Crypto World
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Fed, dies at age 100
Alan Greenspan, the longtime Federal Reserve chairman known as “the Maestro” who became one of the most influential economic policymakers of his era and famously warned of “irrational exuberance,” has died. He was 100.
The influential economist died Monday from complications of Parkinson’s Disease, said his wife of 29 years, Andrea Mitchell, the chief Washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News.
Greenspan was appointed Fed chairman in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and held the position — through busts and booms — until retiring in 2006. His tenure was the second longest, four months short of that of William McChesney Martin, who presided over the central bank from 1951 to 1970.
It was his unusual frankness in one televised speech, on Dec. 5, 1996, that set off a bit of market madness. Discussing the challenges of setting monetary policy, he said:
“How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? … We should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of asset markets and the economy.”
The phrase “irrational exuberance” was interpreted as a signal that Greenspan thought the market was overvalued. The Tokyo stock market, which was open at the time, sank 3% on the comment, and other markets subsequently tumbled. However, the markets quickly recovered and continued to climb until the dot-com bust in 2001.
Years earlier, in 1974, when he was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Greenspan had to explain on Capitol Hill why the administration wasn’t whipping inflation now, as the Ford administration dubbed its war on rising prices. In a sure-to-befuddle Greenspanism, he said: “It is a tricky problem to find the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely aborting the decline in the inflation-generated risk premiums.”
“Some folks, especially money managers who shovel vast amounts of cash from one pile to another, think about Greenspan a lot,” Linton Weeks and John M. Berry wrote in The Washington Post in March 1997. “They watch his every word, mark his every move, graph his every grin. Because second to the president, Alan Greenspan is arguably the nation’s most powerful person. … With a couple of choice words he can momentarily send the stock market to heaven or hell.”
In an apparent bid to avoid rocking the markets or not showing the Fed’s hand until it was time, Greenspan would cloak his utterances in language that left the sharpest minds — including those of contentious members of Congress — scratching their heads.
“His long, convoluted sentences seem to take away at the end what they have given at the beginning as they flow to new levels of incomprehensibility,” The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward said in his 2000 biography “Maestro: Greenspan’s Fed and the American Boom.”
After his retirement from the Fed, Greenspan confessed his strategy for using perplexing language with a clear explanation.
“It’s a language of purposeful obfuscation to avoid certain questions coming up, which you know you can’t answer, and saying ‘I will not answer’ or basically ‘no comment’ is, in fact, an answer,” he said in a 2007 interview on CNBC. “So, you end up with when, say, a congressman asks you a question, and [you] don’t want to say, ‘no comment,’ or ‘I won’t answer,’ or something like that. So, I proceed with four or five sentences which get increasingly obscure. The congressman thinks I answered the question and goes on to the next one.”
Some folks, especially money managers who shovel vast amounts of cash from one pile to another, think about Greenspan a lot. They watch his every word, mark his every move, graph his every grin. Because second to the president, Alan Greenspan is arguably the nation’s most powerful person. … With a couple of choice words he can momentarily send the stock market to heaven or hell.”
Linton Weeks and John M. Berry
The Washington Post, March 1997.
Greenspan was born to Jewish parents on March 6, 1926, in New York’s Washington Heights. His father was a stockbroker and financial analyst. As a boy growing up in the 1930s during the Great Depression, the future Fed chairman received an allowance of a quarter a week.
“Twenty-five cents, I will tell you, bought a lot more then than it does these days,” Greenspan told an audience in 2003.
Greenspan played the clarinet and saxophone and briefly attended the Juilliard School. He played in Woody Herman’s jazz band (as did another future White House official, Leonard Garment), before he enrolled in New York University, earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees in economics by 1950. He eventually received his Ph.D. in 1977 — at age 51.
Among his teachers and mentors were the future Fed Chairman Arthur Burns and the free-market proponent Ayn Rand, to whom Greenspan was introduced by his first wife, the artist Joan Mitchell.
Alan Greenspan
Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images
By the time he received his doctorate, he had worked at Brown Brothers Harriman, the National Industrial Conference Board and the Townsend-Greenspan consulting firm, which closed after he was nominated as Fed chairman. His three-decade stint at Townsend-Greenspan was interrupted when he served as chairman of President Gerald Ford’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1974 to 1977. From 1981 to 1983, he was chairman of the National Commission on Social Security Reform.
His first job as an economist didn’t pay much more than his childhood allowance: He got $45 a week.
The first of his five terms at the Fed began just before the 1987 financial crisis. The Senate confirmed his nomination to succeed Paul Volcker on Aug. 11.
That was only 69 days before “Black Monday” crushed Wall Street on Oct. 19. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank 508 points — 22.6% — in the session, the biggest one-day sell-off in history. The next day, Greenspan affirmed the Fed’s readiness “to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system.” His central bank lowered short-term interest rates to encourage banks to lend on their usual terms.
The strategy helped calm the jitters and avoid a recession and banking crisis. Within two days, the Dow regained more than 50% of its Black Monday losses. The bravado also helped earn Greenspan the sobriquet “Maestro” from supporters. Years later, critics blamed the easy money policy — the “Greenspan put” he used to help calm market panics — for conditions that brought on the Great Recession.
“It’s HIS economy, stupid,” Fortune magazine declared in March 1996, throwing back at President Bill Clinton the campaign slogan he used in defeating President George H.W. Bush four years earlier. “In Greenspan We Trust,” the article’s headline said.
After that white-knuckle start, he led the Fed through two recessions, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the 1998 Russian financial default, the 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the dot-com boom and bust of the late ’90s through 2001.
Throughout, he focused on fighting inflation over promoting full employment. His supporters say he presided over the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, but critics said Greenspan’s low interest rate policies set the stage for the housing bubble that burst into the Great Recession a year after his successor, Ben Bernanke, took the Fed helm.
“Sometimes I get criticized, and I deserve to be criticized, and that’s part of the game,” Greenspan told USA Today in 2007. “But this one, I’m innocent.”
Greenspan acknowledged that he knew about the questionable lending practices that encouraged subprime borrowers to opt for risky adjustable-rate mortgages.
“While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late,” he said in a 2007 interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “I really didn’t get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.”
And in his best-selling memoir “The Age of Turbulence,” he defended the low-rate policy, which encouraged people to buy homes: “I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened homeownership are worth the risk. Protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support.”
Greenspan wrote the book in longhand, mostly while soaking in a bathtub because of a back injury. In fact, most of his speeches were penned that way after he injured his back in 1971.
After he left the Fed, Greenspan opened his own consulting firm, Greenspan Associates.
Greenspan’s first marriage ended in divorce after less than a year. In 1997, he married NBC journalist Andrea Mitchell, also a Washington denizen and fellow classical music aficionado 20 years his junior, in a ceremony officiated by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In his 2007 memoir, he praised presidents Ford and Clinton, but harshly criticized President George W. Bush for not reining in spending.
President George W. Bush (L) with Alan Greenspan (R) after Ben Bernanke was sworn in as Federal Reserve chairman, Washington, Feb. 6, 2006.
Jim Watson | AFP | Getty Images
“Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences,” the self-described libertarian Republican wrote. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose.”
He also was critical of President Donald Trump’s first-term bashing of the Fed in an effort to get interest rates lower. Appearing on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” shortly after a December 2019 Trump tweet aimed at the central bank, Greenspan said: “He’s wrong in even discussing the issue. The Federal Reserve is a very professional outfit. They know more about the economy’s functioning, how it affects the money markets and the interest rate structure, far more than he does. … The best thing to do is to just disregard it. I didn’t hear this morning that the president made a statement. I’m sure it was ill-advised.”
During Trump’s second term, in January 2026, Greenspan signed a joint statement with a handful of other former Fed and Treasury officials to denounce a criminal probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
“The reported criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell is an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence,” read the statement, backed by Greenspan and more than a dozen other signatories.
Greenspan recognized the limits of the Fed’s influence. Asked during a 2008 interview on CNBC whether the central bank should be given more power to regulate investment banks, he responded:
“What I am concerned about is basically the Fed being given the role to oversee the financial stability system. I don’t think anyone can do that, and I’m most worried that were the Fed to take that job on and fail, as everyone else has and will, you cannot anticipate the future. I think it undermines the credibility of the central banking system.”
Ultimately, he realized that despite all the science involved in economics, financial risk management can’t win in meltdown situations like the Great Recession.
“Fear and euphoria are dominant forces, and fear is many multiples the size of euphoria,” he told The Associated Press after publication of his book “The Map and the Territory 2.0” in 2013. “Bubbles go up very slowly as euphoria builds. Then fear hits, and it comes down very sharply. When I started to look at that, I was sort of intellectually shocked. Contagion is the critical phenomenon which causes the thing to fall apart.”
Correction: Bob Woodward’s book on Alan Greenspan published in 2000. An earlier version misstated the year. Hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management was bailed out in 1998. An earlier version misstated the name of the firm.
Key takeaways
- Luxembourg’s financial regulator has granted Ripple preliminary approval for a Crypto Asset Service Provider (CASP) license under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).
- XRP is down by nearly 4% in the last 24 hours and now trades at $1.10 per coin.
Luxembourg regulator grants Ripple CASP green light
Luxembourg’s financial regulator has granted Ripple preliminary approval for a Crypto Asset Service Provider (CASP) license under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), the company confirmed on Tuesday.
Once fully approved, the license will enable Ripple to provide regulated crypto services to banks, fintech firms, and other businesses across all 30 countries in the European Economic Area (EEA) through a single regulatory passport system.
The CASP approval expands Ripple’s existing regulatory footprint in Europe. The company already holds an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license in Luxembourg, which allows it to offer cross-border payment and electronic money services throughout the EEA.
Together, the EMI and upcoming CASP authorization are expected to support a unified infrastructure for crypto asset and stablecoin-based payments across Europe.
The timing of the development is notable, coming just ahead of the July 1 transition deadline, when EU member states begin fully enforcing MiCA regulations.
According to Ripple, the combined regulatory approvals will enable the company to deliver a “full crypto asset and stablecoin payments infrastructure” through a single integration.
The firm also said the approval positions it to expand its broader crypto services across Europe, which it described as one of its most important growth regions.
Cassie Craddock, Managing Director for the UK and Europe at Ripple, said MiCA is already accelerating institutional adoption of digital assets across the region.
Ripple now holds more than 75 regulatory licenses worldwide, reinforcing its push toward regulated global expansion.
In addition to its EU progress, the company also secured a UK license from the Financial Conduct Authority in January 2026, further strengthening its position in key financial markets.
XRP could dip below $1.0 as the market sentiment remains bearish
The XRP/USD 4-hour chart remains bearish and efficient as Ripple has lost 4% of its value in the last 24 hours.
At press time, XRP is trading at $1.10 and could drop lower in the near term. The momentum indicators show that the bulls are in control of the market.
The MACD lines are below the neutral zone, while the RSI of 32 shows that XRP is heading into the oversold territory.
If the bearish trend persists, XRP could retest the June low of $1.05, with lower demand zones at the $0.98 level.
However, if the bulls regain control, XRP could rally towards the Monday high of $1.16. A daily candle close above this level could see XRP target the $1.23 resistance zone.
Anthropic pre-IPO futures have fallen as much as 9% since their Coinbase debut, with contracts on both Coinbase and Binance sliding to new lows despite fresh attention from traders.
Summary
- Anthropic pre-IPO futures fell up to 9% after their Coinbase debut, with contracts on Coinbase and Binance hitting fresh lows.
- Traders appear cautious after SpaceX pre-IPO contracts traded above the eventual IPO price, exposing some investors to losses.
- Coinbase has warned that Anthropic’s final IPO price could differ by as much as 25% from current perpetual futures levels.
As reported by crypto.news, Coinbase added Anthropic and OpenAI pre-IPO perpetual futures contracts to its growing lineup of private-market trading products on June 22. Rather than benefiting from the exchange’s listing effect that has historically boosted some newly listed assets, Anthropic futures moved sharply lower within a day of launch.
Per data from TradingView, the ANTHROPIC/USDC contract on Coinbase opened around $1,728 and was trading near $1,648 at the time of writing, representing a decline of roughly 7%. During the same period, the contract swung between a June 22 high of $1,769 and a June 23 low of $1,560, highlighting elevated volatility immediately after launch.
Similar price action emerged on competing venues. Binance’s ANTHROPIC/USDT perpetual contract dropped about 5% between June 22 and June 23 to roughly $1,630. As per data from TradingView, the Binance contract had traded near $1,700 before Coinbase introduced its Anthropic futures product, implying a decline of approximately 9% since the listing took place. The contract also touched an all-time low of $1,545 on June 23.
The weakness comes despite Anthropic announcing a partnership with Micron Technology, a company valued at roughly $1.37 trillion, suggesting that traders have remained focused on pricing risks surrounding the eventual IPO rather than recent business developments.
SpaceX experience weighs on pre-IPO sentiment
Recent trading activity has drawn comparisons with the path taken by SpaceX-related contracts before the aerospace company’s public debut.
According to crypto.news, some investors appear to be reassessing the risks attached to pre-IPO perpetual products after SpaceX contracts traded well above the eventual IPO price. SpaceX pre-IPO perpetuals changed hands around $155 before the company’s Nasdaq debut, about 15% higher than its $135 IPO price, leaving some traders exposed to losses once public trading began.
Subsequent developments in the stock market have added to those concerns. As previously reported by crypto.news, SpaceX shares fell more than 10% after analysts at KeyBanc initiated coverage with a “Sector Weight” rating while declining to issue a price target. The brokerage said SpaceX remained well positioned within the launch industry but argued that much of the company’s future growth may already be reflected in its valuation.
Following that decline, Cathie Wood’s Ark Invest purchased nearly $32.5 million worth of SpaceX shares across four exchange-traded funds after the stock retreated more than 16% from recent highs.
IPO pricing uncertainty remains unresolved
Another factor keeping traders cautious is the lack of information surrounding Anthropic’s eventual IPO terms.
Notably, Anthropic has not yet disclosed the number of shares it plans to sell through its IPO filing, making it difficult for exchanges to anchor perpetual futures pricing to a future public-market valuation. As a result, the eventual IPO price could settle either above or below current futures levels once additional details become available.
Coinbase has already highlighted this risk to market participants. The exchange warned that the final IPO price could end up 25% higher or 25% lower than where the perpetual contracts trade before listing.
Elsewhere in the private-market sector, interest in pre-IPO opportunities continues to grow. Last week, crypto.news reported that Kalshi had surpassed a $2 billion annualized revenue run rate and had begun early discussions with investment banks about a potential public offering, weeks after raising $1 billion in funding at a $22 billion valuation.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
As crypto adoption grows, traders are placing greater emphasis on secure, compliant, and efficient crypto-to-fiat conversion platforms.
Summary
- Crypto off-ramping remains complex in 2026, with traders prioritizing compliance, liquidity, and withdrawal speed.
- Stablecoins play a key role in crypto-to-fiat conversions, helping traders reduce volatility and improve execution.
- Choosing a crypto off-ramp requires evaluating fees, banking access, compliance processes, and regional liquidity.
The gap between decentralized finance and everyday spending is narrowing fast. In 2026, moving value from a crypto wallet to a bank account is no longer a niche operation — it is a routine part of portfolio management for millions of retail traders and institutional desks alike. Yet despite the maturity of the market, the off-ramp experience remains inconsistent, fragmented, and in some regions, genuinely risky.
Choosing the right platform for crypto-to-fiat conversion is not simply a matter of finding the best rate. It involves assessing counterparty reliability, regulatory compliance, withdrawal speeds, and hidden spread structures that can quietly erode returns. This guide breaks down what informed traders should look for — and how regional aggregators are becoming indispensable tools in that process.
Why off-ramp infrastructure still lags behind on-ramp
The asymmetry is well-documented: buying crypto has never been easier. Most major exchanges, neobanks, and payment apps now support instant crypto purchases with a card. Off-ramping — converting digital assets back to fiat — remains comparatively cumbersome.
Several factors contribute to this:
- AML/KYC friction: Outbound fiat transfers trigger more compliance scrutiny than inbound purchases. Verification queues, document requests, and manual reviews are standard even on well-established platforms.
- Banking relationships: Exchanges depend on correspondent banks to settle fiat withdrawals. These relationships are fragile, and disruptions cascade directly to users in the form of delayed or failed withdrawals.
- Spread opacity: Unlike on-chain transactions where fees are transparent, exchanger margins are often embedded in the quoted rate rather than disclosed as a separate line item.
- Regional fragmentation: Global platforms optimize for high-volume corridors. Traders in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, or Latin America often find that local liquidity pools are thin, spreads are wider, and stablecoin support is inconsistent.
Understanding this landscape is the prerequisite for building a reliable off-ramp strategy.
The role of stablecoins in modern off-ramp flows
Before reaching the fiat layer, most sophisticated traders route through stablecoins as an intermediate step. USDT (Tether) and USDC remain the dominant bridges, with a combined daily settlement volume that consistently exceeds that of many mid-tier national currencies.
The logic is straightforward. Moving volatile assets like BTC or ETH directly to fiat exposes the trader to price slippage during the conversion window. Settling into a dollar-pegged stablecoin first locks in the value, allowing the trader to execute the fiat leg at a controlled moment — often during peak liquidity hours when spreads compress.
This two-step model has also influenced how aggregator platforms present data. Real-time stablecoin exchange rates against local currencies — UAH, PLN, HUF, RON — have become a core metric for traders operating in the region, often more actionable than general crypto price feeds.
P2P trading: Flexibility at the cost of verification
Peer-to-peer platforms remain popular in markets where banking integration is limited or where users prefer to avoid centralized custody. The appeal is clear: direct counterparty transactions, flexible payment methods, and often tighter spreads than institutional desks offer.
The risks, however, are non-trivial. P2P trading exposes participants to:
- Scam patterns: Fake payment confirmations, chargeback fraud on reversible payment rails, and impersonation of verified traders.
- Liquidity gaps: During high-volatility periods, active P2P order books thin out quickly. Large positions may require splitting across multiple counterparties.
- No recourse: Disputes on decentralized P2P platforms are resolved through reputation systems and escrow mechanisms — neither of which provides the certainty of regulated exchange frameworks.
For traders moving meaningful volume, P2P is best treated as a supplementary channel rather than a primary off-ramp route.
How to evaluate an exchanger: A practical framework
Whether using a centralized exchange, a dedicated crypto conversion service, or a regional aggregator, the evaluation criteria remain consistent:
1. Reserve transparency. Reputable exchangers publish active reserve sizes, allowing users to assess whether the platform can fulfill large conversion requests without significant slippage. Platforms that obscure reserve data should be treated with caution.
2. Spread structure. Calculate the effective rate against the mid-market price, not the displayed headline rate. A platform advertising “zero fees” while embedding a 2.5% margin in the spread is not cheaper than a platform charging a visible 0.5% fee on a tighter rate.
3. Withdrawal speed and reliability. Check user reviews specifically for withdrawal experiences, not just deposit flows. Platforms that process deposits instantly but delay withdrawals are a well-known pattern in the exchanger space.
4. Regulatory standing. Operating licenses, registered legal entities, and published compliance policies are baseline requirements for any platform handling meaningful fiat flows. In the EU and EEA space, VASP registration under AMLD5/6 frameworks is now standard for compliant operators.
5. User review consistency. Aggregate review data across multiple sources. A high rating on a single platform with limited reviews carries less weight than a consistent pattern across independent communities.
Regional aggregators as due diligence infrastructure
As global regulatory scrutiny intensifies, crypto traders are increasingly prioritizing security and transparency when moving funds between digital wallets and traditional bank accounts. Finding reputable online currency exchangers has become critical for managing daily liquidity without exposing capital to smart contract or counterparty risks. In this evolving landscape, the Minfin.com.ua platform serves as a trusted regional guide, offering real-time monitoring and verified user reviews to ensure safe, compliant fiat-to-crypto transactions.
The value proposition of aggregator-style platforms extends beyond simple rate comparison. By consolidating live spread data, reserve indicators, and historical reliability scores in a single interface, they reduce the due diligence burden that would otherwise require a trader to cross-reference five or six separate sources before executing a conversion.
Regional market dynamics often dictate the efficiency of fiat gateways, making localized financial analytics incredibly valuable for international investors tracking global adoption. For those navigating the Eastern European fintech sector, Minfin.com.ua provides comprehensive data infrastructure that bridges the gap between legacy banking and decentralized finance. By using Minfin.com.ua, users can seamlessly compare active reserve sizes, track live spreads, and execute digital asset swaps with verified institutional-grade confidence.
For traders who prefer to verify data independently before committing to a platform, direct access to live monitoring tools is the most efficient starting point. A regularly updated overview of active exchangers, current spreads, and reserve statuses is available at on the official website, a practical first stop before executing any significant conversion in the region.
Building a resilient off-ramp stack
No single platform should be the sole off-ramp route for any serious participant. A resilient strategy typically involves layering multiple channels:
- A primary regulated exchange for large, planned withdrawals where KYC is already completed.
- A secondary regional exchanger for faster, smaller conversions in local currency.
- An aggregator tool for continuous rate monitoring and platform health checks.
Maintaining verified accounts on at least two platforms prevents a single point of failure — whether that failure is technical downtime, a banking disruption, or a temporary compliance hold.
The outlook for 2026 and beyond
Regulatory clarity in the EU under MiCA, combined with growing institutional demand for compliant fiat corridors, is pushing the off-ramp space toward standardization. Spreads on major corridors are compressing. Withdrawal speeds are improving as more exchanges establish direct banking partnerships rather than relying on intermediary processors.
For retail traders, the practical implication is that platform selection matters more than ever — not because good options are scarce, but because the gap in reliability between the best and worst providers continues to widen. The traders who build systematic evaluation habits now will be better positioned as volumes grow and the stakes of getting it wrong increase proportionally.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
- Micron shares experienced a significant downturn during a worldwide semiconductor market selloff affecting memory chip manufacturers.
- Major South Korean chipmakers SK Hynix and Samsung plummeted over 12%, creating negative momentum throughout the industry.
- Market participants are raising doubts about the sustainability of current artificial intelligence infrastructure investment levels.
- Rising interest rate expectations and potential memory chip pricing headwinds contributed to the market retreat.
- Even with recent losses, Micron shares have gained over 200% during 2026.
Shares of Micron (MU) experienced a substantial decline as a widespread semiconductor market downturn rippled across international exchanges, hammering memory chip industry leaders.
The downturn came after dramatic losses among South Korean semiconductor giants SK Hynix and Samsung, with both companies experiencing drops exceeding 12% in their respective trading sessions.
This weakness rapidly cascaded into U.S. chip equities, where Micron emerged as one of the hardest-hit names.
Questions About AI Investment Pace Drive Sector Weakness
Market participants have grown increasingly skeptical about whether major technology corporations can sustain their current rate of capital deployment in artificial intelligence infrastructure projects.
Companies specializing in memory chip production have emerged as primary winners from the AI revolution, with demand for high-bandwidth memory solutions and data center equipment reaching unprecedented levels.
Nevertheless, certain market observers suggest investors are starting to contemplate whether profit expectations have become excessively optimistic.
Should AI-related capital expenditure decelerate, it could substantially alter demand projections throughout the chip manufacturing ecosystem.
Pricing Dynamics Create Additional Headwinds
The market downturn also stemmed from apprehension surrounding memory chip pricing trajectories.
Fresh industry analysis indicated that memory production capacity could expand dramatically through 2027, creating potential scenarios for pricing compression.
Market participants have demonstrated heightened sensitivity toward indications that today’s advantageous supply-demand dynamics might not persist indefinitely.
Although these apprehensions center on upcoming years rather than immediate financial performance, they amplified the cautious sentiment enveloping memory chip equities.
Rate Environment Concerns Resurface
Technology sector equities encountered additional headwinds from revived anxiety about inflation trends and monetary policy trajectories.
Certain investors harbor concerns that the Federal Reserve might maintain elevated rates for an extended period or potentially implement additional rate increases should inflationary pressures persist.
Elevated interest rates typically create challenges for growth-oriented equities as they diminish the discounted value of projected future profits.
The convergence of AI demand uncertainties and broader economic volatility established a challenging environment for chip sector stocks.
Fundamental Investment Thesis Unchanged
Notwithstanding the significant pullback, Micron maintains its position among 2026’s top-performing large-capitalization semiconductor equities.
The corporation continues experiencing robust demand for AI-focused memory solutions and data center infrastructure components.
Numerous market analysts maintain their view of Micron as a primary beneficiary of sustained AI investment momentum, though the stock’s substantial appreciation has elevated performance expectations.
Presently, market participants seem to be capturing gains following an extraordinary advance throughout the memory chip industry.
Key takeaways
- DOGE is down by nearly 6% and is now trading below $0.08.
- The bearish performance comes as retail traders reduce their exposure to the market.
DOGE extends losses after failed breakout
Dogecoin (DOGE) continued to face downward pressure on Tuesday, trading below $0.08 after failing to break above a key resistance zone.
The meme coin has now dropped more than 10% over the past week, reflecting weakening momentum across both spot and derivatives markets.
Market data suggests that institutional participation in Dogecoin remains weak. According to SoSoValue data, spot Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) linked to DOGE have shown little activity since early June, signaling a decline in demand from larger investors.
A continuation of negative or absent ETF flows could further weigh on price action, increasing the risk of additional downside volatility.
Sentiment around Dogecoin has also weakened on social platforms. Santiment’s Social Dominance metric, which tracks the share of cryptocurrency discussions focused on DOGE, fell to 0.095% on Tuesday. This level is close to early June lows and reflects a sharp decline in market attention.
The drop suggests fading enthusiasm among retail traders, often a key driver of momentum for meme-based cryptocurrencies.
Futures and options data further reinforce the cautious outlook. CoinGlass reports that Dogecoin’s long-to-short ratio fell to 0.80 on Tuesday, near its lowest level in over a month.
A ratio below 1 indicates that more traders are positioning for price declines than gains, highlighting growing bearish sentiment in the derivatives market.
DOGE price outlook: Key levels in focus
Dogecoin was trading around $0.07948 at the time of writing, maintaining a bearish short-term structure.
The price remains below the 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs), which are clustered between $0.093 and $0.114, reinforcing downside pressure.
Momentum indicators present a mixed picture. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) sits at the oversold territory near 29, suggesting selling pressure is stretched.
However, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) shows only mild stabilization, not a confirmed reversal.
On the upside, immediate resistance is seen near $0.0885, followed by the 50-day EMA at $0.0926 and the 100-day EMA at $0.0982.
A stronger recovery would require a break above the descending trendline near $0.1000, with further resistance at $0.1027 and the 200-day EMA around $0.1138.
On the downside, the critical support level remains the recent yearly low at $0.0776. A decisive break below this level could open the door for a move toward $0.0700, where buyers may attempt to re-enter the market.
Fuze and Halborn partner on security-first digital asset infrastructure
Fuze, a UAE-headquartered provider of regulated digital-asset infrastructure, has entered a strategic partnership with Halborn, a blockchain security firm. The companies say the collaboration is designed to help banks and fintechs launch digital asset services with stronger security controls and clearer compliance expectations.
The announcement comes ahead of a co-hosted event at the Point Zero Forum in Zurich, positioning the deal around a practical theme for institutional markets: moving from pilots to production requires more than tokenization and trading workflows, it depends on security, governance, and operational risk management.
Why security and compliance remain central for institutions
Digital asset adoption by traditional financial institutions has increasingly been shaped by what happens after launch, including custody arrangements, smart contract and protocol risk, and the broader threat environment around exchanges, wallets, and infrastructure layers. The press materials from Fuze and Halborn highlight that institutional entrants often inherit existing security gaps and a persistent threat landscape.
Specifically, the release cites figures referenced by Chainalysis that describe losses from hacks and exploits in 2025. While the exact framing is presented as context rather than a new analysis, the implication is consistent across the sector, institutions are being pushed to treat security as a foundational requirement rather than an add-on.
What the partnership combines
According to the companies, the collaboration pairs Fuze’s regulated infrastructure approach with Halborn’s security expertise. The stated goal is to create a framework that institutions can use to build security-first digital asset infrastructure.
In broad terms, Fuze positions itself as an infrastructure layer that helps financial services providers integrate regulated digital asset products and launch services through structured go-to-market capabilities. Halborn, meanwhile, focuses on security services for enterprise-grade digital assets, including assessments and risk management aimed at protecting assets and operational systems.
The partnership scope described in the announcement includes cooperation on regulatory and industry policy, sharing security best practices, and supporting commercial implementation. The companies also mention co-authoring content and co-hosting events, suggesting the alliance is intended to function both as a delivery partnership and a knowledge-sharing effort.
Market timing as institutions shift toward execution
The backdrop for the announcement is the sector’s ongoing transition from experimentation to deployment. The release references a 2026 Institutional Investor Survey by Coinbase and EY-Parthenon, which it says found a majority of institutional investors plan to increase their digital asset allocations in 2026. It also claims that security considerations and regulatory compliance rank as top priorities among those surveyed.
Even without endorsing every metric included in the release, the direction aligns with what many bank and fintech leaders have been signaling: capital allocation decisions often hinge on risk controls, reporting and governance, and the ability to operate in line with applicable regulation. For service providers, this shifts competitive emphasis away from product availability alone and toward implementation confidence.
UAE ties and regulatory framing
Because Fuze is based in the UAE, the release includes jurisdictional context and regulatory disclosures. It notes that Fuze and related entities hold licenses and approvals in the region, including a broker-dealer license under the UAE’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), and that approval has been received for participation in a regulatory sandbox in Jordan.
For readers, the key takeaway is that institutional adoption is increasingly tied to regulated operating status. Partnerships like the one announced by Fuze and Halborn are likely to be evaluated not only on technical capability, but also on how security practices map to regulatory expectations in each target market.
Implications for banks and fintechs
If the partnership delivers on its stated aim, it could reduce some of the friction institutions face when launching digital asset services, particularly the challenge of coordinating infrastructure deployment with security and governance controls.
For banks and fintechs, the operational questions are typically concrete: Who performs security assessments, what standards are applied, how are risks tracked through the product lifecycle, and how are governance and incident response handled. By combining an infrastructure provider’s execution layer with a security specialist’s capabilities, the partnership is positioned to address the “security-first” requirement that has become a recurring theme in institutional discussions.
Still, institutions will ultimately need to evaluate suitability based on their own regulatory obligations, risk appetite, and vendor due diligence. The announcement outlines an intended framework, but it does not provide product specs, implementation timelines, or jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction commitments.
What to watch next
The near-term signal from the partnership will likely be the security-first framework it says it will present, along with practical guidance for banks and fintechs planning digital asset rollouts. In a market where institutional adoption depends on trust and resilience, the relevance of the announcement will be measured less by marketing claims and more by what institutions receive to operationalize security and compliance in real deployments.
Ripple (XRP) has shed almost 10% over the past week, invalidating several recovery attempts. The cryptocurrency is currently hovering near $1.11 after a 2% decline on Tuesday.
However, according to a recent market observation by crypto analyst EGRAG CRYPTO, XRP could climb to $5.70-$8 if it follows historical patterns tied to a crucial technical level.
XRP’s Next Expansion
EGRAG CRYPTO said XRP’s “Central Line” has historically separated accumulation periods from phases of strong price expansion. Previous market cycles saw the token deliver significant gains after it moved above this level, prompting the analyst to identify two potential upside targets for the current cycle.
The analyst’s chart shows that XRP is currently trading below the Central Line, which sits above the asset’s current market price and could move into the roughly $2.20-$2.60 region over time. The projected targets are derived from historical percentage gains above this level rather than from XRP’s current trading price.
EGRAG CRYPTO revealed that one cycle saw XRP rise roughly 330% above the Central Line, while another recorded gains of around 200%. Averaging those moves resulted in a projected expansion of approximately 265% above the Central Line, which the analyst said places the asset near the $8 mark.
The analyst also identified a more conservative scenario in which XRP achieves only part of the gains seen in previous cycles. If the market delivers roughly 60% of the prior cycle’s strength, the move would equate to an increase of about 120% above the Central Line, resulting in a target near $5.70.
Based on these calculations, EGRAG CRYPTO identified $5.70 as the conservative target and $8 as the average-cycle objective. The projections are based on historical price expansions above the Central Line rather than market sentiment.
The analyst added that XRP remains below the Central Line and is still trading in an “uncomfortable zone.”
Meanwhile, separate data from CryptoQuant indicates that selling pressure on XRP may be easing as large holders reduce transfers to Binance. Whale activity on the exchange has declined in recent weeks, suggesting lower short-term selling. However, XRP continues to trade below the McGinley Dynamic indicator, as overall momentum remains weak. The asset needs to reclaim this level to support a stronger recovery, while the $1.08 area remains an important support zone.
Upbit Takes the Lead
At the same time, XRP activity has increasingly shifted toward South Korea’s Upbit exchange. Data shows that Upbit’s net wallet-flow dominance rose sharply from 13% on June 8 to 37% by June 22, its highest level in more than a year.
Over the same period, Binance’s reading fell from 16% to zero, while Crypto.com also dropped to zero and Coinbase remained near 9%. Just two weeks earlier, Binance had slightly edged out Upbit, but the latest figures show XRP deposits becoming increasingly concentrated on the South Korean platform. The metric tracks whether deposits outweigh withdrawals on individual exchanges rather than total XRP holdings.
The post XRP’s Price Could Explode to $8, But This One Zone Is Holding It Back appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Crypto World
Franklin Templeton Closes 250 Digital Acquisition, Launches Franklin Crypto for Institutional Allocators
Franklin Templeton has closed its acquisition of 250 Digital and switched on Franklin Crypto, a new active digital-asset arm aimed at pensions, sovereign wealth funds, and other institutional allocators. The close lands inside the second-quarter target the firm set when it announced the deal on… Read the full story at The Defiant
Crypto World
Five Former EF Researchers Launch Ethlabs, an Independent Non-Profit R&D Lab for Ethereum
Five former Ethereum Foundation researchers have launched Ethlabs, an independent non-profit R&D lab for Ethereum, on the same day the EF's own Chief Strategy Advisor published a framework describing how spinouts from the foundation should be evaluated and funded. The lab's founding team is Ansgar… Read the full story at The Defiant
Crypto World
Why tokenized SpaceX shares ran into allocation limits before retail investors could buy them
-
How the $1B SpaceX offering exposed crypto’s blind spot
For retail investors shut out of private markets, tokenized SpaceX shares offered an unusual route into one of the world’s most coveted private companies. The blockchain-based tokens allowed investors to seek exposure without a conventional brokerage account and before any potential public listing.
Then practical limits got in the way.
In June 2026, xStocks indicated customer demand had surpassed $1 billion for tokenized SpaceX shares. Crypto platforms such as Bybit, Binance Wallet and Bitget Wallet highlighted access to the offering, creating considerable excitement among users keen to obtain exposure to Elon Musk’s aerospace venture.
Several investors ultimately secured no allocation.
A number of platforms withdrew their initiatives and returned funds after being unable to obtain the necessary underlying SpaceX shares to support the tokens. The incident quickly became a significant practical test for tokenized equities. It highlighted a core reality in blockchain-driven investment: Tokenization may convert ownership into digital form, yet it cannot generate assets that are unavailable.
-
The outcome of the tokenized SpaceX share offering
A potential SpaceX Initial Public Offering (IPO) had long been expected to draw attention. The aerospace firm sits at the center of several major trends: commercial space travel, Starlink satellite connectivity, defense technology and Elon Musk’s global profile. Many investors had sought a direct stake for years.
To address this interest, xStocks introduced SPCXx, a tokenized representation of SpaceX shares. The product aimed to offer blockchain-based exposure to the company, allowing trading through crypto platforms instead of standard brokerages.
Demand surged sharply.
Reports indicated that subscriptions topped $1 billion before final allocation decisions. Binance Wallet alone reportedly drew more than half a billion dollars in commitments. Participants saw the opportunity as a rare way to gain exposure to one of the world’s most valuable private companies.
Then allocations were announced.
Several platforms involved said they had not obtained the required underlying shares to support token issuance. Without actual shares to back the product, the tokenized offering could not move forward.
This led to widespread cancellations and refunds.
-
How tokenized stocks work
Tokenized stocks are blockchain-based versions of traditional equity holdings. Rather than buying shares through a standard brokerage, investors purchase digital tokens that represent ownership or an economic interest tied to real shares held off-chain.
The process usually works as follows:
- A regulated custodian obtains the actual shares.
- A tokenization provider creates blockchain tokens backed by those shares.
- Investors buy and trade the tokens.
- The token’s value is designed to track the performance of the underlying stock.
The potential advantages are clear, although they come with important trade-offs.
Tokenized equities offer around-the-clock trading, global access, fractional ownership and easier use with crypto wallets and decentralized finance tools.
For investors in regions with limited access to US financial markets, tokenization offers a possible route to assets that were previously difficult or impossible to reach.
Did you know? The idea of tokenized securities predates blockchain. Financial institutions experimented with digital versions of stocks and bonds for decades, but blockchain made global, peer-to-peer ownership transfers easier and more transparent.
-
How xStocks planned to give investors SpaceX exposure
The SPCXx offering was built on a straightforward idea. For each token created, xStocks would obtain corresponding SpaceX shares to serve as collateral for the digital assets traded by participants.
From the investor’s standpoint, the process seemed simple. Users transferred funds, joined the subscription and expected to receive tokenized SpaceX exposure after allocation decisions.
The structure had special appeal because many retail participants believed tokenization could expand access to select IPOs historically reserved for institutional players and high-net-worth individuals.
What many overlooked was that the tokenization process still required genuine shares to be secured before the tokens could be issued.
This dependency became the decisive limitation.
-
Why demand outpaced available supply
The problem was not tokenization itself. It was the shortage of actual SpaceX shares needed to back the tokens. When investor interest in a company is exceptionally strong, only a finite number of shares can be distributed. Not every investor can receive the amount they want.
Traditional IPOs regularly face this constraint. Brokerages often receive fewer shares than clients request. Institutional investors compete aggressively for allocations. Retail investors often receive smaller stakes or no allocation at all.
The SpaceX case intensified this pattern.
Through blockchain infrastructure, xStocks greatly expanded the base of interested buyers. Tokenization extended participation beyond a limited group of brokerage clients to a global crypto audience.
Demand expanded sharply, while supply remained limited. The actual shares remained governed by traditional equity market restrictions. This gap ultimately became impossible to overcome.
-
Why tokenization cannot create shares that do not exist
A common misconception about tokenized stocks is that blockchain somehow removes scarcity. But that is not true.
Blockchain can improve settlement, broaden access and make trading more efficient. It can digitize ownership records and support fractional holdings. It cannot, however, create extra legal ownership in a company.
Each properly backed tokenized share requires a matching underlying asset. If a tokenization provider cannot acquire the shares, it cannot issue valid tokens.
This matters because tokenization is often presented as a major solution to limits in financial markets.
The SpaceX episode showed that some constraints still exist in the real world. No amount of blockchain technology can create more SpaceX shares when supply has run out.
Did you know? SpaceX remains one of the most actively traded private companies in secondary markets. Employees, early investors and venture funds often trade shares privately, creating an active private secondary market before the company’s public listing.
-
What went wrong for Bybit, Bitget Wallet and other partners
The challenges faced by partner platforms also point to another key issue in tokenized finance: reliance on long operational chains.
Bybit, Bitget Wallet, Binance Wallet and other distribution partners did not have direct control over the allocation process. Instead, they relied on xStocks and other infrastructure providers to acquire the underlying shares.
Once those shares were not available, the full distribution network stopped. Users often believed they were dealing directly with the asset itself.
Several intermediaries operated behind the arrangement:
- The tokenization provider
- The custodian holding the shares
- The allocation source
- The exchange or wallet distributing access
If any part of that sequence breaks, the overall user experience can suffer as well. In this case, the disruption happened before any tokens were issued.
-
How refunds protected users but exposed platform risks
To their credit, participating platforms generally processed refunds without delay. Some went further by offering additional compensation, rewards or fee refunds to reduce the setback.
Financially, most customers avoided direct losses. From a reputational standpoint, however, the situation was more complicated. Investors learned that advertised “access” did not mean guaranteed participation.
Many had viewed promotional efforts as confirmation that shares would become available. The cancellations made clear that acquiring inventory remained uncertain until final allocations were completed.
This lesson could shape how investors assess future tokenized offerings. Trust is one of the most important elements in financial markets, and cases like this can weaken it even when refunds are issued.
Did you know? Fractional ownership is not unique to crypto. Traditional brokers have offered fractional shares of expensive stocks such as Amazon and Berkshire Hathaway for years, allowing investors to buy part of a share rather than a whole unit.
-
Tokenized shares vs. conventional shares
A further takeaway from the SpaceX case concerns clarity over what tokenized shares actually represent. Many investors assume that buying a tokenized stock is the same as holding a standard share.
That is not always the case.
Depending on the structure, token holders may not receive:
- Voting rights
- Direct shareholder communications
- Participation in corporate governance
- Certain shareholder privileges
Instead, tokenized products may provide economic exposure to price movements rather than full legal shareholder status. This difference becomes especially important during corporate events, mergers, dividends or regulatory issues.
Investors should review the legal framework behind any tokenized equity offering before committing funds.
-
Key risks retail investors should understand
The SpaceX episode brought several risks into sharper focus. These risks go beyond this particular offering:
- Allocation risk: Popular assets often draw more demand than the available supply.
- Counterparty risk: Investors rely on issuers, custodians, exchanges and tokenization providers.
- Regulatory risk: Rules for tokenized equities continue to change across many jurisdictions.
- Liquidity risk: Trading activity can vary sharply from one product to another.
- Redemption risk: Investors need clarity on how tokens can be redeemed and what rights come with ownership.
None of these risks are unique to tokenized finance. However, the blockchain format can sometimes make them less obvious to investors with limited experience.
-
What the SpaceX episode reveals about tokenized equities
Although the effort fell short, the wider lesson may still be encouraging for the tokenization sector. Demand above $1 billion showed strong investor interest in blockchain-based access to traditional assets.
The market clearly wants tokenized equities.
Participants like the idea of managing stocks through crypto wallets. They value around-the-clock trading, global reach and lower entry barriers.
The difficulty lies in reliably linking that interest to actual assets in the real economy.
Future tokenized offerings could benefit from:
- Stronger sourcing agreements
- More transparent allocation processes
- Better disclosure of inventory limits
- Clearer explanations of investor rights
The underlying technology largely worked as planned.
What fell short was the ability to obtain enough of the underlying asset.
11 Of The Best Amazon Prime Day Sex Toy Savings To Shop Now
George Kittle wishes ‘luck’ to whoever trades for Brandon Aiyuk from 49ers
Former Oklahoma death row inmate back in court as case proceeds to retrial
![| DAY BREAK | Finance bill 2026 explained [ part 1]](https://wordupnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/1782229064_maxresdefault-80x80.jpg)
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Miami – Corporette.com
-
Tech7 days agoThe Adder At The Heart Of Intel’s 8087 FPU
-
Entertainment3 days agoRenter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
-
Tech1 day agoMicrosoft accidentally kills epic Outlook email threads
-
Business3 days agoSoccer-U.S. defends Iran World Cup travel restrictions, says discussions ongoing
-
Politics5 days agoBBC Reporter Discusses Cross Party Criticism Of Trumps Iran Deal
-
Business4 days agoWall Street Week Ahead: Investors see Micron earnings as pulse check of AI rally momentum
-
Tech5 days agoAWS enters the context layer race with a graph that learns from agents, not manual curation
-
Crypto World4 days agoHIVE shares jump as $220M AI deal speeds Bitcoin mining pivot
-
Crypto World3 days agoCan Charles Hoskinson Really Rescue Cardano?
-
Politics3 days agoAndy Burnham and the meaning of Makerfield
-
Crypto World3 days agoJake Chervinsky accuses CME of protecting derivatives monopoly
-
Tech20 hours agoNearly 7,000 fake Amazon domains registered ahead of Prime Day 2026, researchers warn
-
Sports5 days agoFIFA World Cup 2026: Canada beat 9-men Qatar 6-0 to register first ever win | FIFA World Cup 2026
-
Business5 days agoBrexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests
-
Business3 days agoMHP SE 2026 Q1 – Results – Earnings Call Presentation (OTCMKTS:MHPSY) 2026-06-20
-
Tech2 days agoSignal’s Meredith Whittaker says AI chatbots ‘are not your friends’ and calls Copilot agents a backdoor
-
NewsBeat4 days agoKeir Starmer Allies Question His Chances For No 10
-
Entertainment4 days agoJose Alvarado Wants Taylor Swift at More Knicks Games
-
Crypto World5 days agoAnthropic’s Dario Amodei Urged AI Unity at G7, Even as US Banned His Models
You must be logged in to post a comment Login