Bitcoin (BTC) demand is under pressure in the US as investors react to the failure of the CLARITY Act to advance in the Senate.

Key points:

• Bitcoin’s Coinbase Premium Index fell to -0.079 on Tuesday, its lowest level since Aug. 16.
• US sell-side pressure diverged from other major exchanges as the CLARITY Act failed to advance in the Senate.
• Short-term holders sent 34,000 BTC to exchanges in the last 24 hours, potentially for sale at a loss. This constitutes the largest inflow in a month.

Analyst sees “bullish” signal as Coinbase selling diverges from Binance

Senators failed to give CLARITY the necessary 60 votes on Tuesday, leaving only a handful of options for returning the key piece of crypto legislation to the debate stage before 2027. Bitcoin saw downside pressure on the back of the news, as US demand in particular suffered from the decision. Data from onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant shows the Coinbase Premium dropping to one-month lows of -0.079 on Tuesday.

The Coinbase Premium, which measures the difference in price between Coinbase’s and Binance’s BTC/USDT pairs, briefly turned positive at the start of the week, reaching 0.004, but fell deeper over the course of Monday. It currently sits at its lowest levels since Aug. 16, when BTC/USD traded at around $63,000.

Bitcoin Coinbase Premium Index. Source: CryptoQuant

A negative Coinbase Premium implies a comparative lack of demand from Coinbase traders compared to Binance users. The premium has spent much of 2026 in the red, underscoring the exodus of investor capital as Bitcoin fell from its latest all-time highs of $126,200 seen in October 2025.

Responding, onchain analyst Willy Woo flagged that the divergence in seller behavior between Coinbase and non-US exchanges intensified around the vote. 

Woo produced a chart of cumulative volume delta (CVD) data by exchange, denominated in BTC since Sept. 6. CVD measures the difference between net buyer and seller volume over a single candle, adding each candle’s data to the total for a given period. Around Sept. 11, Binance CVD began to move higher, while Coinbase continued to fall as sellers there remained firmly in control.

“I see the US selling with the failed Clarity Act (on Coinbase) Meanwhile the more dominant global offshore continues accumulating (on Binance),” Woo wrote in a post on X, describing the scenario as “bullish.”

BTC/USD chart with CVD data. Source: Willy Woo on X.com

Short-term holders send BTC to exchanges in unrealized loss

Continuing, CryptoQuant showed that the bulk of reactive selling from the CLARITY failure came from newer Bitcoin investors.

Related: CLARITY Act vote meets Fed rate hike: Five things to know in Bitcoin this week

Short-term holders (STH), wallets holding an unspent transaction output (UTXO) for less than six months, sent up to 34,000 BTC to exchanges on a rolling 24-hour basis. The majority of these coins were transferred to exchanges at a lower price than when they last moved onchain.

“With 23 200 BTC sent to exchanges at a loss, this STH capitulation event is the largest recorded over the past month,” CryptoQuant reported in a blog post.

Bitcoin STH cumulative 24-hour profit and loss to exchanges (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant

Previously, Cointelegraph reported that STH unrealized profitability had reached a key milestone for 2026, potentially boosting the odds of a long-term bullish BTC price trend change.

Ethereum and Coinbase-backed Base abandoned an effort to build a common standard for the next generation of crypto wallets, with developers on both sides deciding the compromise cost each network too much.

The goal was to make crypto wallets behave more like modern apps. Users could log in with passkeys, recover accounts in different ways, allow an app to pay transaction fees and bundle several blockchain actions into a single transaction. Holding ETH simply to pay a network fee would become optional.

The disagreement centered on differences in the blockchains’ priorities, and developers spent months trying to merge the two designs. The inability to reach an agreement means developers designing wallets that work across both networks may need to support two different ways of constructing and approving the same transaction.

“Ethereum wanted to be the best version of Ethereum, and Base wanted to be the best version of Base, and while both sides acknowledged the benefits of ecosystem interoperability, it was ultimately secondary to the need for each chain to achieve their core goals,” Derek Chiang, an Ethlabs developer involved in the work, posted on X.

According to Chiang the cooperation efforts broke down last week.

Hackers behind the Revolut customer data breach have demanded 6,000 Monero, worth about $3 million, while threatening to sell the stolen records unless the bank pays within 24 hours.

How Revolut hackers set the 24-hour deadline

The Financial Times reported that a group calling itself “iamnotavillain” published the ransom demand on Wednesday alongside a countdown clock. The hackers said Revolut had 24 hours to send 6,000 XMR before they offered the customer records to other criminal groups.

At an implied value of about $500 per token, the demand totals approximately $3 million. The group selected Monero because the cryptocurrency is designed to conceal information about the sender, recipient and amount involved in a transaction.

According to the FT, no negotiations between Revolut and the hackers had taken place by the time its report was published. Revolut had not said whether it planned to respond to the demand or confirmed that the group controlled the stolen information.

The hackers provided the newspaper with a 60-second screen recording that appeared to display part of the material in their possession. Passports, driving licences, photographs submitted during know-your-customer checks and customer transaction histories appeared in the video, according to the report.

At least 680 accounts were affected, although Revolut has publicly described the number only as a “very limited” portion of its customer base. A previous crypto.news report found that Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office had opened an investigation after the company reported the incident to regulators.

Revolut has said its own systems and customer funds were not compromised. Instead, the disclosure occurred after the company received fraudulent requests through an email account using the domain of a legitimate government agency.

Fake government requests exposed Revolut customer records

Rather than breaking directly into Revolut’s infrastructure, the attackers posed as government officials seeking customer information. The requests carried valid domain-authentication credentials and passed the checks Revolut used to assess their legitimacy.

Revolut then supplied customer records before discovering that the requests were fraudulent. Once the scheme was identified, the company said it blocked the email address and contacted the government agency, law enforcement, data-protection authorities and financial regulators.

As initial coverage detailed, the information released included full names, dates of birth, occupations, home addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers. Copies of passports or driving licences and selfies provided for identity verification were also among the listed records.

Account data included International Bank Account Numbers, account-opening dates, account status, withdrawal records and complete transaction histories. Bitcoin wallet reference numbers and records of Bitcoin transactions were also contained in some account statements.

Revolut’s customer notice distinguished identity-check photographs from biometric facial telemetry data, which the company said was not part of the disclosure. The notice also did not identify private keys, passwords, security codes or complete payment-card details among the exposed information.

An earlier company statement described the incident as a “sophisticated external impersonation scam” and maintained that Revolut’s systems remained secure. The company has not publicly identified the government agency whose email domain was used or explained how the attackers gained access to an account operating through that domain.

Blockchain analysis reportedly identified crypto-rich targets

The hackers told the FT that they used blockchain analysis to select Revolut customers who appeared to hold substantial amounts of cryptocurrency. Their account, if accurate, would indicate that the affected group was chosen partly through its financial activity rather than through a random collection of customer profiles.

On-chain investigator ZachXBT had previously said the incident appeared to involve high-net-worth users, though Revolut had not confirmed that assessment. The hackers’ latest statement provides a similar account of their targeting method, but it has not been independently verified.

Public blockchains can expose transaction histories, wallet balances and transfers between addresses. Analysts can sometimes connect that activity with an identified person when an exchange, financial company or other service holds records linking a customer account to a blockchain address.

The disclosed Revolut records may contain both sides of that connection. Identity documents and contact information can identify the account holder, while Bitcoin transaction histories and wallet reference numbers can map parts of the person’s crypto activity.

An August review of privacy coins explained that Monero makes transaction privacy mandatory. Its ring signatures obscure the true sender among a group of possible participants, stealth addresses hide the recipient’s public address, and Ring Confidential Transactions conceal the amount sent.

Criminal use of XMR does not establish that the token or all of its users are engaged in illegal activity. Monero also serves people seeking financial privacy, but its design can make illicit payment trails more difficult for investigators to follow than activity conducted on transparent networks such as Bitcoin or Ethereum.

A separate August case showed the same challenge after investigators said assets from a reported $7.9 million Coinsbuy hack were converted into Monero. Blockchain firms tracked portions of those funds through several exchanges before some assets were reportedly exchanged for XMR.

What the breach means for U.S. crypto customers

The FT report did not specify whether any of the 680 affected accounts belonged to U.S. customers. Still, the combination of verified identity records and crypto transaction data creates a relevant risk for Americans who receive messages claiming to come from Revolut, an exchange, a government agency, or a wallet provider.

Such records could allow criminals to craft messages containing a real name, transaction, account detail, or identity document. The presence of accurate personal information does not prove that a caller or sender represents the bank.

Revolut’s U.S. security guidance says the company will not unexpectedly call customers and ask them to make a payment or disclose verification and security codes. Customers who receive suspicious contact can verify it through the company’s in-app support channel.

For Americans whose personal or banking information has been exposed, the Federal Trade Commission directs consumers to IdentityTheft.gov for steps based on the type of data involved. The agency also advises users to report phishing attempts through ReportFraud.ftc.gov.

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center asks people reporting cryptocurrency-related fraud to provide wallet addresses, transaction amounts, asset types, transaction hashes, and the dates and times of transfers when available.

Robinhood takes market integrity seriously and has zero tolerance for insider trading,” a Robinhood spokesperson said in an email statement. “We immediately investigated and reported this matter to law enforcement and regulators, and will continue to cooperate with their investigations.”

The filing against Chai and the one against Xiang claim the two were designated “Coin Aware Individuals,” a group with access to a private Slack channel containing information about planned listings. Robinhood’s policy barred those employees from trading the tokens on any platform before, and for 24 hours after, a public listing announcement.

Perpetuals are derivative products that allow investors to take positions on the price movements of an underlying digital asset without owning the asset itself. Unlike traditional futures contracts, perpetuals do not expire and can be maintained indefinitely, and traders make or receive periodic funding payments to keep their positions open.

The Chai complaint alleges he traded ahead of at least 10 Robinhood listing announcements. The Xiang complaint alleges he did so on at least 11 occasions.

“Hefu Chai and Huaisong Xiang are charged with commodities fraud and wire fraud for allegedly exploiting confidential business information taken from their employer to trade perpetual futures,” said James C. Barnacle Jr., FBI assistant director in charge.