainstream this year, even as the industry’s relationship with traditional banking and regulators remains fraught in key markets like the United Kingdom. From Morgan Stanley’s new laboratory for testing tokenized finance to a British parliamentary group’s pointed letter to bank chief executives, the story of crypto in late 2026 is one of institutions moving cautiously toward digital assets while grappling with unresolved questions about risk, access and regulatory readiness.
On Wall Street, the direction of travel is unmistakable. Morgan Stanley has launched a Digital Asset Lab dedicated to testing stablecoins, tokenized deposits, central bank digital currencies, money-market funds and decentralized finance vaults, according to reporting by Bloomberg. The lab, part of the bank’s existing network of innovation hubs, allows employees to experiment with blockchain-based applications without touching Morgan Stanley’s core systems — a sandbox approach that mirrors, in miniature, the kind of controlled testing environments regulators elsewhere are trying to build.
Megan Brewer, who leads market innovation and labs at the bank, told Bloomberg the team is exploring how software might execute investment strategies around the clock, a question that goes to the heart of what tokenization promises: markets and money that never sleep. The lab’s remit spans the technical distinction between a tokenized deposit, which represents a claim on money held at a bank, and a stablecoin, which is backed by a separate pool of assets — a distinction that has become increasingly important as regulators worldwide try to draw clear lines around different forms of digital money.
This research effort builds on products Morgan Stanley has already brought to market. In April, the firm launched a Stablecoin Reserves Portfolio designed to help stablecoin issuers meet reserve requirements under the U.S. GENIUS Act, holding cash, short-dated Treasurys and repurchase agreements. Its E*TRADE platform completed a rollout letting eligible clients trade Bitcoin, Ether and Solana directly, while three separate exchange-traded products tracking those same assets have drawn tens of millions of dollars in inflows since launching earlier this year. Together, these moves suggest a major Wall Street institution treating crypto not as a speculative sideline but as infrastructure worth building out across trading, custody and reserve management.
The contrast with the United Kingdom is instructive. There, momentum is real but noticeably more contested. Lord Kulveer Ranger, co-chair of Parliament’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Digital Markets and Digital Money, recently offered a candid assessment of where the Bank of England stands on stablecoins and the prospect of a digital pound. His verdict, after 18 months of engagement: the Bank is listening, but it is cautious — and caution alone, he argues, will not be enough to keep Britain competitive.
Ranger’s core complaint is about tempo. While the Bank of England takes its time absorbing feedback on systemic stablecoin rules, other jurisdictions are moving ahead with their own frameworks, some more permissive and some more experimental. Capital and confidence, he warns, do not wait for perfect policy alignment. He points to the Bank’s Digital Securities Sandbox — a testing ground for distributed ledger technology in capital markets — as a case in point: enthusiasm within the Bank has not translated into enthusiasm among firms, many of whom see sandbox participation as costly in time and resources with an unclear payoff. Without a credible bridge from experimentation to real-world deployment, he argues, elegant regulatory frameworks risk attracting interest without retaining commitment.
That tension between innovation and caution is playing out concretely in the banking sector itself. In August, the UK’s Crypto and Digital Assets APPG wrote directly to the chief executives of every major British bank, demanding explanations for why crypto and digital asset firms continue to struggle to open basic bank accounts. The letter, signed by co-chairs Gurinder Singh Josan and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, cited persistent reports of firms being shut out of banking services or having crypto-related payments restricted outright — even as the UK moves toward a comprehensive regulatory regime for the sector.
The APPG’s language was blunt: banking access, the letter said, “could be one of the single biggest barriers to growth” for UK crypto businesses, with the potential to undermine the very regulatory regime the government is trying to build and to influence whether firms choose to invest in Britain at all. Notably, the group acknowledged that banks have legitimate obligations to guard against financial crime, but argued that decisions should be based on individual firms’ risk profiles rather than blanket sector-wide exclusion. That view echoes an assurance given in Parliament back in March by Economic Secretary to the Treasury Lucy Rigby, who told MPs that firms authorized by the Financial Conduct Authority should not face banking restrictions simply for operating in crypto.
The letter is now feeding into a formal Parliamentary Inquiry into banking access for the sector, which gathered written evidence from banks, crypto businesses and regulators through the end of August before a report and recommendations to government.
Taken together, these developments capture an industry at an awkward but consequential midpoint. In the United States, a heavyweight institution like Morgan Stanley is quietly normalizing crypto exposure across trading platforms, exchange-traded products and now dedicated research infrastructure, treating stablecoins and tokenization as inevitable features of modern finance rather than fringe experiments. In Britain, meanwhile, the debate remains more elemental: not just how sophisticated the regulatory framework should be, but whether crypto businesses can even get a bank account in the first place.
Both stories point to the same underlying reality. Cryptocurrency’s next phase of growth will be determined less by technological breakthroughs than by the willingness of banks, regulators and central banks to treat digital assets as a normal, if carefully managed, part of the financial system. Wall Street appears to be answering that question with capital and infrastructure. Westminster and Threadneedle Street, for now, are still working out the terms.
Iran War Polymarket odds price a US announcement ending the naval blockade of Iran no earlier than March 31, 2027, with the contract trading at 74.5% Yes to 25.5% No as of mid-morning on Tuesday, 29 September, according to live pricing on the platform.
The event has logged over $33M in cumulative volume since launch, and the highest-priced outcome sitting nine months out raises an obvious question: if US-Iran talks are genuinely progressing, why is the smart money betting on delay rather than a near-term resolution?
Got a Gut Feeling? It Could Pay Out Big on Polymarket
Iran War Polymarket Odds: What is the Diplomatic Backdrop Traders Are Watching?
Pricing is influenced by ongoing negotiations, as Reuters reported on September 24. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are considering a phased deal where Tehran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the U.S. economic blockade. Both sides are hesitant to yield leverage; the U.S. maintains economic pressure, while Iran controls a key shipping artery for global oil.
However, current conditions do not trigger resolution under market rules. Polymarket specifies that only official announcements from the U.S. government can count for contract resolution, excluding speculation or conditional statements.
This discrepancy between market sentiment and strict legal requirements is causing outcome expectations to shift later in the timeline. Observers can also see how the Iran-U.S. ceasefire proposal is affecting Bitcoin price expectations, reflecting broader risk sentiment.
Iran says it struck 19 ships in the Strait of Hormuz over the past two nights, Fars News Agency reported Sunday, after Kpler reported over 20 million barrels of crude and products exiting the US blockade line as 7-day average.
Iranian forces hit 12 vessels Friday night and 7… https://t.co/UnVeYf99k0 pic.twitter.com/LP8tZknZqo— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 27, 2026
What the Full Ladder of Contracts Actually Shows
Polymarket’s blockade market features multiple deadline contracts that gauge the odds of a qualifying announcement on specific dates. These contracts can’t be combined into a single event probability, as each one represents a distinct bet.
Together, they suggest traders expect the diplomatic process to extend beyond the current news cycle. Once a qualifying announcement is made, it resolves as “Yes,” even if the blockade later continues or if a partial concession is made; such concessions do not qualify.
This distinction is important, as past U.S.-Iran ceasefire agreements have quickly unraveled, reflecting a tendency for narrower resolutions, similar to market bets on the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, which require specific triggers for resolution.
Got a Gut Feeling? It Could Pay Out Big on Polymarket
Total volume across the event stands at $33,486,973, with liquidity of $519,322 as of the last update at 09:07:57 UTC Tuesday. The March 31, 2027 contract – the current price leader – carries relatively thin volume of just $24,290, meaning its 74.5% Yes print reflects a smaller pool of capital than the headline number suggests.
The heaviest trading has run through nearer-dated contracts already priced for near-certain No outcomes: the September 30 deadline alone has drawn $5,238,179 in volume against a mere 3.3% Yes price, and October 31 has seen $2,604,557 change hands at 24.5% Yes.
December 31 sits between the two extremes at $2,596,836 in volume and 57.9%. Yes. That distribution suggests most capital has already been deployed betting against a quick resolution, leaving the March contract as a comparatively low-conviction, low-liquidity outlier at the top of the ladder, a dynamic worth weighing against how Polymarket’s NATO-related contracts have similarly shown thin markets producing headline-grabbing but fragile probability prints.
The post Iran War Polymarket Odds: $33.5M Placed on a 2027 Blockade End appeared first on Cryptonews.
BlockTower Capital founder Ari Paul has accused Coinbase of losing $25 million of his company’s funds while covering up over $1 billion worth of “massive and repeated hacks.”
Paul claims that at least a dozen firms are affected by the alleged cover-up, and that Coinbase “still wouldn’t return our money.”
He also claims that these major allegations are all he can say at the moment as there are “multiple legal processes still ongoing.”
Read more: Coinbase and Brian Armstrong are threatening to leave California… again
BlockTower Capital is a crypto and traditional asset investment firm founded in 2017 by Paul and Goldman Sachs executive, Matthew Goetz.
Two executives left the company in 2022 and 2023 for mysterious reasons, while the company also shuttered its $100 million Market-Neutral Fund in 2023.
Coinbase claims it isn’t covering up hacks
When asked for comment, Coinbase directed Protos to a support post that claimed the exchange “is not hiding a series of hacks and we certainly didn’t lose $1 bilion.”
It said that it advises customers on security practices like maintaining their API keys, and that like most other firms that offer access via API keys, “we do not retain the information necessary to transact on customer accounts.”
Coinbase refused to comment on specific clients.
Coinbase allegations made against Cobie
Paul was responding to a series of posts shared by Cobie, a prominent crypto investor who became a glorified customer support representative for Coinbase.
Cobie was pointing out to X user “Kuno” that they’d been ignoring the crypto exchange’s attempts to reach out to them.
Kuno, on the other hand, claimed they repeatedly approached Coinbase over $1.2 million it had allegedly stolen.
Cobie noted that Kuno was promoting a “shitcoin” and that the whole affair looks like “an entirely fake/scam report/engagement farm.”
Cobie hasn’t responded to Paul’s allegations at the time of writing.
Coinbase sued over $55M draining hack
Coinbase was sued back in May for allegedly withholding a portion of $55 million in crypto that was stolen in a draining hack in August 2024.
The victim claims he lost his crypto after clicking on a malicious link that spoofed Ethereum DeFi management tool “DefiSaver.”
Read more: Coinbase CEO admits content coins were a mistake
From here, he unknowingly authorized a smart contract permission that supposedly gave the thieves control of his crypto wallets.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Key takeaways
- LINK rose about 6% while much of the crypto market retreated, extending its reported 30-day gain to 30.3%.
- Chainlink’s CCIP 2.0 launch gives institutions the option to add their own cross-chain transaction verifiers.
- LINK met resistance near $15, while the supplied chart analysis identifies $12-$13 as a potential support zone.
Chainlink’s LINK token outperformed a weaker crypto market following the launch of Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) 2.0.
The token gained about 6% in the session described in the supplied analysis, taking its 30-day advance to 30.3% and its year-to-date return into positive territory.
The upgrade gives financial institutions more control over transactions that move data or assets between blockchains.
Traders appeared to welcome the announcement, though LINK’s approach to $15 brought a technical test after its recent rally.
CCIP 2.0 adds institution-operated verifiers
Cross-chain transfers require a way to confirm that an action occurred on one blockchain before a corresponding action is completed on another. CCIP provides that communication layer.
With version 2.0, institutions and asset issuers can add Cross-Chain Verifiers to apply their own checks alongside Chainlink’s default verification network. Chainlink says starter kits will let users run those verifiers on infrastructure including Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud.
The added checks could matter to firms with internal security or compliance requirements. An issuer, for example, may want a transfer to proceed only after its own verifier has approved it.
CCIP 2.0 also offers configurable compliance controls, fees, and execution options, allowing users to choose how a transaction is checked and completed. These features are optional; Chainlink says its existing verification network remains the default.
Speed is another part of the upgrade. CCIP 2.0 supports faster-than-finality transfers where a user’s chosen risk settings permit them.
Chainlink also says it is working to support Ethereum’s Fast Confirmation Rule when that feature launches. Its future integration should not be treated as a speed improvement already available for every Ethereum transfer.
The supplied market analysis reported an 89% jump in LINK trading volume following the CCIP 2.0 announcement.
Higher volume shows that more tokens changed hands during the move, but it does not, by itself, show whether buyers will remain in control.
The same analysis cited a recovery in Chainlink’s total value secured from about $43 billion in June to $57 billion in August. That metric describes value associated with assets using Chainlink services; it is distinct from revenue earned by Chainlink or the market value of the LINK token.
The product announcement gives traders a reason to reassess Chainlink’s role in institutional blockchain infrastructure. Even so, a network upgrade does not automatically create immediate demand for LINK. Adoption, usage, and the broader market’s direction will matter to whether the price move lasts.
Can LINK break above $15?
LINK’s advance encountered selling pressure near $15, a level the supplied daily-chart analysis identifies as immediate resistance.
It also noted a bearish divergence in the relative strength index: price strengthened while the momentum reading weakened. Such a signal can precede a pause or pullback, although it does not establish that one must occur.
If LINK retreats, the analysis places a possible support zone at 12–13. Holding that area could leave the broader recovery intact, while a decisive break below it would weaken the bullish setup.
A sustained move above $15 would shift attention toward higher levels, including the article’s $20 upside scenario. From $12, a rise to $20 would be roughly 67%, but that percentage describes a hypothetical entry and exit, not an expected return.
For now, the clearest test is whether LINK can absorb selling around $15 while maintaining support if the wider crypto market remains under pressure.
BTC’s move above $80,000 has triggered a “double-bottom breakout,” a technical analysis pattern confirming a bullish trend and opening the door for a rally to $100,000, according to Jurrien Timmer, director of global macro at Fidelity Investments.
“Bitcoin is looking particularly interesting here as it challenges key resistance at $80k. If it breaks it will confirm a double bottom targeting $100K,” Timmer wrote on X on Friday.
A double bottom looks like the letter W on a price chart. The price drops to a low, bounces, falls back to roughly the same level, then rises again. The two dips show buyers stepping in at the same price twice. The peak in the middle of the W acts as resistance. A break above it suggests sellers have run out of steam and a new uptrend may be starting.
Timmer’s chart shows bitcoin’s two lows this year at $60,033 and $57,742, with the middle peak near $82,800.
Chart patterns are not guarantees. Breakouts often fail, reversing quickly and trapping buyers who chased the move.
Still, the bullish setup is consistent with options traders positioning for more gains. The $90,000 call is the most popular bitcoin options bet on crypto exchange Deribit, with $2.45 billion in open interest. The $95,000 call follows with $2.33 billion, and the $100,000 call holds $1.79 billion. A call gives the buyer the right to buy at a set price and profits when the market rises above it.
XRP price hovers under $1.49 after three consecutive daily declines left the token losing the $1.50 support, even as a modest bounce pulled it off session lows. CoinGlass data showed the long-to-short ratio at 0.975, meaning short positions marginally outnumbered longs, while the funding rate sat at a positive 0.008%, the reading that determines whether long or short traders pay a periodic fee to hold perpetual futures.
XRP Long Short Ratio, Coinglass
That combination is the crux of the problem. Traders are still paying to stay long, yet the spot price has not moved in a way that rewards the bet, and the disconnect between heavy spot selling and futures demand is the setup that tends to unwind fast once a key level gives way.
A 0.975 long-to-short ratio is not a bearish signal in any decisive sense. It sits close enough to 1.0 that it reads as near-balanced positioning rather than a market leaning hard in either direction.
XRP Funding Rate, Coinglass
Funding tells a more interesting story on its own. A positive rate means demand for long exposure in crypto derivatives is real enough that longs are compensating shorts to hold the position, which typically signals conviction that price moves higher.
However, it cuts both ways: if price falls further, those same leveraged longs become forced sellers, and a positive funding regime built on thin spot demand can flip into a liquidation cascade faster than one built on genuine accumulation.
CryptoQuant’s summary data flagged overheating conditions across both XRP’s spot and futures markets, alongside sell-side dominance in futures, meaning sellers have retained the upper hand in derivatives even as funding stays positive. That is the missing piece: positive funding shows traders are willing to hold bullish exposure, but it has not yet translated into enough buying pressure to absorb the futures selling and push through resistance. Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX
XRP Price and the $1.37 Support
The daily chart still leans bullish on a longer timeframe. XRP held above its 50-day price exponential moving average near $1.365 and its 200-day EMA near $1.369 through the three-day slide, with the 100-day EMA sitting lower at $1.307 as a secondary reference.
Momentum has cooled rather than reversed. The RSI sat near 55, close to neutral, and the MACD flattened around zero, a pattern consistent with consolidation after an earlier advance rather than an active breakdown.
The level that matters most sits at $1.37, where the 50-day and 200-day EMAs converge into a single support band. A clean break below that zone opens the $1.30 area, and a deeper slide would eventually put the $1.00 psychological level in play, though XRP would need to fall substantially before that becomes the immediate focus. On the upside, reclaiming the $1.574 resistance level is the trigger that would strengthen the case for a move toward $1.90.Trade XRP on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop
What Happens Next for XRP?
Two scenarios frame the near-term path. If XRP holds the $1.37 zone, the market stays in a consolidation phase where positive funding continues to reflect trader appetite for long exposure, but that alone won’t confirm a breakout without a corresponding rise in open interest and spot volume.
If XRP price instead reclaims $1.574, the technical case for a run toward $1.90 gets meaningfully stronger, and that move would likely force shorts to cover into strength. The alternative is a sustained break below $1.37, which shifts focus to $1.30 as the next line of defense, with $1.00 as the deeper level only if that support also fails.
Either way, the current setup leaves no room for complacency on either side of the trade. Near-balanced positioning combined with positive funding and futures sell-side dominance is a fragile mix, and the next move in spot price will do more to settle the argument than another shift in the long-short ratio.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
The post XRP Price in Danger: Positive Funding Masks a Fragile Setup appeared first on Cryptonews.
Source link
Bitcoin recovered Monday’s losses to trade at $84,170 on Tuesday, up 0.82% since midnight UTC and 1.4% over 24 hours, with 72 of the 100 CoinDesk 100 constituents higher and the index adding 0.89% to 1,904.49.
The bid is arriving despite conditions that have been suppressing risk assets for a week, the 10-year Treasury yield sitting at 5.234% after ending Monday above 5.2%, near levels last seen in 2007, and the 30-year at 5.549% having topped 5.56% on Monday, around a 2004 high.
U.S. stocks fell for a second session on Monday, the Dow dropping more than 300 points and the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite shedding 0.8% and 0.9%, with futures mixed on Tuesday morning.
Decentralized finance (DeFi) is driving the move for the second time in a week, with the DeFi Select Index (DFX) gaining 5.0% since midnight, led by lending protocol token aave at 11% and curve dao token at 5.2%. The CoinDesk 80 rose 2.0% against the CoinDesk 5’s 1.3%, though the ranking inverts over 24 hours, where the CD5’s 1.7% beats the CD80’s 0.44%.
OPPO K14 Plus Launches in India With 8,000mAh Battery and 144Hz AMOLED Display
Viktor Hovland’s endless quest is starting to leave a mark | News
‘Get Ready’ to pre-order the iPhone Duo starting October 12
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: J.McLaughlin – Corporette.com
-
Tech & AI2 days agoAnthropic turns Claude into an AI marketplace with 2,000+ plugins and connectors
-
Tech & AI2 days agoOpenAI is preparing “o,” an always-on ChatGPT assistant that could handle email
-
Fashion6 days ago8 iPhone Accessories That Add Personality
-
Entertainment7 days agoThese 17 Fall Amazon Dresses Seriously Look Like Anthropologie
-
Tech & AI7 days agoReolink’s solar 4K security camera falls to its lowest price in months
-
Crypto7 days agoThis Bearish Netflix Stock Trade Can Cash In On Video Streaming Giant’s Woes
-
Crypto7 days agoBitGo says Bitcoin absorbed Fed hike, CLARITY failure
-
Business & Hustles7 days agoOil Price Today (September 23): Crude oil below $100 on hopes of US-Iran talks. What did Trump say?
-
Crypto6 days agoBitcoin price tests $83,600 Supertrend support after $87K rejection
-
Crypto6 days agoCrude Oil Prices Pressured by Diplomatic Hopes in the Middle East
-
Crypto6 days agoBitcoin Threatens Sub-$84,000 Breakdown as Long Liquidations Spike
-
Tech & AI6 days agoUiPath’s Dines says AI needs a manual and launches Cartographer to write it
-
Business & Hustles1 day ago
Perpetua Resources at Mining Forum Americas 2026: shift to construction
-
Crypto6 days agoAs Amazon Stock Prospers, Traders Might Consider This Option Play
-
Crypto6 days agoStrategy resumed Bitcoin buying, but Strive gained more BTC per share
-
Crypto2 days agoWall Street Giant Warns AI Agents Could Trigger a New Kind of Bank Run
-
Entertainment3 days agoThese 17 Amazon Fall Dresses Totally Conceal the Tummy
-
Business & Hustles5 days agoFlock Safety camera hack yields 1.6M images, but expert says network safe
-
Crypto6 days agoMoonPay to Acquire North Capital in All-Stock Deal Exceeding $60M
You must be logged in to post a comment Login