Crypto
Future of the CLARITY Act Faces Uncertainty in Congress
After a week of intense momentum, the U.S. Senate failed to advance the proposed CLARITY Act, a major market-structure bill aimed at bringing clearer rules to digital-asset activity. The setback came via a failed cloture vote—49-50—leaving supporters scrambling to preserve any remaining path forward in a Congress that is steadily running out of time.
Even as the bill appears “walking wounded” rather than formally dead, the procedural route opened by a key Republican senator raises questions about how much can realistically be renegotiated before the legislative calendar tightens. Crypto policy watchers are now focused on whether CLARITY can still assemble the 60 votes needed in the Senate, and what changes would be required to win broader backing—particularly on the ethics provisions tied to President Donald Trump.
Key takeaways
- The CLARITY Act lost the Senate cloture vote 49-50, meaning it did not reach the 60-vote threshold required to move toward a final vote.
- Sen. Thom Tillis switched his vote from yes to no on procedural grounds, filing a motion to reconsider that could reopen debate during the current session.
- Supporters face a tight timeline: the Senate is scheduled to leave for recess on October 2, and there are limited legislative days remaining after the midterms.
- The votes that supported advancing CLARITY came entirely from Republicans, while Democrats split, even as several Democratic senators say they remain committed to passing the bill.
- Even if CLARITY stalls in Congress, industry representatives argue U.S. regulators can still move on guidance, rulemaking, and exemptions under existing authorities.
Tillis’s procedural move keeps one door open
CLARITY’s immediate problem was procedural. A cloture vote—used to end debate and allow a bill to move toward a final vote—fell short. According to earlier reporting linked in the article, the failed advance effectively jammed CLARITY into a Senate-shaped hurdle.
But the week didn’t end with a clear “no” that closes the book. Sen. Thom Tillis changed his vote at the last minute from yes to no, then used parliamentary strategy to file a motion to reconsider. The stated purpose, as described by the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) director of U.S. federal affairs Ryan Eagan, is to preserve an opportunity to revisit the cloture vote during the session.
“Senator Tillis’s motion to reconsider would provide an opportunity to revisit CLARITY’s cloture vote at any point this session. Specific timing regarding next steps is not clear, but that desire to preserve that opportunity is in part due to the progress made over the past week.”
Still, preserving an option is not the same as solving the underlying vote math. The same dynamics that drove Democrats and Republicans into a late-stage impasse remain, particularly around the ethics provisions in the bill.
The calendar may decide the bill more than the arguments
Beyond politics, the Senate’s schedule is now a central constraint. The article notes that the Senate plans to head to recess on October 2 before returning after the midterm elections, while the House has already recessed for the election period. That combination makes it harder to coordinate movement through both chambers before the year ends.
Rep. Shri Thanedar, a Democrat who supported CLARITY when it passed through the House in July 2025, described the timing as a “major barrier.” In the article, he cites that there are only 20 legislative days left in the current Congress—all after the midterms—making a 2026 compromise “very low” from his perspective.
The article also points to a prior example from stablecoin legislation: the GENIUS bill missed cloture by a narrow margin in May 2025 before clearing a second cloture vote 66-32 just days later, and eventually passed the Senate the following month. However, the analogy may be imperfect. The same reporting includes Kyle Chassé, founder of MV Global, arguing that the difference this time is not the procedural mechanics but the lack of a ready-to-go deal and the potential for the process to reset under a different political landscape.
As lawmakers shift toward election-adjacent negotiations and reduced legislative bandwidth, the question becomes whether CLARITY can be brought back with enough changes to satisfy swing points without triggering a fresh cycle of opposition.
Ethics provisions are the fault line; Democrats still signal interest
One reason CLARITY’s path looks complicated is that the coalition that supported cloture was narrowly partisan. The article states that none of the 49 votes came from Democrats. Chassé is quoted saying that “every one of the 49 was a Republican” and that “zero Democrats voted to even open debate.”
Yet the story does not end with Democratic disengagement. The article references a statement from seven Democratic senators—who voted against advancing the bill—saying they “remain committed” to enacting CLARITY. Among them is Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, who supported moving the bill out of the Banking Committee earlier in the process and, according to the article, later voted no on cloture while still emphasizing the need to regulate digital assets.
Alsobrooks is quoted saying lawmakers were “ready to strike a deal” close to the vote, but that Republican leadership shut down negotiations at the last minute once it became clear a successful cloture outcome was likely. The quote underscores a key dynamic: CLARITY’s supporters and opponents may agree on regulatory direction, but not on how the package handles ethics.
Tillis, meanwhile, is described in the article as wanting to “convince the Democrats to get on board” and applying pressure so Democrats feel ownership of the outcome. His comments in the piece link the procedural switch to his view that the market needs guardrails.
If CLARITY must be rewritten, what could stay?
For CCI’s Ryan Eagan, the negotiating challenge has moved beyond technical drafting into something more politically sensitive. Chassé is quoted asserting that the failed cloture became “a referendum on the President’s crypto holdings” and that “the text as written can’t survive that.”
Before Tuesday’s vote, Republicans requested a large number of changes—described in the article as 126 substantive alterations—responding to Democratic demands. Those adjustments included tighter restrictions intended to prevent public officials from profiting from crypto ventures, and involving state attorneys general in enforcing parts of the ethics framework.
Still, Thanedar argues Democrats want additional limitations specifically on the President’s ability to use office for personal gain, pointing to reported crypto income in annual financial disclosures. The article cites Reuters coverage about Trump reporting at least $1.4 billion in crypto-related earnings for 2025.
Importantly, Chassé suggests lawmakers and industry participants should not treat ethics alone as the decisive hurdle. He points to stablecoin rewards, arguing for “some kind of cap or circuit breaker on yield” as a potential tradeoff needed to win support from “bank-side senators and a chunk of Democrats,” alongside tighter language on illicit finance and enforcement at the state level.
At the same time, the article says crypto stakeholders view certain protections as non-negotiable. Chassé highlights reluctance to give up self-custody and developer protections, which have been defended throughout negotiations during discussions over how far the bill should shield non-custodial developers from financial and anti-money-laundering obligations.
That mix—ethics and yield-linked mechanics on one side, custody and developer protections on the other—may determine whether CLARITY can regain momentum without collapsing into a wholesale rebuild.
Regulators can keep moving even if Congress stalls
Even with CLARITY stuck, industry voices in the article argue that the U.S. regulatory process does not need to wait for new legislation. Eagan says the SEC and CFTC have already shown an intention to reduce uncertainty through guidance, rulemaking, no-action relief, and exemptions.
The article also notes that implementation work related to stablecoin policy continues outside the CLARITY track—citing ongoing activity at Treasury and banking regulators for the GENIUS Act after its progress in Congress.
Michael Saylor is quoted in the article emphasizing that “Progress need not wait for Congress,” suggesting that existing legal authorities can still produce regulatory movement. That point is likely to resonate with market participants who have grown accustomed to a patchwork approach: agencies can advance piecemeal, but statutory clarity typically takes longer and is harder to unwind once passed.
In practical terms, traders and builders may continue to plan around agency actions and enforcement posture while waiting to see whether CLARITY can return to the Senate floor with enough votes.
For now, the critical watch items are straightforward: whether the motion to reconsider leads to a renewed cloture attempt, what amendments (if any) are deemed sufficient to bring Democrats into the coalition, and whether legislative timing allows a final push before the next session dynamics take over.
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.
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.
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.
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 $300 would take a wildly unlikely catalyst and remains improbable.
For capital chasing asymmetric exposure to cross-chain infrastructure themes (the same theme driving the CCIP narrative), early-stage projects offer a different risk-reward profile.
LiquidChain ($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
Discover: The Best Token Presales
The post Mark Zuckerberg Meta AI Predicts Chainlink to $300 (LINK) if This Happens appeared first on Cryptonews.
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
Coffee Break: Nigella Flats – Corporette.com
PlayStation 5 emulation is evolving rapidly, and a native PS5-to-PC compatibility layer is now in development
Mark Zuckerberg Meta AI Predicts Chainlink to $300 (LINK) if This Happens
-
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
-
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
-
Business & Hustles5 days agoFlock Safety camera hack yields 1.6M images, but expert says network safe
-
Crypto2 days agoWall Street Giant Warns AI Agents Could Trigger a New Kind of Bank Run
-
Entertainment4 days agoThese 17 Amazon Fall Dresses Totally Conceal the Tummy
-
Politics7 days agoDigger Reviews: Tom Cruise’s ‘Outrageous’ Film Divides Early Critics
-
Crypto6 days agoMoonPay to Acquire North Capital in All-Stock Deal Exceeding $60M
-
Crypto7 days agoWhy Is NVIDIA Getting Cheaper While Apple Hits New All-Time Highs
-
Tech & AI7 days agoToy Story 5 4K UHD Review: Is There Still Life in Pixar’s Toy Box?
-
Business & Hustles1 day ago
Greatland Resources at Mining Forum Americas 2026: cash-rich growth push
You must be logged in to post a comment Login