Bitcoin pushed higher at the Wall Street open on Wednesday, briefly trading up to the $60,000 area as broader risk sentiment improved and the US dollar eased.

TradingView data showed BTC/USD reaching $60,475 on Bitstamp, translating into nearly a 3% gain on the day. The move came after the pair’s June selloff had started July with a bounce from recent multiyear lows, while liquidations across crypto derivatives reportedly totaled more than $200 million over the prior 24 hours, according to CoinGlass.

Key takeaways

• BTC climbed toward $60,500 at the start of the first US session of July, adding nearly 3% intraday.
• Some of the tailwind appears linked to a cooling in US dollar strength, with DXY reversing off local highs.
• CoinGlass data points to large 24-hour liquidation totals, highlighting how sensitive leverage remains.
• Traders are framing July as a potential “relief” period, while still watching for a continuation of the broader downtrend later.
• Market participants note crowded positioning in the US dollar, which could affect cross-asset flows if it unwinds.

Bitcoin’s early July bounce targets a key $60,000 level

The rally gained momentum during the early New York session, with BTC/USD spiking to $60,475 on Bitstamp, per TradingView. At the time of the move, daily gains were running close to 3%, suggesting dip-buying interest rather than a sustained breakout at that moment.

Derivatives flows reinforced that volatility was still in play. CoinGlass data cited in the coverage put 24-hour crypto long liquidations above $200 million at the time of writing—an indicator that leveraged longs had been forced out during the prior decline, clearing some room for upside rebounds.

Trader Lennaert Snyder described the move as a “lovely pump” and suggested that exhaustion on lower time frames could precede another push toward roughly $60,700, based on his intraday charting. Snyder’s comments, posted on X, pointed to a near-term sequence: a brief cooling after the initial surge, followed by an attempt higher.

Range traders watch whether $58,000–$61,000 holds

While the price action looked constructive, several traders focused on range behavior rather than immediately calling for a trend reversal.

Daan Crypto Trades highlighted the possibility that BTC could turn the $58,000 to $61,000 area into a temporary range. In an X post earlier in the session, he argued that if price revisited either end of that range, it could produce a “decisive break” and a larger directional move.

“I think there’s a good chance that the next attempt at the range high or low will cause a decisive break and bigger move.”

US dollar weakness and “crowded” positioning add context

Alongside crypto-specific signals, the broader macro backdrop appeared to matter. The US dollar index (DXY) reportedly reversed from local highs of 101.6 at the open, giving Bitcoin room to rise as dollar strength cooled.

Commentary from The Kobeissi Letter emphasized that the larger dollar trend could shift “soon.” In a post cited in the coverage, it warned that the “long US Dollar trade is crowded,” claiming speculative long positioning surged to +$34.3 billion as of June 23—its highest level in 18 months.

That matters for crypto because BTC often trades as a high-beta asset sensitive to dollar liquidity conditions. If crowded positioning unwinds or if expectations for dollar strength fade, it can influence risk assets quickly—sometimes amplifying moves once markets already have momentum.

Why traders are calling July a potential “relief rally”

Beyond the immediate bounce, market participants continued to discuss the possibility of a relief rally through July, even as they acknowledged that the path beyond mid-summer remains uncertain.

Trader Titan, referenced in the report, pointed to a base-case scenario tied to the monthly structure—specifically that a relief move in July could occur before the downtrend resumes. In his view, Bitcoin’s monthly performance would need to navigate the broader trend pressures rather than simply break away from them.

“My base case: a relief rally in July before the downtrend resumes.”

Rekt Capital also reiterated a historical pattern he associates with Bitcoin’s calendar behavior: “Red June. Green July. Red August.” In a post cited in the coverage, he suggested that while downside “wicking” could happen early in July—potentially dipping below the new Monthly Open—history implies the price may expand upward as the month progresses.

Still, this framing is not a blanket bullish call. The same analysis points to a likely two-step process: near-term volatility and potential testing of levels early in the month, followed by an upside stretch—followed by a watchful stance for bearish moves in August.

In other words, the rally appears to be treated by many traders as a tactical reprieve within a larger uncertainty band, rather than evidence that the broader trend has definitively reversed.

What to watch next

Bitcoin’s move above $60,000 is attracting attention because it interacts with both leverage dynamics and macro inputs like the dollar. Traders will likely focus on whether BTC can hold gains through key intraday levels and whether DXY continues to lose momentum; at the same time, many market participants are watching the early-July monthly structure for signs that the “relief rally” thesis is developing or failing.

Self-custody means holding your own keys instead of trusting an exchange to hold them for you. After FTX, Celsius, and Mt. Gox, the case is obvious. Yet most people still leave their crypto on a platform. Here is why, and how to change it.

Self-custody is one of the founding ideas of crypto and one of the least practiced. The promise of Bitcoin and the systems that followed was that you could hold value directly, without a bank or a broker standing between you and your money. Self-custody is that promise made real: you hold the keys, and no one else can touch your funds. The catch is that holding the keys means holding all the responsibility, and after years of exchange collapses that wiped out users who trusted platforms to hold their crypto, most people still do exactly that. This guide explains what self-custody is, how it differs from leaving crypto on an exchange, the difference between hot and cold wallets, how to set it up, and the real risks on both sides.

What self-custody means

To understand self-custody, you first have to understand what a crypto wallet actually holds. Your crypto does not sit inside your wallet the way cash sits in a leather one. The coins live on the blockchain, a public ledger copied across thousands of computers. What you truly own is the private key, a secret piece of data that authorizes moving those coins. Whoever controls the private key controls the crypto. A wallet is really just a tool for storing and using that key.

Self-custody, also called non-custodial storage, means you hold the private keys yourself. You alone can authorize transactions, and no company sits between you and your funds. Because no third party has your keys, no exchange bankruptcy, no regulatory seizure, and no corporate decision can freeze or take your crypto. You have complete control, and with it complete responsibility, since there is no help desk that can recover your funds if you lose your key.

The opposite arrangement is custodial storage, the default when you buy crypto on an exchange. There, the platform holds the private keys on your behalf. You see a balance in your account, and you can trade and withdraw, but the exchange controls the keys and therefore the crypto. You are trusting the company to safeguard your funds and to let you access them when you want. That trust is convenient, and it is also the entire source of the risk that self-custody is designed to remove.

Not your keys, not your coins

The phrase that has circulated in crypto for years is “not your keys, not your coins,” and it is the single most important idea in this whole subject. It means that if you do not control the private keys, you do not truly control the crypto, no matter what balance an app shows you. When your funds sit on an exchange, what you own is a claim against that company, not the coins themselves. As long as the company is solvent and honest, the claim is as good as the coins. When it is not, the difference becomes everything.

History has proven the point repeatedly. When large exchanges and lenders collapsed, users who had left their crypto on those platforms found they could not withdraw, and many never recovered their funds. The failures of Mt. Gox years ago, and of FTX, Celsius, and other platforms more recently, all delivered the same lesson: a balance on a platform is only as safe as the platform, and platforms fail. In each case, users who held their own keys were untouched, while those who trusted a custodian shared in its collapse.

This is the argument for self-custody in one sentence: it removes counterparty risk. There is no company that can go bankrupt with your coins, no platform that can freeze your account, no custodian that can be hacked and drained. The price of removing that risk is taking on the responsibility yourself, which is exactly where the difficulty, and the reason most people still avoid it, begins.

Hot wallets versus cold wallets

Within self-custody, wallets divide into two families based on whether they are connected to the internet. A hot wallet is a self-custody wallet that stays online, usually as a phone app or a browser extension. It is convenient: you can send, receive, and interact with on-chain applications quickly, which makes it well suited to small balances and daily use. The trade is exposure, because anything connected to the internet is more reachable by attackers, malware, and phishing.

A cold wallet keeps the private keys offline, most often on a dedicated hardware device that looks like a small USB stick. The keys are generated and stored on the device and never leave it; when you want to send crypto, the transaction is signed on the device itself, so the secret key is never exposed to your internet-connected computer or phone. This offline design makes cold wallets far more resistant to remote attacks, which is why they are the standard for larger amounts and long-term holding. The trade is convenience, since using one takes more steps and the physical device can be lost, damaged, or stolen.

It is worth separating two ideas that are often confused. Hot versus cold describes internet exposure. Custodial versus non-custodial describes who holds the keys. A hardware cold wallet is non-custodial and offline. An exchange account is custodial and online. You can have self-custody that is hot, such as a phone wallet, or self-custody that is cold, such as a hardware device. The safest arrangement for meaningful sums is self-custody that is also cold, because it combines your control of the keys with their isolation from the internet.

The seed phrase

At the center of nearly every self-custody wallet sits the seed phrase, and understanding it is non-negotiable. When you set up a wallet, it generates a sequence of 12 to 24 ordinary words, called the seed phrase or recovery phrase. Those words are a human-readable form of your master key. From them, the wallet derives all of its private keys, which means the seed phrase can restore your entire wallet on any compatible device if your phone breaks or your hardware wallet is lost.

That power cuts both ways. Anyone who obtains your seed phrase can recreate your wallet and take everything in it, from anywhere in the world, with no way to reverse the theft. And if you lose your seed phrase and lose access to your device, your funds are gone permanently, because no company holds a copy and no one can regenerate it for you. The seed phrase is the thing you are really protecting in self-custody, and the rules are strict: write it down and store it offline in a secure place, never type it into a website or share it with anyone, and never store it as a photo or in a cloud account where it could be leaked or hacked.

The seed phrase is also the reason self-custody feels intimidating, and it should command respect rather than fear. It replaces the bank’s password-reset and fraud-reversal safety nets with a single artifact that you alone are responsible for. Most catastrophic self-custody losses trace back to a seed phrase that was lost, exposed, or handed to a scammer, so mastering how to store it safely is most of the battle.

How to set up self-custody

The path is more approachable than it sounds. Start by deciding how much you are protecting and for how long. Small amounts you actively trade can live in a hot wallet or on a regulated exchange; larger amounts you intend to hold belong in cold storage. That decision drives which wallet you set up.

To set up a hot wallet, download a reputable wallet app or extension, triple-checking that you are on the official site to avoid the fake wallet apps that scammers publish. The wallet will generate your seed phrase; write it down on paper, store it securely offline, and never save a digital copy. To set up a cold wallet, buy a hardware device directly from the manufacturer or an authorized seller, never secondhand, then follow its setup to generate and record the seed phrase on the device. Once the wallet exists, you fund it by sending crypto to its receiving address.

A concrete example shows the flow. Suppose you hold Ether on an exchange and want to move it into self-custody. In your wallet, you find your receiving address for Ether and copy it. On the exchange, you choose to withdraw Ether, paste in your wallet’s address as the destination, confirm the network is correct, and review the fee before sending. After the network confirms the transaction, the Ether now sits in your self-custody wallet, controlled by your keys, and it will stay there untouched until you decide to move it. That single transfer is the moment custody changes hands, from the exchange to you.

The mixed approach

In practice, most experienced users do not choose between an exchange and self-custody; they use both, with a deliberate split. The common model is to keep the bulk of holdings in cold self-custody, isolated from the internet and from platform risk, while keeping a smaller working balance on an exchange or in a hot wallet for active trading and quick access. A frequently cited starting ratio is roughly 70% in cold storage and 30% on a platform or hot wallet, adjusted to how actively you trade.

The logic is that different funds have different jobs. Money you may need to move or trade at short notice benefits from the speed and liquidity of an exchange, and keeping only a small operational balance there limits how much is exposed if the platform fails. Money you intend to hold for the long term has no reason to sit exposed to counterparty risk, so it belongs in cold storage where your keys, offline, protect it. Splitting deliberately captures the convenience of a platform for the funds that need it while keeping the majority safe.

This is also the arrangement that shows up at the level of large holders and institutions, who typically hold reserves in cold storage, sometimes behind multiple required approvals, and keep only operational liquidity on exchanges. The broader on-chain trend of crypto leaving exchanges and moving into private wallets, often read as a sign of accumulation, is the same behavior at scale: participants moving coins they intend to keep off platforms and into custody they control.

Newer options and the responsibility trade

The seed phrase problem has driven a wave of newer wallet designs aimed at keeping self-custody while removing its sharpest edge. Multi-party computation, or MPC, wallets split the signing key into several encrypted shares held in different places, so there is no single seed phrase to lose or steal, and no one share can move funds alone. Some seedless wallets use this approach with familiar phone-based security like biometrics, letting beginners hold their own keys without memorizing or safeguarding a 24-word phrase. These designs aim to make self-custody accessible to people who found the seed phrase too risky to manage.

Even so, self-custody remains a trade-off instead of a free upgrade, and that is why most people still leave crypto on exchanges despite the risks. Surveys of crypto users capture the gap clearly: a large majority say self-custody is important and many fear a major exchange breach, yet most still keep their assets on centralized platforms and only a minority use a cold wallet. The reasons are convenience and fear of self-inflicted loss. An exchange offers password resets, customer support, and the comfort of not being solely responsible, while self-custody offers control at the cost of accepting that a lost phrase or a single phishing mistake has no undo.

The honest framing is that self-custody removes counterparty risk and replaces it with personal responsibility. Neither approach is strictly correct for everyone. A beginner with a small balance may reasonably start on a reputable exchange while learning, and a long-term holder with meaningful sums has a strong case for cold self-custody. The goal is to match the method to the amount, the time horizon, and your own comfort with responsibility, and to make that choice deliberately rather than by default.

The main risks to manage

Self-custody shifts the risks instead of removing them, so it helps to name what you are now guarding against. The first is seed phrase loss: misplace the phrase and lose your device, and the funds are unrecoverable, so secure, redundant, offline backups matter.

The second is exposure: a seed phrase photographed, stored in the cloud, or typed into a website can be stolen, so it must stay offline and private. The third is phishing and scams, the most common way self-custody users actually lose funds, where attackers trick you into entering your seed phrase on a fake site, signing a malicious transaction, or downloading a counterfeit wallet app.

The fourth risk is physical, since a hardware device can be lost, damaged, or stolen, which is why the seed phrase backup, stored separately from the device, is what actually protects you rather than the device itself. Practical defenses follow directly from these risks: store the seed phrase offline in more than one secure location, never share it or enter it anywhere online, verify every website and app through official channels, and treat any unexpected request for your phrase or an urgent prompt to sign something as an attack until proven otherwise.

The reassuring part is that these risks are manageable with discipline, and none of them involve trusting a company that could fail. The custodial user worries about the platform’s security, which they cannot see or control. The self-custody user worries about their own practices, which they can. For many people, trading a risk they cannot control for one they can is the entire appeal, and the reason the phrase “not your keys, not your coins” has outlasted every platform that tested it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or security advice. Self-custody carries the risk of permanent loss if keys or seed phrases are lost or stolen. Nothing here is a recommendation to use any specific product or service. Always do your own research and consider consulting a qualified professional before making decisions about storing digital assets. Information is accurate as of July 1, 2026, and may change.

An Ethereum founder and some of its biggest treasury holders are behind a new independent nonprofit launched to coordinate the blockchain’s institutional outreach, underscoring the ecosystem’s push to attract more banks, asset managers and financial institutions as competition from rival blockchains intensifies.

The nonprofit, Ethereum Institutional, was introduced on Wednesday with backing from Ether (ETH) treasury companies BitMine Immersion Technologies and SharpLink, as well as blockchain co-founder Joe Lubin and other contributors. It plans to expand beyond New York, London, Hong Kong and Singapore into additional financial hubs while offering education, standards development, industry research and institutional events.

In a social media post announcing the launch, Ethereum Institutional said the ecosystem has lacked “a credible, independent front door” for engaging financial institutions, arguing that such a role is needed to accelerate institutional adoption.

Source: Ethereum Institutional on X.com

The launch comes as Ethereum continues to dominate the markets for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), even as rival blockchains step up efforts to attract institutional users. According to Token Terminal, Ethereum hosts nearly 58% of the tokenized RWA market. Data from DeFiLlama also shows the network accounts for roughly half of the $311 billion stablecoin market.

Although competition is intensifying, Ethereum remains the dominant blockchain for stablecoins. Source: DeFiLlama

To be sure, the development also comes as Ether prices remain under pressure, weighing on the balance sheets of companies with large ETH treasuries. BitMine and SharpLink are both sitting on sizable unrealized losses, with the cryptocurrency’s price recently falling to a low near $1,500. 

ETH was trading at more than $1,620 at last look on Wednesday, with a market cap of $195.4 billion, Coingecko data showed. It was trading above $4,000 as recently as Oct. 27.

Nevertheless, institutional adoption remains one of the crypto industry’s strongest trends. According to 21shares, current asset prices have yet to reflect growing demand from portfolio managers, asset managers and financial institutions.

Related: Credit unions managing $25B in assets join stablecoin infrastructure program

Ethereum Foundation overhaul reshapes institutional strategy

The institutional push comes as the Ethereum Foundation undergoes a broad organizational overhaul. The nonprofit, which supports Ethereum’s core protocol development and ecosystem growth, has spent the past year navigating leadership changes, internal debates over governance and development priorities, growing competition from rival blockchains and criticism over Ether’s market performance.

Last month, co-executive director Hsiao-Wei Wang stepped down, one of roughly 19 reported departures from the foundation this year. The leadership shake-up was followed by a restructuring that included laying off 20% of the foundation’s workforce.

Amid the restructuring, the ecosystem has also seen the emergence of new independent organizations aimed at advancing Ethereum’s long-term development. In June, the same backers behind Ethereum Institutional launched Ethlabs, a nonprofit research organization focused on advancing Ethereum’s scalability.

Related: Buterin fires back at Ethereum Foundation critics, recommits to neutrality

StanChart sees positives in news

Standard Chartered’s Geoff Kendrick said that today’s announcement, paired with the earlier launch of Ethlabs, has “direct positive implications for both Ethereum layer 1, layer 2s and the Ethereum originated DeFi protocols.”

“Very importantly the anchor funders for both organizations are the three commercial giants in the Ethereum ecosystem,” he said in a Wednesday note to clients. “Their expertise will drive commercialisation of the Ethereum ecosystem at the time TradFi is entering at scale.”

Kendrick recently reaffirmed his ETH price forecasts of $4,000 at the end of 2026 and $40,000 at the end of 2030.

A Democratic candidate in Colorado’s 8th congressional district, Manny Rutinel, has won his party’s primary and will face the general election in November after receiving support from crypto-aligned political groups. Rutinel reported early Wednesday that he captured the nomination with 61.7% of the vote against Shannon Bird’s 33.6%.

Before the primary, the You Can Push Back Super PAC—backed by $3.5 million from Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen—reportedly spent $1 million on media to help Rutinel’s campaign, according to The Guardian. Rutinel also holds a “strongly supports crypto” rating from the Coinbase-affiliated Stand With Crypto organization, which said its score is based on his answers regarding stablecoins, market structure and regulatory clarity. Coinbase is meanwhile listed as a major contributor to Fairshake PAC, another crypto-backed political committee supporting candidates described as “pro-crypto” in the 2026 cycle.

Key takeaways

• Manny Rutinel won the Colorado 8th district Democratic primary with 61.7% of the vote, setting up a November general election.
• Crypto-aligned political spending is part of the campaign backdrop, including reported Super PAC media buys linked to Chris Larsen.
• Rutinel has received a high rating from Stand With Crypto, an advocacy group tied to Coinbase.
• Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen reported the crypto industry has spent about $189 million so far to influence the 2026 elections, mostly through PACs.
• A new poll indicates many Americans across party lines worry crypto donors have too much influence over lawmakers and crypto rules.

Crypto-aligned backing meets campaign momentum in Colorado

Rutinel’s primary win consolidates a political lane that increasingly intersects with cryptocurrency policy. In the materials surrounding his candidacy, Stand With Crypto—affiliated with Coinbase—has emphasized Rutinel’s stated positions on topics central to current crypto regulation debates, including stablecoins and the clarity of market and regulatory frameworks.

Stand With Crypto’s rating, along with the broader Fairshake ecosystem, signals how major industry players and aligned PACs are attempting to translate policy positions into electoral outcomes. Rutinel’s campaign is therefore occurring not in isolation, but within a larger pattern of crypto-focused political advocacy aiming to shape how lawmakers approach enforcement, market rules and regulatory standards.

Cointelegraph reached out to a spokesperson for You Can Push Back for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

Spending race around the 2026 elections draws scrutiny

The Colorado race is unfolding amid continued political spending tied to crypto. On Tuesday, Public Citizen said the cryptocurrency industry had spent about $189 million so far to influence the 2026 US elections, largely through PACs, according to an earlier Cointelegraph report.

Public Citizen’s framing suggests the industry is repeating a strategy used in the 2024 cycle: deploy political spending through aligned committees to support candidates seen as favorable to crypto policy goals. For investors and builders in the sector, this matters because electoral outcomes can affect how aggressively regulators pursue enforcement, how quickly legislation moves, and whether policy proposals emphasize consumer protection, market structure, or both.

Voters question the industry’s access to lawmakers

While crypto-aligned groups are backing candidates, public concern about influence in Washington is also rising. A new poll commissioned by Americans for Financial Reform, released on Wednesday, found that a majority of Americans are concerned about the influence the crypto industry has on US lawmakers, according to the group’s press release.

The poll’s release followed disclosures tied to President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency investments. Cointelegraph previously reported that filings showed Trump profited by more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments, according to Cointelegraph coverage.

Americans for Financial Reform associate director of crypto and fintech Mark Hays said voters have “serious crypto corruption” concerns, pointing to reported profits for high-ranking officials alongside losses and scams experienced by everyday people. Hays argued that voters want crypto companies to follow the same kinds of rules as other financial businesses rather than receiving special privileges.

When asked about potential conflicts of interest, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said on Tuesday that neither Trump nor his family “has ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest.”

What to watch as crypto politics heads toward November

Rutinel’s nomination win highlights how crypto policy advocacy is increasingly tied to electoral results—both through candidate endorsements and through political committee activity. With Public Citizen describing large, PAC-driven spending and a fresh poll showing broad voter unease about industry influence, the key uncertainty going into November is whether lawmakers respond to pressure through tougher regulation, clearer market rules, or a reassessment of how the political process interacts with financial oversight.