1. A stress test that showed both strengths and weaknesses

When large sums leave a financial system quickly, hidden weaknesses often become visible. In traditional finance, such situations often lead to emergency lending programs, withdrawal limits or government-backed bailouts.

Decentralized finance (DeFi) works differently.

Aave is one of crypto’s biggest lending platforms. In April 2026, users withdrew about $8.45 billion from the protocol after the KelpDAO rsETH bridge exploit raised concerns across DeFi markets.

Aave’s own smart contracts were not compromised. The pressure came from an external rsETH bridge incident that affected Aave through collateral, borrowing and liquidity channels. The protocol’s core logic continued to function, but the episode was not smooth. Some markets came under severe liquidity pressure, and emergency controls were used to contain the damage.

That made the outcome more complicated. Aave avoided a full breakdown, but the event also showed how quickly stress can spread when assets, collateral and liquidity are closely connected.

For Aave founder Stani Kulechov, the event showed that DeFi had become more mature. But independent analysts reviewing the same data took a more cautious view.

While Aave survived, many questioned whether surviving the event was enough to answer concerns about the real strength of DeFi lending protocols.

2. What led to the $8.45B in withdrawals

The pressure did not begin with a hack on Aave itself. It began with the KelpDAO rsETH bridge exploit in April 2026.

Attackers stole about $292 million worth of rsETH from KelpDAO’s LayerZero bridge. That raised concerns about whether some rsETH tokens were fully backed. The concern quickly spread because rsETH was used across DeFi, including as collateral in Aave markets.

This created a direct problem for Aave. If collateral tied to rsETH lost trust or value, lenders could face bad-debt risk. Users began withdrawing funds as they tried to reduce their exposure before conditions became worse.

The withdrawals then added pressure to Aave’s liquidity. As more users pulled funds, some markets became highly utilized. In simple terms, most of the available liquidity had already been borrowed or withdrawn, making it harder for some users to exit immediately.

The incident showed how an external asset problem can still affect a lending protocol. In DeFi, assets often move across bridges, lending markets and other protocols. A problem in one part of the system can quickly affect another.

That is what made the episode look like a DeFi bank run. Users were not waiting for branches to open or banks to approve transfers. They could react in real time. But the event also showed an important limit: users can try to withdraw at any time, but actual withdrawals still depend on available liquidity and protocol conditions.

Did you know? The largest bank runs in history often unfolded over days or weeks. In DeFi, similar events can happen within hours because blockchain protocols never close, and users can move funds instantly from anywhere in the world.

3. Stani Kulechov’s view: The system held firm

Kulechov framed the incident as evidence of Aave’s resilience. In his view, the core protocol worked as designed, even during a period of heavy stress.

That distinction matters. Aave did not suffer a protocol exploit, but the markets around it still came under pressure. 

As withdrawals increased, some markets reached full utilization. That meant liquidity became limited in those markets, making it harder for some users to withdraw immediately. Aave’s risk managers also had to use built-in controls, including emergency freezes and changes to risk parameters, to contain the damage.

Seen this way, Aave did pass an important real-world stress test, but not without strain. Supporters of the platform point to several features that set DeFi apart from traditional finance.

• Collateral is visible on-chain.
• Risk settings are publicly available.
• Liquidations follow smart contract rules.
• Anyone can inspect protocol activity in real time.

These features can reduce some of the information gaps that have contributed to banking crises in the past. But they do not remove every risk. DeFi lending protocols can still face problems from external assets, bridges, liquidity shortages and fast-moving user behavior.

To supporters, Aave’s survival showed that open, rule-based systems can keep operating under heavy pressure. To critics, the incident showed that transparency alone is not enough. DeFi can still require emergency action when liquidity stress spreads across connected markets.

4. Survival does not mean safety

Critics warn against treating the outcome as full proof that Aave’s design is safe. The protocol survived, but that does not mean every part of the system worked perfectly.

Stress events can be read in different ways. Strong design may explain part of Aave’s performance, but favorable market conditions may have also helped.

External analysts noted that large exposure remains concentrated across many DeFi platforms. When a small group of users controls very large positions, their actions can affect the stability of the whole protocol.

Concentration risk has long been a concern in traditional finance. The same concern applies to DeFi.

If several major borrowers close their positions at the same time during market stress, the impact could be bigger than current risk models expect.

Avoiding a crisis this time does not guarantee the same result next time.

Did you know? Aave first launched in 2017 under the name ETHLend. It later rebranded and grew from a peer-to-peer lending marketplace into one of the largest liquidity pool-based lending protocols in crypto.

5. How Aave manages risk

Aave is more than a basic lending platform. Over time, it has added several layers of protection to help reduce wider risks.

Borrowers on Aave can take loans only within set loan-to-value limits. Liquidation thresholds decide when collateral can be sold. Supply caps limit how much exposure can build around certain assets. Borrow caps limit how much users can borrow.

Isolation Mode helps limit the impact of higher-risk collateral. Efficiency Mode, known as E-Mode, uses special settings for assets that usually move together. Governance, supported by expert risk advisers, adjusts these settings when needed.

During the recent withdrawal surge, these safeguards generally worked as planned. Core protocol functions continued, but some markets came under strain. Utilization reached 100% in major pools, limiting withdrawals for some users.

Still, observers argue that DeFi risk management needs to keep improving. Governance decisions can still take time, and risk models may not adjust quickly enough during fast-moving events.

Stress tests often rely on past events, which may miss new types of spillover risk. The real task is not only to avoid earlier problems. It is also to prepare for threats that have not appeared yet.

6. The hidden risk of connected DeFi platforms

One of DeFi’s biggest strengths is also one of its biggest risks. The same connections that make it useful can also make it fragile.

Composability allows applications to connect and work together. Funds placed in one protocol can support activity in another. This helps new products grow faster and can make the system more efficient. But it also creates more links between platforms.

A loan on one platform may depend on collateral from another. That collateral may then be tied to leveraged positions across other systems. Over time, this can create a complex financial network.

In normal market conditions, composability opens up possibilities that are difficult to find in traditional finance. But during stressful periods, it can increase the risk of problems spreading from one platform to another.

A platform’s strength cannot be judged in isolation. The condition of the wider DeFi system also matters.

Did you know? Traditional banks carry out regular stress tests under regulatory supervision. In DeFi, stress tests often happen unexpectedly in live markets, with real users, real assets and no chance to rehearse.

7. What users should take away

For depositors and investors, the episode is an important reminder. A protocol’s size and reputation should not be confused with complete safety. Users need to understand the assets supporting the protocols they use.

Governance proposals also deserve close attention because they decide the protections around deposited funds. Diversification still matters, even in DeFi.

For builders, the takeaway is just as clear. They should design for extreme conditions and keep testing their basic assumptions. They also need to recognize that transparency alone does not remove wider risks.

The incident shows that strength is best judged through repeated performance across several tests, not one event. One stress test provides evidence, but it does not provide certainty.

8. Aave passed this test, but questions remain

Aave’s ability to handle roughly $8.45 billion in withdrawals deserves attention. The protocol kept working during one of the largest liquidity shocks DeFi has faced.

The result is important, but it should not be treated as the final word on Aave’s risk profile.

Supporters see it as proof that open and transparent systems can survive panic without bailouts or emergency measures. Critics, however, see it as a sign that hidden weaknesses may still exist beneath the surface.

Both views have some truth.

Aave showed that DeFi can withstand heavy pressure. The bigger challenge is making sure that strength holds when the next crisis arrives in an unexpected way.

Key takeaways:

• Puts (sell) options dominate the June 26 expiry with net advantages of $1B to $3.4B, leaving bulls exposed.
• Despite Strategy buying BTC again, heavy call (buy) positioning above $72,000 will likely reinforce bearish momentum.

$13 billion in Bitcoin (BTC) options open interest is set to expire on June 26, potentially giving bears fresh ammunition for more downside pressure on BTC price. Bitcoin’s 14% price drop in June so far has caught bulls flat-footed, since most call (buy) options were stacked at $68,000 or higher. Will this monthly expiry open the door for a July recovery?

Deribit options dominate the scene with $10.4 billion in open interest, representing a 79% market share. OKX sits in second at 6%, followed by Binance and CME at 5% each, and Bybit with 4%. It’s worth digging into how Deribit traders are positioned ahead of the monthly expiry.

Bitcoin June 26 options open interest at Deribit, BTC. Source: Deribit

Total call options open interest at Deribit hit $6 billion, but 78% of that sits at $72,000 or higher. With less than a week to go, the effective open interest will likely shrink fast. In contrast, out of the $4.5 billion in put (sell) options open interest, only 28% hinge on Bitcoin falling to $57,000 or below. This setup makes matters significantly worse for bulls overall.

Bitcoin bulls made the wrong call on Strategy and US regulation

Some of the bulls’ over-the-top optimism traces back to Strategy’s (MSTR US) aggressive BTC buying spree in April and May. The firm added 62,841 BTC in just four weeks, helping push prices above $73,000 in May. But sentiment soured as US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs saw outflows kick off in mid-May.

US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs weekly net flows, USD. Source: SoSoValue

Hopes for quick passage of the Digital Asset PARITY Act in the United States also faded. The bill would have spared mining and staking rewards from taxes until sold. The market took another hit from Strategy’s sale of 32 BTC and the resulting ETF outflows, even as excitement around tech stocks grew after Google (GOOG US) and Nvidia’s (NVDA US) cash raises.

Related: Bitcoin decouples from tech stocks–Is $60K BTC’s next stop?

Bulls still have time to cut losses, but puts clearly hold the stronger hand right now. Here are four likely scenarios for Friday’s BTC options expiry at Deribit based on current price trends:

• Between $57,000 and $61,000: The net result favors the put (sell) instruments by $3.4 billion.
• Between $61,001 and $65,000: The net result favors the put (sell) instruments by $2.7 billion.
• Between $65,001 and $69,000: The net result favors the put (sell) instruments by $1.7 billion.
• Between $69,001 and $71,000: The net result favors the put (sell) instruments by $1 billion.

Even a 12% rally from the current $63,000 level won’t flip the June expiry in favor of calls. While this doesn’t lock in bear control for July, the expiry outcome will probably weigh on bullish sentiment heading into the new month.

Arthur Hayes has sold 6,000 Ethereum at a loss after accumulating nearly $10.6 million worth of ETH in recent days, even as other large investors continue adding to their holdings around a major support zone.

According to blockchain tracking platform Lookonchain, the BitMEX co-founder accumulated approximately 5,900 ETH over the past few days at an average purchase price of $1,793 per token. Data shared by the platform showed that Hayes later sold 6,000 ETH for roughly $10.14 million at an average price of $1,690, locking in an estimated loss of about $606,000.

The transaction comes as Ethereum struggles to regain momentum after failing to hold above key resistance levels during a recent recovery attempt. ETH was trading near $1,700 at the time of writing, well below its April peak above $2,400.

As reported by crypto.news earlier, a wallet linked to Hayes received 3,000 ETH worth approximately $5.42 million from market maker Flowdesk on June 15. The transfer took place as Ethereum and the wider crypto market rallied after easing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East improved investor sentiment at that time.

Why are some large investors still accumulating ETH?

While Hayes reduced exposure, on-chain data cited by Lookonchain points to continued buying activity among other major holders.

The platform reported that investment firm K3 Capital withdrew 10,000 ETH worth approximately $16.9 million from Binance. Separately, a wallet linked to entrepreneur Chun Wang acquired another 7,650 ETH valued at nearly $12.9 million.

These purchases arrived as Ethereum was testing an area that several technical indicators identify as an important support zone. On the daily chart, Ethereum (ETH) remains close to the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement level near $1,703, a level traders often monitor for potential trend stabilization following steep corrections.

Recent price action has produced mixed signals. Although Ethereum rebounded from its June low near $1,507, the recovery stalled below the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level around $1,856.

Daily RSI remains below the neutral 50 mark, while the MACD indicator is still positioned beneath the zero line, suggesting that buyers have yet to establish a sustained reversal.

Where could Ethereum move next?

Liquidation data indicates that leveraged traders are heavily positioned around several nearby price zones.

CoinGlass liquidation heatmaps show notable liquidity clusters between $1,780 and $1,820, with one of the largest concentrations sitting near the $1,800 level. Such areas often attract price movement as traders seek liquidity and leveraged positions are forced to close.

Additional technical analysis shared by market commentator Team LAMBO suggests Ethereum recently faced rejection from a confluence resistance area tied to Fibonacci levels and descending trendline resistance.

In a June 19 X post, the analyst argued that a clear trading range has developed between roughly $1,500 and $1,800, with a breakout beyond either boundary likely determining the next significant move.

The 4-hour chart presents a similar picture. Ethereum remains below a descending trendline that has capped rallies since early May, while the Supertrend indicator continues to signal bearish conditions.

A move above resistance near $1,780 and the large liquidity pocket around $1,800 could expose higher targets near $1,856. Failure to defend support around $1,700, however, could place renewed focus on the $1,620 area and eventually the June low near $1,507.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Advertisement

Financial services giant Charles Schwab will reportedly enter the prediction markets business by offering customers wagers on the S&P 500.

According to a Friday Wall Street Journal report, Charles Schwab is planning to launch options contracts allowing users to place yes-or-no wagers on the performance of the S&P 500 stock market index. The move, expected to roll out in a matter of months as part of a partnership with Cboe Global Market, could mark the company’s first into prediction markets.

Source: Kalshi

While prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket offer a variety of event contracts based on the outcome of events, including those tied to politics, sports, weather and companies, the Charles Schwab product will reportedly only include yes-or-no bets on whether the S&P 500 closes above or below a target price. Cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase have also moved closer to prediction offerings with many projecting the market will reach $1 trillion in annual volume by 2030.

In May, Charles Schwab announced the launch of spot Bitcoin and Ether trading for retail clients, marking the company’s move deeper into digital asset services. The company reported a net income of $2.5 billion for the first quarter of 2026.

Related: Republican lawmaker proposes prediction markets insider trading ban, not including White House officials

Both Polymarket and Kalshi already offer similar event contracts related to predictions on the S&P 500. 

Prediction markets are still under scrutiny by lawmakers

Although the market continues to grow, many state-level authorities and members of US Congress are calling for oversight of platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. In addition to the potential for elected officials to profit from using nonpublic information on the platforms, many state gaming authorities have challenged their ability to offer event contracts related to sports.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Chair Michael Selig has taken the position that event contracts on prediction markets qualify as “swaps” and the agency has exclusive jurisdiction for regulation and enforcement. Many of the cases connected to Kalshi, Polymarket, the CFTC, and state authorities continue to be litigated.

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

GoMining has launched a Bitcoin payment infrastructure stack that settles transactions directly on the Bitcoin network while charging merchants a 0.2% processing fee, a rate the company says is significantly lower than traditional card payment costs.

According to GoMining, the newly released GoBTC Pay Gen1 SDK and API are designed to help merchants, wallet providers, and ecosystem partners add Bitcoin payments to their products and services without relying on fiat conversion or custodial intermediaries. The company said it will initially onboard up to 10 merchants and partners as part of the rollout.

Almost two decades ago, they told you to lock it away. To treat Bitcoin like gold that never moves. But the scripture said cash.

Today the prophecy is fulfilled. GoBTC Pay integration toolkit is live — on-chain settlement, next block, mined by our own network.

Advertisement

No… pic.twitter.com/6nfBYAxZ5t

— GoMining (@GoMining) June 19, 2026

Built for businesses looking to accept Bitcoin payments, the package includes merchant onboarding tools, payment management functions, online checkout integrations, developer documentation, an open API, and a web dashboard for transaction monitoring and settlement management.

In comments accompanying the launch, GoMining CEO Mark Zalan said Bitcoin was originally created to transfer value between users rather than remain inactive in wallets. Zalan stated that the new infrastructure is intended to make Bitcoin payments easier for merchants and wallet providers to support in everyday commercial transactions.

Direct Bitcoin settlement removes fiat conversion

Unlike many crypto payment services that convert digital assets into fiat currency before settlement, GoMining said GoBTC Pay processes payments directly on Bitcoin while allowing users to retain control of their assets throughout the transaction flow.

The company said the platform runs on its private 15 EH/s mempool infrastructure and uses Stratum V2 technology to prioritize transactions. Based on GoMining’s estimates, settlements are expected to be completed in roughly 12 hours on average.

A separate incentive structure accompanies the launch. According to the company, merchants pay a 0.2% transaction fee, which is divided equally between wallet providers and miners involved in processing settlements. GoMining said the model is designed to reward infrastructure participants while encouraging payment adoption across the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Last month, GoMining positioned the same 0.2% fee structure against traditional card processing costs. Company statements cited industry data from Premier Payments, Forbes, and Visa litigation settlement documents indicating that merchants typically pay between 1.5% and 3.5% per transaction once interchange, assessment, and processor fees are combined.

Miners become payment infrastructure providers

According to GoMining’s earlier explanation, the low-fee structure leaves less room for intermediaries and requires the company to absorb fraud, volatility, and operational costs through its own infrastructure and block-production economics.

The company has argued that Bitcoin miners are well placed to operate payment protocols directly on the Bitcoin mainnet because they already earn block rewards and can generate additional revenue from transaction processing and related services.

Under that model, a payment network charging 0.2% could compete with crypto payment gateways that typically charge between 0.5% and 1%, while also challenging parts of the economics behind traditional card-processing networks, according to GoMining’s assessment.

Founded in 2021, GoMining operates a Bitcoin mining platform that allows users to earn BTC through NFT-linked hashrate rather than purchasing mining hardware. The company manages mining operations across multiple global data centers.

GoMining says it is backed by Bitscale Capital, operates on Bitmain infrastructure, and uses BitGo for institutional custody. Its advisory board includes Tal Cohen and Victor Orlovski.

Cohen, who previously served as CEO of Kraken US and held leadership roles at McKinsey and Google, joined the board in June 2025.