Connect with us

Crypto

Colin Kaepernick on Threats He Faced, His NFL Exile, and That Jay-Z Lyric

Published

on

Colin Kaepernick on Threats He Faced, His NFL Exile, and That Jay-Z Lyric
Colin Kaepernick speaks onstage during The Gordon Parks Foundation Awards Dinner and Auction on May 19, 2026 in New York City. —Noam Galai—Getty Images

Following a string of high-profile police shootings of Black men 10 years ago, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began protesting such incidents by sitting during the national anthem at preseason games. What began as a quiet action turned into a fevered national debate about freedom of expression, patriotism, and so much more. 

In Kaepernick’s new memoir, The Perilous Fight, the quarterback explains that his action was spontaneous. He wasn’t even in uniform on August 13, 2016, the first time he sat during the anthem. “I hadn’t given the anthem a second’s thought before I walked out onto the field that day, but it hit me in that moment that I should find a seat,” Kaepernick writes. “I didn’t want to stand up while that song was playing. Rosa Parks had refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white person in 1955. Muhammad Ali wouldn’t step forward when his name was called by the draft board for the Vietnam War in Louisville in 1967. Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised black-gloved fists in the air during the playing of the anthem at the 1968 Olympics. They didn’t like what they saw, the way this nation touted its commitment to justice and at the same time showed little interest in it, and they took action. Those inspiring Americans had the courage of their convictions and literally changed the world in the process.”

Kaepernick, despite leading the 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2013 and throwing 16 touchdown passes, against just four interceptions, for a bad 49ers team in 2016, hasn’t played in the NFL since that season. In 2019, he and former teammate Eric Reid, who joined Kaepernick in kneeling during the anthem, settled a collusion lawsuit against the NFL. In late August, a decade after he etched his name in history, Kaepernick sat down with TIME to talk about why he hasn’t spoken up much about his protests, his relationship with the anthem today, his differences with Jay-Z, and the state of policing in the United States. 

(This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity) 

You’ve released a book, The Perilous Fight. Why tell your story now?

Advertisement

One, it’s 10 years since the protest. I’ve gotten so many questions about why did I protest, what happened, what led up to it, the details behind the scenes of all of the moments. Not just the protest, but owners in the NFL, the conversations that were happening there, the workout in 2019 and all the things that transpired around that. Then also just the work that we’re doing directly in the communities. It felt like it was a great time to be able to go out, answer some of those questions, and also be able to give insight into how we build, how we move forward together. I think it’s especially critical in a moment like this.

The book starts with a harrowing incident of racial hostility involving the N word that you experienced as a child—one you weren’t comfortable sharing with your parents, who adopted you and are white. Why start there?

One of the reasons we wanted to start with that moment of going through the neighborhood, being tied to a rose tree, and the dynamic of not feeling comfortable telling my parents is it really sets the stage for the rest of the book, and sets the stage for the rest of my life. I had to navigate the realities that you face when you are Black in predominantly white spaces. I had so many questions around, “You lived a privileged life. Everything was all good. Middle-class white family. What are you upset about?” And from the outside looking in, I understand how it can look that way. But also the reality of the experience, and what I went through, is also something that’s important to put in context. 

You didn’t really do any interviews during the heat of 2016 and 2017, and in the aftermath. What was your thinking on not doing these types of interviews then?

Advertisement

Yeah, it’s interesting because I get both sides of that question. During the 2016 season, it was like, “Why are you talking so much? Be quiet.” As an NFL quarterback, you’re required to speak three times a week. So reporters can ask you whatever they would like. I’m happy to answer any questions as part of that. But post that moment, one thing I realized was, it felt like there was a very, very intentional effort to make me the sole figure, or the sole voice, of the movement. I thought it was important to create space for other voices to be able to step up. And one of the reasons that I thought that approach was so important is looking back historically, yes, we need strong leaders, but we need strong people collectively. That’s actually what allows us to be able to sustain over time. Also, as part of that, I thought it was very important as they were very intentional attacks to try to discredit me, discredit what I was capable of on the field, discredit my character. In those efforts of trying to discredit me, they were also trying to discredit the broader movement.

Colin Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem flanked by Eli Harold, left, and Eric Reid, right, before an NFL game against the Dallas Cowboys in Santa Clara, Calif. on Oct. 2, 2016. —Marcio Jose Sanchez—AP

If there’s one athlete who has stepped up in the way that you wanted, who would that be?

I think there are voices across the board that have stepped up. I would say my brother Eric Reid. I’m always going to bring him up. Love Eric. He continued the protest after I was blackballed. He himself went through the same reality. His final season, [he] went out, set two franchise records, was cut, and never saw the field again. We had voices throughout the NBA step up. Whether that was LeBron, we saw Steph Curry, we saw Carmelo, we saw KD, all stepping to the forefront. We saw this with Megan Rapinoe, doing that on an international stage. We’re seeing it to this day throughout Europe. I would not have had the insight that this would have had the lasting impact internationally the way it does, and that’s just within the sports realm. More broadly, what I think it’s done is created opportunities, whether it is on a national stage, international stage, or within local communities. People saying, “Oh, this actually opened the door for me to be able to do the work in a way I previously wasn’t able to.”

In 2016, when you first started sitting, and then kneeling, during the national anthem, you’re in this national spotlight and firestorm. Was there one surreal moment you experienced that we didn’t see during this time? 

One surreal moment early on, we had a high school, Castlemont in Oakland. After I took a knee, they went out the next week and took a knee, and I went to go visit them the following week at their game. I had a moment where I was in the locker room with them before the game. They’re hyping each other up. It’s going to be a big game for them. And one of the players says, “We don’t get to eat at home. So we’re going to go eat on this field.”

Advertisement

That is too often a reality within communities. Not only navigating threats against their life, but navigating whether or not they’re even going to have a meal. For me, that was such a surreal moment that athletes in high school and students in high school are going out, trying to chase their dreams and compete at the highest level. They are willing to stand up and risk themselves to go out and advocate for their community, while at the same time not knowing whether or not they’re going to have a meal when they get home. That really encapsulated and painted a surreal picture of how dire this is. While the broader national conversation was happening, this is just the reality on the ground. 

Were you physically or psychologically threatened while protesting? 

Threats became so normalized that I didn’t really think about them too much. You get attacked from the President of the United States. You’re getting attacked from senators. You have people trying to send bombs to your home. Online threats and mail threats. My now wife Nessa, as I was getting these threats, was like, “You can’t be staying at your house alone.” She was in New York at the time. But that ultimately led to me staying at [manager Tony Ng’s] house for the rest of that 2016 season, just so people didn’t know where I was at. 

Were you ever scared? 

Advertisement

No. I also think you get a little bit of the football mentality. If someone is going to try to do something, they’re either going to try to do it or aren’t. My responsibility is to be prepared for whatever that is. 

Did you ever worry that what happened to you served as a warning to other athletes? That as a result of you not playing in the NFL anymore, they were quiet rather than speaking up?

Absolutely. I know the intention was to send that message: If you try to advocate for the Black community, if you try to fight against the status quo and create a different and better environment, we will take everything we can from you. And this actually showed up in one of our Know Your Rights camps in Las Vegas. One of our young high school students pulled me aside in the middle of the camp. “Hey, I really love football. I also really want to fight for my community and for that to be better. Which one do you think I should choose?” 

The fact that they have made that a conversation, that people feel like they have to choose, that is the very thing that I have to continue to fight against. I don’t think there is an either-or. We can be phenomenal at our profession. We also can advocate for our community and a better society, better conditions for our people. 

Advertisement

In the last nine years of NFL exile, did deciding to stand for the anthem in order to get signed ever cross your mind?

No. 

Why not? 

Because I set out with a clear goal and clear objective, and the conditions in our society have not changed. There’s been progress made in some areas, but holistically, when we look at the climate and environment that we are living in today, those conditions largely have not changed. There is never going to be a moment where I take a position of, “Hey, I’ll stand up so I can get my career back.” Because that then becomes a moral concession: If you threaten my career, or if you threaten my money, I will actually say I don’t care about the people, and I will look at this just from an individual perspective. That was a line I was not going to cross.

Advertisement

In the book, you detail conversations you had with a few teams around the league. Which team did you feel closest to signing with?  

There were three teams that I thought were close. The first was the Seattle Seahawks. In 2017, flew up there, met with Pete Carroll, John Schneider, the head coach and GM of the Seahawks. When I got there, basically the conversation was, “We know you’re a starting quarterback.” I didn’t do a

workout while I was there. They’re like, “We know you can play. We’ve game-planned for you the last few years. That’s not a question for us.” The entire conversation while I was there was just around my politics, taking the knee, how I thought about policing, how I thought about the military, what their community would think, what potential players would think. 

In retrospect, it was fascinating to me on a few different fronts. One, the NFL claims it’s a meritocracy. So walking in a building and telling me you know I’m a starter, and not walking out with an offer makes that fall flat on its face. The second part is I just think about it from a labor-laws perspective. Being the owner of a business, a company, I would never be able to ask those questions and get away with it. 

Advertisement

They didn’t sign me that year. Reached back out the following year to have me come in for a workout. Had booked the flight, was ready to go out there, and prior to getting on the flight, they called my agent. Said, “Well, before he comes out to work out, will he commit to not taking a knee?” I said no. I won’t commit to that. Canceled the flight. Canceled the workout. Never heard from them again. [A spokesperson for the Seahawks did not respond to TIME’s request for comment.] 

The second one was the Ravens, and this one came about because we played against the Ravens in the Super Bowl. Jim Harbaugh was my coach during that time. His brother John Harbaugh was head coach of the Ravens, and I reached out to Jim and wanted to get his perspective. “Is there anyone that you know that would be interested? Do you think your brother would be open to a call?” John was on board and was like, “Yeah, let’s do it.” John went back, advocated for it, wanted to sign me. “It got shut down from above me. I don’t have the power to just outright make that decision. But if it was my choice, you would be here.” [A Ravens representative referred TIME to a 2017 quote from Baltimore general manager Ozzie Newsome—now an executive vice president with the team—who said, “(Ravens owner) Steve Bisciotti has not told us we cannot sign Colin Kaepernick, nor has he blocked the move. Whoever is making those claims is wrong.”]

Then the third one was the Raiders in 2022. Had run into [Raiders owner] Mark Davis at an airport. This was actually the first time I had been face-to-face with one of the owners blackballing me. It was a very interesting conversation because it was almost disconnected from the reality of what was going on. Saw me and was like, “Hey, what’s up? How are you doing? What you been up to?” I was like, “What? What are you talking about? I’ve been trying to play, and you’ve been keeping me out.”  

That led to a follow-up conversation about me trying to play. He came and sat in my living room, and we talked about playing for the Raiders. That led to a workout with the Raiders and Josh McDaniels. Workout went great. Josh McDaniels, after the fact, was like, “He looked bigger, stronger, faster than last time saw you.” Mark Davis came in the room after. “So proud of you. That was great workout.” One of the scouts on the way back said, “I’m surprised they let you walk out of the building without signing you. That’s the best workout we’ve had in years from a quarterback.” Never heard from him again. [The Raiders declined to comment.]

Advertisement

When Jim, who coached Michigan to the 2023 national title, got the job with the Los Angeles Chargers in ‘24, did you reach out to him? Was there any conversation there?

Yeah.

What happened? 

He told me that was a table he was not willing to stand on. It was disappointing because prior to that he had been advocating for me. Said I should be a starter. I can help a team win championships. Had a conversation with him and said, “Look, I don’t even care what the role is. Like I know Justin Herbert’s there. I know the reality of what you have to navigate as a head coach. Let me take the No. 2 spot then. Let me come in, just show you, show everyone else what I can do.” Wouldn’t do it. No opportunity, no workout. 

Advertisement

Has that affected your relationship with him?

Yeah. And I’ll say, also in part because there was a conversation that was put out that he had offered me a coaching job, which just wasn’t true. I don’t know where and why that came out. That’s made the relationship a little bit different since. [When asked to respond to Kaepernick’s comments to TIME about joining the Chargers as a player or coach, Harbaugh, through a Chargers spokesperson, pointed to a 2024 press conference, in which he said he “pulsed” Kaepernick’s interest in coaching.]

Why are you confident that you are ready to be an NFL quarterback right

now?

Advertisement

Because I train for it. I rely on my training and preparation for any moment. I’ve grown confident in my ability to continue to stay ready because I’ve shown that the training works, and I’ve shown that I’ve been able to go out and perform. 

What’s your relationship with the national anthem today? When you go to sporting events, what do you do?

I don’t go out for the Star-Spangled Banner. I’m either seated where I’m at, or I’m not out there at all, and then show up when it’s time for the actual game to come on.

Your daughter is 4. When this time is right, what will you say to her about the national anthem? 

This is actually a funny and timely question. We just went through the process of moving. We’re putting some of the artwork up and pictures up. We have the TIME cover framed. I don’t like having any of my stuff in rooms that I’m in. Feels weird to me. But my wife wants to have stuff up. And my daughter found it, and she grabbed it and was like, “Oh, this is going to my room.” But she was like, “Baba, why are you taking a knee like this?” She’s showing me how I’m taking a knee. Not a conversation I was expecting to be having at 3 ½  years old.

Advertisement

What did you say to her about it? 

“Well, Baba was protesting to try to create a better life for everyone. Thought all people should be able to be successful and have good lives and be treated fairly.” 

What are you going to tell her when she asks about why you stopped playing in the NFL? 

It’s going to be an honest conversation, in part because I also know I have to prepare her for the reality that she’s going to walk into rooms and they’re going to see her last name is Kaepernick. She’s going to get asked questions and she’s going to have to have to navigate things that she never asked for. Part of my responsibility as a father is making sure that she’s prepared and equipped for that.

Advertisement

Going back to your early life a bit – you credit your parents with raising you and having your back. But there were many moments where they weren’t as sensitive to your racial experience and awakenings as you would have liked. You make that very clear in the book and don’t spare your feelings about it. Have your mom and dad read the book?

They have not read it yet.

How do you anticipate they’ll react to it? 

There’s moments that they just don’t know about. It is also something that, for me, in thinking about a white couple born and raised in Wisconsin, adopting a young Black boy, it is very difficult for them to understand the reality of what that’s going to be for me growing up. As far as raising me on strong fundamentals and morals, teaching me to work hard, teaching me to treat people well regardless of what their position or status may be in life, all of those things they did extremely well. But when it comes to understanding being Black, being a Black man, what that means, navigating society, that part largely didn’t exist. That’s where a lot of the conflicts come in around culture, around perception, around who I actually was. I knew they always loved me as their son. I don’t know if they always loved my Blackness. And I think that’s an interesting nuance to be able to navigate.

Advertisement

How would you characterize your relationship with them now?

I think we’re in a good place. My daughter loves calling them during dinner. That is part of her routine now. They come out, they visit. But there is still some of the complexities there.

At several points in the book, you talk about the business of the NFL in the same breath as slavery. Of being photographed in compression shorts at the draft combine, you write, “My mind immediately went to the scenes I had witnessed in numerous movies depicting slave auction blocks.” You also write, “I fully believe what happened to me was a form of buck breaking. That’s a slave term to describe how masters used to whip and sexually abuse enslaved men in front of a crowd to dehumanize them and warn other slaves that they better not step out of line. I was made into a warning to other NFL players and professional athletes: You better not challenge the league’s authority.” Were you ever worried that people might be offended by that?

No. I know people would take things in the context that they want to. But the parallels between the two are undeniable. Bill Rhoden wrote a whole book around it, Forty Million Dollar Slaves. This came up for Curt Flood when he was fighting for free agency for professional players. “Well, you’re making $90,000 a year, Curt Flood. How can you compare this to slavery?” And I believe his quote around that was, “A well-paid slave is a slave nonetheless,” or something to that effect. Which speaks more to the institutions and practices around how you are treating people and the process that they’re going through, and the systems that they have to navigate, as opposed to just taking something in isolation. 

Advertisement

Two news stories weren’t addressed in the book. One is your decision to wear socks depicting police as cartoon pigs in 2016, before you took your public stance. That offended law enforcement personnel, and police unions in particular. Why don’t you, or why do you, regret that specific decision?

When I wore those socks, we were seeing police killing Black people with impunity across the country. This is something that has systemically been in place. It came out of slave patrols, built into modern-day policing. Now, policing in the U.S. exists in a way that we don’t see in other areas throughout the world, so to me, that was sending a message around the inhumane practices that police were practicing. 

It seemed to have an effect where some people would never forgive you after that. But you knew that was a risk?

The same people who are offended, in a way that, “hey, we’re never going to forgive you for that,” why are you so remorseful for police killing Black people? Why are you so accepting of that? A pair of socks is so offensive to you, but the killing of a human life you’re OK with. So, if we’re really going to have a conversation around it, let’s actually put it in contrast to the conversations that we’re having. I’m going to choose valuing human life in every instance.

Advertisement

The other story is the shelving of the ESPN documentary about you, directed by Spike Lee. About a year ago, ESPN said in a statement that “ESPN, Colin Kaepernick and Spike Lee have collectively decided to no longer proceed with this project as a result of certain creative differences.” What were those creative differences?

We had approved for the documentary to go out, and that was not something that fit within their timeline. So the documentary is finished. It’s ready to go. We’re looking for potential partners to be able to place it.

Why didn’t ESPN want it?

It’s a great question. I know they have shifting priorities, as we’re seeing publicly right now. We also know they were, I believe, at that point in time in the midst of negotiating their deal with the NFL. So I can’t say that those things are connected. But I believe they’re all factors. [An ESPN spokesperson sent TIME a statement: “Two years ago, the three parties involved in this project came to a mutual decision, based on creative differences, not to move forward. Creative differences are not uncommon when several entities collaborate on a project of this kind. Because multiple parties were involved, we are limited in what we can share publicly. This is not new as the decision not to move forward was agreed upon Monday, July 29th 2024. We are grateful for the work that went into it.”]

Advertisement

In a recent interview, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seemed to agree with the sentiment that “Woke 1.0 was crazy.” She was referring to the period, after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, where there were calls, for example, to defund the police. You wrote in a 2020 essay “in order to eradicate anti-Blackness, we must also abolish the police. The abolition of one without the other is impossible.” What is your response to AOC’s characterization and other political characterizations that sentiments like you expressed went too far?

I understand the political realities that politicians are navigating. I’m not naive to that. I also think the reality is, if we are trying to create better communities that allow us to thrive, our resources shouldn’t be going towards policing. They should be going towards resources that allow the community to thrive. When you invest in communities, they get safer. People do better. Crime rates drop. I would not discredit the work that was done around the country during 2020, because that has laid the foundation for the movement that we’re seeing now. We’re seeing a different wave of politicians show up: “Am I providing direct benefit to the people that I’m serving?” I think that is the most important priority to be able to keep in mind. 

Do you still support abolishing policing?

Yes. I think that’s the work that we should be doing. Reallocating those resources to directly benefit communities and give them the resources that they need to be able to thrive.

Advertisement

You write in the book about how, in 2016, you met with your San Francisco 49ers teammates to explain in more detail why you were protesting during the anthem. You write: “I told my teammates how law enforcement in this country has always been an enemy of Black people.” In 2026, do you still feel that law enforcement in this country is an enemy of Black people?

The institution has not changed. It still exists in the same form it did in 2016. We’re still seeing the same issues come out of it. We’re still seeing that fuel and funnel into the prison industrial complex. So until those systems are dismantled and those resources are allocated to benefit communities, the institutions are serving the purpose that they were laid out to do. 

A Nike Ad featuring American football quarterback Colin Kaepernick is on display September 8, 2018 in New York City. —Angela Weiss—AFP/Getty Images

How would you characterize how Donald Trump has treated you? 

At least to my knowledge, that was the first time I had seen a President use their position and political power to target an individual citizen. And I think that laid the foundation and set the stage for a lot of what we are seeing now. And in many ways, I feel like that was an initial test to see how far things could go. I obviously do not agree with his political views or approach. I do not believe that the work he is doing is actually to benefit people other than himself.

The NFL has reported giving more than $450 million to grassroots organizations to benefit communities in need. Do you see that as a sincere response to your protest or a PR play?

Advertisement

I view that as a PR play. There was a player-owners meeting. Bob McNair, who was the owner of the Texans at the time, said, “You need to tell your compadres to stop that other business,” meaning the protests. Bob Kraft was in that meeting and said, “We need to talk about the elephant in the room and ending the protests.” And Terry Pegula, the owner of the Bills, just said explicitly, “We need a Black face to be at the forefront of this to help us stop this.” If it was actually to try to create change and benefit Black communities, the NFL’s response holistically from the start would have looked drastically different. I would have a job. Eric Reid would have a job. The other players that were targeted throughout that process wouldn’t have had to navigate that.

A protester wearing a Colin Kaepernick SF49ers jersey joins others in taking a knee, led by Former NFL wide receiver Terrell Owens in support of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick on June 11, 2020 in Inglewood, California. —Frederic J. Brown—AFP/Getty Images

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell admitted, in 2020, that the league was wrong for not listening more closely to the message and meaning behind protests like yours. He encouraged a team to sign you. Do you forgive him?

No, because he’s still taking those actions to this day. That they have not changed their practices. The NFL just went through navigating race-norming, where they were assessing that the baseline intelligence or cognitive abilities of Black players was lower than white players, so that they could deny them medical benefits after playing in the NFL. It’s important to put it into broader context. This isn’t a practice that just exists in relation to me and the protest. [The NFL declined to comment.] 

The book details your relationship with Jay-Z, whose company, Roc Nation, partnered with the NFL in 2019 to consult on Super Bowl halftime entertainment and other performances and initiatives. Jay-Z recently brought you up in a rap lyric at Yankee Stadium, saying, “Buddy took a check, I ain’t even mad at him, but along with that check you gotta sign a non-disparagement. I’m the one they can’t control.” How would you characterize how Jay-Z has communicated with you, and used you or brought you up?

The fact that seven years after him cutting a deal to undermine the protest, unprompted, [he] brings me up, sounds like a guilty conscience to me. I would also say, just to make very clear, the distinction here. One, I did not sign a non-disparagement. But the second part of this is these are very different situations. He’s trying to create a false equivalency around being blackballed by the NFL and having to go through the grievance process, the legal process that’s already laid out by the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the players’ union–going through that process, and then reaching a settlement at the end of it, because that is your path towards reconciliation, is very different than cutting a deal with the NFL to create personal benefit and undermine the protests. Trying to conflate the two is very disingenuous. [A representative for Roc Nation and Jay-Z did not respond to TIME’s request for comment.]

Advertisement

Are you surprised that DEI is under fire? 

I’m not surprised it’s being attacked by this Administration. What I am surprised by is the capitulation by corporations, by organizations to go along with it. What I’ve seen is when you show weakness, that you’ll bow down to them, that you’ll capitulate to them, they’re going to try to take that further and further. 

Did you make any mistakes over the past 10 years? 

One that I think about a good amount is, I had intentionally taken an approach of I’m going to do my best to not call out or attack people who I disagree with. I did not want to create an environment or narrative that was centered around Black people fighting and distracting from the intention of the protest. Even with Jay-Z, I didn’t go out and do interviews around that. I believe people will see the work, and my hope is in seeing the work, people will look at and say, “Oh, that’s how it should be done.” But I don’t know if that created additional space for people to take the narrative in places that shouldn’t have gone. It’s one of those things that I’m very mindful of as I move forward. 

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto

Mark Zuckerberg Meta AI Predicts Chainlink to $300 (LINK) if This Happens

Published

on

Mark Zuckerberg Meta AI Predicts Chainlink to $300 (LINK) if This Happens

The Mark Zuckerberg-backed Meta AI predicts an insanely wild price for Chainlink (LINK) by January 1, 2027. It claims that $150–$250, with a stretch target toward $300+ are possibilities under the assumption of a full-blown crypto bull market returning and being turbocharged by a landmark catalyst.

LINK is currently trading around $15.20–$15.50 as of September 29, 2026. This extreme outlook predicts a strong late-2026 bull market, driven by major financial institutions and government agencies designating Chainlink as the primary decentralized oracle for tokenized real-world assets and cross-border settlements.

In this speculative scenario, massive institutional demand could push LINK from ~$15 to $150–$250 by early 2027, potentially even $300. However, this would require significant coordination among traditional finance, regulators, and Chainlink, making it a highly unlikely base-case prediction.

SOURCE: Meta AI Predicts LINK Price

Meta AI Predicts LINK to $300: Is There Any Technical Analysis that Backs this Wild Target?

On the higher timeframes, LINK has been building a constructive recovery, recently breaking higher from the $12–$13 region and pushing into the mid-$15s with expanding volume. Price is holding above rising short- and intermediate-term moving averages after reclaiming key levels.

Advertisement

In a standard bull market, a sustained break above $18–$20 would open the path toward the prior cycle high near $53. Under the extreme institutional-adoption scenario outlined above, clearing that previous all-time high would likely trigger a powerful measured-move extension and Fibonacci projections from the multi-year base, theoretically supporting a move into the $150–$250+ zone if volume and momentum expand dramatically.

RSI has room to run from current levels before reaching the kind of extreme overbought readings typical of parabolic advances. Key nearer-term supports sit in the $13.50–$14.50 and $12.00–$12.50 zones; holding those would keep the broader recovery structure intact while the market prices in any major narrative shifts.

Overall, while the current chart supports continued upside in a normal bull market, only an extraordinary surge in real-world institutional utility and demand could justify the kind of multi-thousand-percent extension implied by the $150–$300 targets.

Advertisement

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

LiquidChain Targets Early Mover Upside as Ethereum Tests Key Levels

Traders who bought LINK near $15 aren’t wrong to feel validated by this range hold. But let’s be honest about the math: moving LINK from $15 to $300 would take a wildly unlikely catalyst and remains improbable.

For capital chasing asymmetric exposure to cross-chain infrastructure themes (the same theme driving the CCIP narrative), early-stage projects offer a different risk-reward profile.

Advertisement

LiquidChain ($LIQUID) is building a Layer 3 execution environment that fuses Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana liquidity into a single unified layer.

Rather than forcing developers to deploy separate contracts per chain, LiquidChain’s Deploy-Once Architecture lets builders ship once and access liquidity across all three ecosystems through Single-Step Execution and Verifiable Settlement.

The presale has raised almost $980K at a current token price of just $0.01496.

Gain Special Access to Layer 3 Trading Here

Advertisement

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post Mark Zuckerberg Meta AI Predicts Chainlink to $300 (LINK) if This Happens appeared first on Cryptonews.




Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business & Hustles

UK chancellor uses bitcoin to mock Nigel Farage

Published

on

UK chancellor uses bitcoin to mock Nigel Farage

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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’

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto

Trump-related American Bitcoin has lost more than 90% of its value

Published

on

Trump-related American Bitcoin has lost more than 90% of its value

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

Continue Reading

Crypto

Ethereum users get another way to pay privately as zk.money returns after three years

Published

on

Aztec's zk.money hides payments once money is inside. (Shaurya Malwa/CoinDesk)

“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.

Aztec's zk.money hides payments once money is inside. (Shaurya Malwa/CoinDesk)

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.

Advertisement

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.



Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

Wall Street Embraces Crypto Infrastructure as Britain Wrestles With Regulatory Caution

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto

Iran War Polymarket Odds: $33.5M Placed on a 2027 Blockade End

Published

on

Iran War Polymarket odds for an end to the Hormuz blockade put a 74.5% chance on a qualifying U.S. announcement by March 31, 2027

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?

Iran War Polymarket odds for an end to the Hormuz blockade put a 74.5% chance on a qualifying U.S. announcement by March 31, 2027
SOURCE: Polymarket

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement




Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

Ari Paul says Coinbase lost his $25M, covered up $1B in hacks

Published

on

Ari Paul says Coinbase lost his $25M, covered up $1B in hacks

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

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.




Source link

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Crypto

Chainlink surges 6% after CCIP 2.0 launch, but $15 resistance tests LINK rally – CoinJournal

Published

on

Chainlink surges 6% after CCIP 2.0 launch, but $15 resistance tests LINK rally - CoinJournal

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. 

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

LINK/USD Daily Chart

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.



Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

Bitcoin beats gold, surge to $100,000 in play: Crypto Daily

Published

on

Bitcoin beats gold, surge to $100,000 in play: Crypto Daily

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.

Advertisement

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.



Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

XRP Price in Danger: Positive Funding Masks a Fragile Setup

Published

on

XRP price trades near $1.49 as positive funding meets futures selling, with $1.37 support and $1.57 resistance shaping the next move.

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 price trades near $1.49 as positive funding meets futures selling, with $1.37 support and $1.57 resistance shaping the next move.

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 price trades near $1.49 as positive funding meets futures selling, with $1.37 support and $1.57 resistance shaping the next move.

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Xrp (XRP)
24h7d30d1yAll time

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.

Advertisement

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post XRP Price in Danger: Positive Funding Masks a Fragile Setup appeared first on Cryptonews.


Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025