A roughly $1.3 billion block trade in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) tested liquidity in the largest spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) as Bitcoin products faced a fresh stretch of outflows.

Bloomberg’s ETF analyst, Eric Balchunas, confirmed the transaction, adding that the market “absorbed it well” as IBIT’s price remained largely unchanged, he wrote in a Tuesday X post.

Bitcoin’s (BTC) price fell 2% during the past 24 hours, but managed to remain above the $75,600 level at the time of writing, despite the significant block sale from the mysterious ETF holder, data from TradingView shows.

The price action shows that there is sufficient Bitcoin liquidity and buyer demand to absorb large institutional sales worth over a billion. 

However, the block sale may add to the mounting ETF outflows, as the US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $1.79 billion worth of net negative outflows in the seven trading days leading up to Tuesday, Farside Investors data shows.

Source: Eric Balchunas

Block sale may signal institutional de-risking

While the exact reason behind the massive block sale is unknown, CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler saw it as a signal of “large-scale institutional de-risking,” according to a Tuesday X post.

The sales follow renewed geopolitical concerns surrounding the conflict in the Middle East, after the US said it launched new strikes on southern Iran on Monday, targeting Iranian missile sites and boats attempting to place mines, reported news outlet BBC.

In retaliation, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it downed a US drone that entered its airspace on Tuesday.

Related: Strategy buys back $1.5B of debt at discount, cuts outstanding notes to $6.7B

Other large entities have also shown signs of de-risking. 

On Monday, a Satoshi-era Bitcoin miner transferred 2,650 Bitcoin worth about $203 million to FalconX and Cumberland over-the-counter (OTC) trading desks, in an onchain move that may signal a planned sale or liquidity transaction from the long-dormant whale, Cointelegraph reported.

Michael Saylor’s Strategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder, also skipped its weekly Bitcoin acquisition, but bought back $1.5 billion worth of outstanding notes at a discount, reducing its outstanding debt via notes to $6.7 billion, Cointelegraph reported on Tuesday.

Still, four smaller treasury companies stepped in and bought a cumulative 602.6 BTC worth about $46 million, signaling more sustained demand for the world’s largest cryptocurrency.

Magazine: Bitcoin ETFs bleed $1B, Aave’s $71M ETH unfreeze bid delayed: Hodler’s Digest, May 10 – 16 

Polymarket has clarified that it is not introducing mandatory Know Your Customer checks across its main prediction market platform despite renewed scrutiny over compliance and restricted-jurisdiction access.

In a post on X, Polymarket vice president of engineering Josh Stevens said identity verification applies only to a new beta product currently being tested with a limited group of users.

False.

We are launching a new beta product and allowing a select group of users to try it out, with KYC required only during this beta period. No KYC is being added to any part of existing https://t.co/GeeC4Y8nYc with this launch. Once this product is out of beta no KYC will be…

Advertisement

— Josh (@devjoshstevens) May 27, 2026

Stevens explained that “no KYC is being added to any part of existing polymarket.com with this launch” and later added that the beta product would not require KYC once testing ends.

The clarification comes less than a day after a report from The Information suggested Polymarket had explored mandatory verification measures.

Stevens also responded “no” when asked whether KYC could eventually become mandatory on the main platform.

Nevertheless, regulatory pressure around prediction markets has continued to build across several regions, especially as authorities question whether geoblocking systems and anonymous trading structures are enough to prevent restricted access.

Polymarket faces growing compliance pressure

According to Polymarket’s public documentation, users from dozens of jurisdictions remain blocked from trading or restricted to closing existing positions. The company states that these controls are tied to sanctions compliance, anti-money laundering rules and local regulatory obligations.

Among the restricted regions listed by Polymarket are the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, Germany, Iran and the Netherlands. In some jurisdictions, including Poland, Singapore, Thailand and Taiwan, users are limited to close-only trading activity. Japan is currently listed under a frontend restriction category.

Earlier reporting from The Information said the company had considered stronger identity verification procedures as regulators increased pressure over sanctions exposure and access through unofficial workarounds. It alleged that some traders in blocked markets have continued reaching the platform through bots, alternative routing tools and community-organized methods that bypass standard geofencing restrictions.

Inside Polymarket’s own developer documentation, the platform instructs builders to check a geoblock endpoint before processing trades and warns that orders from restricted regions will be rejected. Separate documentation also notes that users who complete KYC or KYB verification can gain access to direct co-location services in the platform’s primary server region.

Regulators and lawmakers have also intensified scrutiny around market integrity and insider trading risks tied to event contracts.

Earlier this year, seven members of the U.S. House of Representatives questioned whether the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had acted aggressively enough against suspicious trading activity connected to geopolitical prediction markets involving Iran and Venezuela.

At the enforcement level, federal agencies have recently pursued insider trading allegations tied directly to Polymarket activity. As previously reported, U.S. authorities charged Google software engineer Michele Spagnuolo with allegedly using confidential company information to profit from Polymarket bets linked to Google’s 2025 search trend rankings.

Access restrictions continue expanding

Outside the U.S., enforcement pressure has also expanded into Europe and Latin America.

Back in April, Brazilian authorities moved to block 27 prediction market platforms, including Polymarket and Kalshi, after regulators said the services operated outside the country’s legal structure. 

More recently, Spain’s gambling regulator blocked local access to both platforms while legal proceedings tied to alleged unlicensed gambling activity continue.

As previously reported by crypto.news, similar reports have also emerged from India.

Despite those restrictions, Polymarket has still pursued international expansion. Reports in April said the company had entered discussions with the CFTC regarding a possible return to the U.S. market, while separate reports in May said the platform was exploring entry into Japan despite strict gambling laws in the country.

At the platform level, Polymarket has already tightened certain internal rules. In March, the company introduced tighter market-integrity policies across both its decentralized platform and its CFTC-regulated exchange operations, warning that violations could result in account suspension, monetary penalties, or referrals to law enforcement agencies.

The Quasimodo pattern is a reversal structure that closely resembles the Head and Shoulders. Many traders overlook it or mistake it for its more popular counterpart in price action trading. The QM pattern has distinct entry, stop-loss, and take-profit rules that set it apart. This article covers its structure, the methods used to confirm signals, and the execution rules.

Quasimodo Pattern Structure Explained

The Quasimodo pattern is a reversal chart structure that forms at the end of a trend. The QM pattern relies on a failed continuation. Price prints a higher high (or lower low) in line with the trend. Then it reverses and breaks the prior swing in the opposite direction. This break invalidates the previous structure and signals exhaustion. QM pattern trading suits any timeframe. A Quasimodo trading strategy may be used across forex, stock, and commodity charts.

The pattern has two variants:

• Bearish Quasimodo: appears after an uptrend and signals a potential downtrend.
• Bullish Quasimodo (inverse): appears after a downtrend and signals a potential uptrend.

Bearish and Bullish QM Structure

A bearish QM occurs at the end of an uptrend and signals the formation of a new downtrend. It consists of three peaks (a head in the middle and two shoulders at the sides) and two troughs. The second peak (head) is the highest, and the second trough is the lowest.

A bearish QM reversal pattern forms in six moves:

1. Price prints a left shoulder high, then pulls back to the first trough.
2. It pushes to a higher high (the head), then pulls back below that trough.
3. Price rallies to a right shoulder lower than the head.
4. The lower low between head and right shoulder breaks bullish structure.
5. Price moves downward from the right shoulder.
6. Failure to retake the head confirms sellers have taken over.

A bullish (inverse) Quasimodo occurs at the end of a downtrend and signals a potential uptrend. It consists of three lows (a head in the middle and two shoulders at the sides) and two tops, where the second trough (head) is the lowest and the second top is the highest.

Advertisement

A bullish QM forms in six moves:

1. Price prints a left shoulder low, then rallies to the first peak.
2. It pushes to a lower low (the head), then rallies above that peak.
3. Price pulls back to a higher low (right shoulder).
4. The higher high between head and right shoulder breaks bearish structure.
5. Price reverses upward with the right shoulder.
6. Failure to retake the head’s low confirms buyers have taken over.

Market Structure Behind the QM Pattern

The QM pattern reflects a specific shift in market structure. Price extends the prevailing trend by sweeping the prior swing high or low. This sweep often triggers stops and absorbs liquidity sitting above old highs or below old lows.

Buyers (or sellers) fail to push price further. The market then reverses and breaks the opposite swing, invalidating the trend’s structure. This failed continuation is what gives the QM its reversal signal.

Advertisement

In terms of reliability, the Quasimodo pattern is considered useful for identifying trend reversals, particularly when supported by other technical indicators like the RSI or MACD. Unlike more common patterns, the QM pattern provides distinct entry and exit points.

Its reliability might increase in strongly trending markets, where the previous trend is well-defined, and the pattern clearly indicates a reversal. CME Group’s reference on reversal chart patterns notes that confirmation through volume or follow-through movement strengthens any reversal signal.

QM Pattern Trading Strategy Rules

The Quasimodo trading strategy defines four execution components tied to pattern structure:

• Entry: a position is typically opened as the right shoulder forms, after price reverses from the head’s extreme.
• Stop-loss: placed just beyond the head, since a move through that level invalidates the structure.
• Take-profit: set at the second trough (bearish) or second peak (bullish), which marks the prior swing the pattern broke.
• Invalidation: price closing beyond the head, or failing to reverse from the right shoulder area, cancels the setup.

Risk-to-reward depends on shoulder placement. A right shoulder formed close to the second trough (or peak) shortens the take-profit distance and may produce a 1:1 ratio or worse. A shoulder formed further away can deliver 1:2 or 1:3. In a QM entry strategy, traders often filter setups by the structural geometry rather than entering every formation.

Entry and Risk Parameters

The table below summarises the QM pattern entry and stop loss logic for both directions:

Parameter	Bearish QM (sell)	Bullish QM (buy)  Advertisement
Trigger	Right shoulder forms below the head after price prints a lower low	Right shoulder forms above the head after price prints a higher high
Entry  Advertisement	At the right shoulder, on reversal confirmation	At the right shoulder, on reversal confirmation
Stop loss	Just above the head (highest peak)  Advertisement	Just below the head (lowest trough)
Take profit	At the second trough (lowest prior swing)	At the second peak (highest prior swing)  Advertisement
Invalidation	Price closes above the head	Price closes below the head

Variations and Execution Adjustments

Any theory is always based on perfect conditions, but the actual market often differs. For example, on the chart below, the take-profit target (1) is three times smaller than the stop-loss level (2). In such cases, standard rules don’t work.

In this particular case, we would avoid trading as the risk/reward ratio is negative and potential loss is twice potential profit.

Distorted Quasimodo forex structures often appear in three forms:

• Asymmetric shoulders, where the right shoulder sits far closer to the head than the left, leaving little room for a meaningful take-profit.
• A shallow head break, where price only marginally clears the prior swing before reversing, which weakens the liquidity sweep logic.
• A sloped or skewed neckline, where the troughs (or peaks) sit at very different levels, blurring the pattern boundary.

A setup is often avoided when:

• The risk-to-reward ratio falls below 1:1 after measuring entry to head and entry to the second swing.
• The prior trend is weak or choppy, since the pattern relies on a defined trend to reverse.
• Higher-timeframe structure conflicts with the QM pattern trading direction, such as a bearish QM forming inside a strong daily uptrend.
• Confirmation tools fail to align with the reversal signal.

Quasimodo vs Head and Shoulders

The QM and the Head and Shoulders are reversal patterns. They look similar but still differ and provide different entry/exit points. Take a look at the image below.

The bearish Head and Shoulders also has three maximums and two minimums, where the second peak (head) is the highest. However, the second trough is at the same level as the first one. This is the difference between the QM and the Head and Shoulders patterns.

The inverse Head and Shoulders consists of three lows and two peaks, where the second trough (head) is the lowest, and the second top is at the same level as the first.

To make it easier, draw a line, a so-called ‘neckline’, through the two troughs in a bearish formation and the two maximums in a bullish one. If the neckline is horizontal, it’s the Head and Shoulders. If it’s angled, it’s the Quasimodo.

The table below highlights the structural and execution differences:

Feature  Advertisement	Quasimodo (QM)	Head and Shoulders (H&S)
Structure	Three peaks (or troughs) with the swings between the head and the second should breaking prior structure in the opposite direction Advertisement	Three peaks (or troughs) where the two swings between the head and shoulders sit at roughly the same level
Neckline	Angled or sloped, connecting unequal swings	Horizontal or near-horizontal, connecting two equal swings Advertisement
Entry trigger	Right shoulder formation after a failed continuation	Price breaks the neckline after the right shoulder
Entry timing  Advertisement	Earlier in the reversal, often before neckline interaction	Later, after neckline confirmation
Confirmation	Reversal candles or divergence Advertisement	Neckline break with volume or retest
Stop-loss	Beyond the head	Above/below right should or per risk-to-reward ratio Advertisement
Take-profit	Second swing low or high (the broken structure)	Distance from head to neckline projected from the break point

The practical effect of these structural differences:

• When trading the bearish QM pattern, you are supposed to go short on the right shoulder. In the Head and Shoulders, you would wait for the price to break below the neckline after the right shoulder.
• In the inverse QM, you enter the trade at the third trough (right shoulder). But when trading on the inverse head-and-shoulders formation, the common rule is to enter the market not on the second shoulder but after the price breaks above the neckline.

QM Pattern Confirmation Method

Although patterns are reliable technical analysis tools, they must be validated.

Confirmation works in a priority order. Price structure comes first: the head must clearly break the prior swing, and the right shoulder must form below (or above) it. Divergence on RSI or MACD comes second, strengthening the signal where momentum disagrees with price. A moving average crossover near the right shoulder comes third, acting as a trend-bias filter.

Timing matters as much as the signal itself. Confirmation that prints before or at the right shoulder is treated as proactive. A signal that appears only after the right shoulder reverses adds weight but reduces the entry window.

Divergence

RSI and MACD signal a trend reversal in several ways, but the divergence method is the most dependable.

• Regular Bullish Divergence: When the price creates lower lows, but the indicator forms higher lows, it suggests the market might be poised for an upward turn.
• Regular Bearish Divergence: When the price reaches higher highs, but the indicator forms lower highs, it indicates a potential market decline.

The chart above shows a regular bullish divergence between the price chart and the RSI indicator. As the RSI formed a higher low and left the oversold area, you can anticipate a price reversal. Once the second shoulder of the Quasimodo appears, the market creates conditions for a buy trade.

Divergence strengthens a QM signal when it prints between the head and the right shoulder, on the same timeframe as the pattern. It weakens when:

• The divergence appears on a lower timeframe but is absent on the pattern’s own timeframe.
• The indicator extreme is shallow (e.g., RSI barely leaves overbought or oversold).
• Momentum aligns with the prior trend instead of disagreeing with it.

Moving Averages

A simple moving average is widely used to confirm a trend reversal. You will need two MAs with different periods, depending on the timeframe you trade on. 50-, 100-, and 200-period MAs are typically used on high timeframes, while 9-, 12-, and 21-period MAs are more popular on shorter-term periods.

Let’s look at the 4-hour chart of the EUR/USD pair. The price formed an inverse QM. When the second bottom appeared on the chart, a 9-hour MA crossed the 21-hour MA from bottom to top (1). It’s a so-called golden cross that signals an upward movement. As the cross occurred before the price formed the third bottom of the QM, you could open a buy trade at the second shoulder with a strong confirmation.

Advertisement

MA periods should align with the trade’s timeframe. A QM on the 4-hour chart pairs naturally with a 9 and 21 MA, since those react fast enough to confirm the right shoulder. A daily QM calls for 50 and 200 MAs, which filter noise and reflect institutional trend bias.

Using short MAs on a high-timeframe QM produces too many crossovers and weakens the confirmation. Using long MAs on a short-timeframe QM lags the entry and may miss the reversal entirely.

If you want to practice spotting the QM pattern, you may consider using FXOpen’s TickTrader trading platform.

Execution Conditions for QM Pattern

Before executing a Quasimodo trading strategy, traders typically run through a checklist that combines pattern validity, confirmation, and risk control:

Pattern validity:

• The prior trend is clearly defined, not choppy or sideways.
• The head breaks the prior swing decisively, not by a few pips.
• The right shoulder sits below the head (bearish) or above the head (bullish), not at the same level.

Confirmation:

• At least one confirmation tool aligns with the reversal direction — divergence, MA crossover, or a clean reversal candle at the right shoulder.
• Higher-timeframe structure does not contradict the trade direction.

Risk control:

• Stop loss sits just beyond the head, with the distance accepted before entry.
• Risk-to-reward measures at least 1:1, with 1:2 or better preferred, after accounting for the take-profit at the prior swing.
• Position size respects the wider risk management plan, with potentially no more than 1–2% of account capital exposed per trade.

Additional reminders:

• Don’t confuse bearish and bullish formations. A QM is formed at the end of an uptrend, while an inverse QM appears when the downtrend ends.
• Don’t confuse the Quasimodo trading pattern with the Head and Shoulders.

Common Execution Errors

When trading the QM pattern, traders often fall into common mistakes:

• Ignoring confirmation signals: Failing to use additional indicators, momentum indicators, to confirm the pattern can lead to premature or losing trades. Consequence: traders enter at the right shoulder before momentum confirms the reversal, often catching a continuation move against them.
• Overtrading: Trying to trade every Quasimodo pattern without considering the broader market context or trend strength can result in overtrading and losses. Consequence: capital exposure compounds across multiple weak setups, eroding the account even when individual trades look reasonable in isolation.
• Neglecting market conditions: Not accounting for low volatility or trading during choppy market conditions can reduce the pattern’s reliability. Consequence: the QM relies on directional follow-through. In a range, price often returns to the head and triggers the stop-loss before reaching the take-profit.
• Misjudging pattern completeness: Entering trades before the second swing fully forms may result in false signals and unexpected reversals. Consequence: the right shoulder may extend past the head, invalidating the structure mid-trade and forcing an exit at the stop-loss.
• Improper position sizing: Failing to adjust position sizes based on market conditions or pattern strength can lead to excessive risk. Consequence: a single failed QM can wipe out the gains from several successful setups when sizing ignores the stop-loss distance.

Summary

The QM pattern is a reversal structure built on a failed continuation followed by a break of prior swing. Its execution rules tie entries to the right shoulder, stops to the head, and targets to the broken swing.

Confirmation through price structure, divergence, and moving average alignment strengthens the signal but does not replace it. A Quasimodo trading strategy is considered to work when the prior trend is well-defined and risk-to-reward measures at least 1:1.

Traders interested in applying these execution rules can open a trading account at FXOpen to test the QM pattern across forex and CFDs on stocks, indices, and commodities.

FAQ

What Does Quasimodo Mean in Trading?

In trading, the Quasimodo definition refers to a reversal pattern that signals a potential change in the trend direction. It indicates a shift from an uptrend to a downtrend (bearish Quasimodo) or a downtrend to an uptrend (bullish Quasimodo). Traders use it to identify entry and exit points.

What Is the Quasimodo Structure?

The Quasimodo consists of three peaks and two troughs in the bearish pattern and three troughs and two peaks in the bullish pattern. The middle peak or trough (head) is the most prominent, flanked by two smaller shoulders.

How May Traders Use the Quasimodo Pattern?

Traders use the Quasimodo pattern to enter trades at potential reversal points. Typically, they look to sell near the right shoulder in a bearish QM or buy near the right shoulder in a bullish QM. The invalidation level is usually set just beyond the head, while profit targets are placed at the closest swing.

What Is the Quasimodo Pattern in Crypto*?

The QM meaning in crypto* is the same as in other markets. The Quasimodo signals potential trend reversals in digital assets. The reliability of its signals often depends on market conditions and is typically confirmed with indicators like oscillators or those that reflect trends.

What Confirms a Valid Quasimodo Pattern?

Confirmation works in three layers. First, the price structure itself: the head must break the prior swing decisively, and the right shoulder must form below (or above) it. Second, momentum indicators like RSI or MACD showing divergence against price. Third, a moving average crossover that aligns with the reversal direction. A pattern with all three layers carries more weight than one supported by structure alone.

Does the Quasimodo Pattern Work on All Timeframes?

The QM pattern can form on any timeframe, but reliability tends to vary. Higher timeframes (4-hour, daily, weekly) produce fewer setups but with clearer structure and stronger follow-through. Lower timeframes (15-minute, 1-hour) produce more setups but carry more noise, more false breaks at the head, and more shallow shoulders that fail to develop. Most traders apply the pattern on medium-term timeframes.

*Important: At FXOpen UK, Cryptocurrency trading via CFDs is only available to our Professional clients. They are not available for trading by Retail clients. To find out more information about how this may affect you, please get in touch with our team.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Polymarket’s vice president of engineering, Josh Stevens, clarified that the prediction market platform is not adding mandatory Know Your Customer (KYC) checks to its existing service, after a report said the company had considered user verification requirements.

Stevens said in an X response that Polymarket is launching a new beta product for a select group of users and that KYC is required only to access the beta during its early test period. “No KYC is being added to any part of existing polymarket.com with this launch,” Stevens wrote. He said that once the product is out of beta, no KYC will be required to use it. 

He later addressed questions about whether KYC could be added later, saying “no” and clarifying that he was “just highlighting” that identity checks are tied to early access for a new beta product rather than a broader move away from pseudonymous trading on Polymarket’s main prediction market.

The clarification followed a report from The Information that said Polymarket had considered mandatory user verification requirements amid growing pressure from regulators.

Cointelegraph reached out to Polymarket and Josh Stevens for more information but had not received a response by publication. 

Source: Josh Stevens

Polymarket restrictions grow amid regulatory scrutiny

Polymarket’s clarification comes as the platform faces widening access restrictions across several jurisdictions.

As of Thursday, Polymarket listed dozens of restricted jurisdictions, including countries where users are blocked from placing orders and others where access is limited to closing existing positions.

Related: Monthly prediction market volume hits $25.7B as user activity shifts beyond one-off events

In April, Brazil moved to block 27 prediction market platforms, including Polymarket and Kalshi, after authorities said the services operated outside the country’s legal framework. 

In May, Spain’s gambling regulator also blocked local users from Polymarket and Kalshi as a “precautionary measure” while authorities pursued legal proceedings over alleged unlicensed gambling activity.

Despite the restrictions, Polymarket has continued to pursue expansion in major markets. In April, the company was reportedly in talks with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission over a broader US relaunch, and in May, it was reportedly seeking entry into Japan despite the country’s strict gambling laws.

Magazine: Big Questions: Do we really only need 2–5 cryptocurrencies?

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.

Fundamental backdrop

On 27 May, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand kept the Official Cash Rate (OCR) unchanged at 2.25%, in line with market expectations. However, the decision proved finely balanced: the Monetary Policy Committee voted 3–3, with the final decision resting with Governor Anna Brehman.

In its updated rate projection path, the regulator signalled that the OCR could rise to around 2.8% by the end of the year, implying several rate hikes before year-end. Additional caution stems from the inflation backdrop: the conflict in the Middle East continues to keep inflation above the target range, while the central bank also warned about the weak pace of economic recovery. The split vote and the signal of likely future tightening supported the New Zealand dollar during the Asian session.

Technical picture

On the four-hour chart, NZD/USD displays a two-phase structure. In April, the pair established an upward trend: from the lows near 0.5680 at the beginning of the month, price gradually moved higher. The move culminated in early May with a peak around 0.5990, after which the trendline was broken to the downside and the pair entered a corrective phase, refreshing local lows near the 0.5815 area.

This was followed by a consolidation phase, during which the volume profile formed a point of control around 0.5870–0.5875, while the profile boundaries were established near 0.5910 and 0.5825.

At the time of writing, price is testing the upper boundary of the profile from below, and a breakout could draw market attention towards the 0.5945 area — the nearest resistance level. Should quotations return below the point of control, focus may shift towards the lower boundary of the profile at 0.5825, with a potential support zone located beneath it around 0.5815.

RSI + MAs currently show readings of 64 / 50 / 50. The oscillator remains noticeably above both moving averages and has not yet entered overbought territory, indicating the presence of a local bullish impulse. At the same time, the RSI moving averages themselves remain close to the neutral 50 mark, meaning that the character of the move will largely depend on how price reacts to the upper boundary of the profile.

Key takeaways

The split RBNZ vote and the updated rate outlook have created a situation in which the market may continue to reassess expectations as new New Zealand inflation data emerge. The technical picture reflects the same duality: the RSI curve points higher, yet the neutral positioning of its moving averages does not provide sufficient confirmation of a sustained upward trend.

Trade over 50 forex markets 24 hours a day with FXOpen. Take advantage of low commissions, deep liquidity, and spreads from 0.0 pips (additional fees may apply). Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading forex with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Bitcoin (BTC) sold off into the early Asian Trading session on Thursday as the drop to $72,600 produced significant liquidation of leveraged positions across the crypto market.

Key takeaways:

• Bitcoin price deviated 4.5% from its daily high of $76,050 on Wednesday, dropping to a six-week low of $72,620.
• Overleveraged crypto traders were liquidated out of nearly $935 billion in the past 24 hours.
• Traders say Bitcoin needs to hold above $70,000 to avoid a deeper correction toward $65,000 or lower. 

Bitcoin price hits a 6-week lows below $73,000

The BTC/USD pair fell as low as $72,620 on Thursday, reversing all gains made since April 13 after the US reportedly carried out a new wave of military strikes on Iran. 

BTC/USD 1-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

This was accompanied by significant drops in other top-cap cryptocurrencies, wiping out more than $80 billion from the crypto market over the last 24 hours. 

Related: Bitcoin falls further as BTC miners pivot to AI, pro-crypto legislation stalls

The derivatives market suffered a similar fate. More than $874 million in long positions were liquidated, with Bitcoin accounting for $348.5 million of that total. Ether (ETH) followed with $228.5 million in long liquidations.

Across the board, a total of $935.6 million was wiped out of the market in short and long positions, as shown in the figure below.

Crypto liquidations (screenshot). Source: CoinGlass

The single biggest liquidation occurred on Hyperliquid, where a $15.34 million BTC-USD long position was closed.

Additional data from CoinGlass showed a slight drop in Bitcoin’s futures open interest (OI) over the last 24 hours across all exchanges. The decline was more pronounced on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and BingX, whose Bitcoin OI has fallen by 9.8% and 9% over the last 24 hours, respectively. 

Even though futures longs (buyers) and shorts (sellers) are always matched, declining OI suggests reduced leverage and market participation, often signaling bearish sentiment. For example, a 30% decrease in OI between Jan. 14 and Feb. 6 was accompanied by a 38% drop in BTC price.

Meanwhile, US-based spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) continue to post heavy outflows, indicating waning institutional interest. These ETFs have recorded outflows for eight consecutive days, totaling $2.6 billion. The $733 million in net outflows recorded on Wednesday marked the largest withdrawal since Jan. 29.

Spot Bitcoin ETF flows chart. Source: SoSoValue

As Cointelegraph reported, global Bitcoin investment products also posted outflows totaling $1.3 billion last week, adding to BTC’s headwinds.

$70,000 is now Bitcoin’s last line of defence

Bitcoin’s 4% drop over the last 24 hours has seen it lose the crucial $75,000 support, as the bears gained momentum.

Traders are now watching key support areas on the downside, including the 100-day simple moving average (SMA) at $73,000 and the demand zone above $70,000.

“Renewed US-Iran fighting overnight sent us lower with mass liquidations,” analyst Nicrypto said in a Thursday X post, adding:

“We have fallen well below the previous $75K support zone & are now at the critical $73K support.”

MN Capital founder Michael van de Poppe referred to Bitcoin’s latest sell-off as a “standard approach” typical of the final days of the month, “where markets correct as rebalancing takes place among asset managers.”

The analyst said, “Bitcoin showing weakness isn’t a recipe for a new low,” unless it drops under the $71,400-$73,400 support area as shown in the chart below.

“This is my last stance of an important support zone; otherwise, I’d expect lower $60Ks to be tested for support.”

BTC/USD daily chart. Source: Michael van de Poppe

A daily candlestick drop below $70,000 could trigger another sell-off episode toward the target of an inverted V-shaped pattern at $65,000, as shown on the daily chart below. This would represent an 11.4% drop from the current price.

BTC/USD 1-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

As Cointelegraph reported, after losing support at $74,000-$76,000, BTC may then descend to the support line near $70,500, which is likely to attract buyers.

Key Highlights

• BTBT shares decline following announcement of WhiteFiber credit facility.

• Bit Digital provides $100M delayed draw loan to WhiteFiber subsidiary.

• Ethereum-backed financing strategy deployed to fund AI infrastructure expansion.

• Strategic asset approach faces market scrutiny with WhiteFiber lending deal.

• Pre-market trading shows investor concern over ETH treasury deployment beyond staking.

Shares of Bit Digital experienced downward pressure in early trading hours following disclosure of a substantial WhiteFiber financing arrangement. While BTBT finished the previous session at $2.03 with a gain of 2.01%, the stock retreated to $1.9631 during pre-market activity, representing a decline of 3.30%. The pullback occurred as investors digested news of a $100 million credit facility connected to the company’s Ethereum holdings strategy.

WhiteFiber Secures Major Credit Facility from Bit Digital

According to the announcement, Bit Digital structured and funded a $100 million delayed draw term loan arrangement. The recipient is an entity within WhiteFiber, a company focused on artificial intelligence infrastructure and high-performance computing solutions. WhiteFiber operates as a publicly traded company on Nasdaq with the ticker WYFI, where Bit Digital maintains majority ownership.

Under the agreement terms, WhiteFiber can access up to $100 million through the delayed draw structure. Additionally, both parties retained the option to increase the total facility size to $150 million subject to mutual consent. This financing framework provides WhiteFiber with significant capital resources to accelerate its expansion initiatives within AI and HPC sectors.

A portion of the term loan was acquired by B. Riley Securities from Bit Digital Capital. Consequently, the arrangement features third-party involvement while maintaining Bit Digital’s primary role in the financing structure. Management indicated the transaction aligns with strategic holdings throughout its broader operational ecosystem.

Ethereum Holdings Deployed in Novel Lending Strategy

According to Bit Digital, funding for the loan advances will partially derive from an Ethereum-denominated secured credit arrangement. Through this mechanism, the company seeks to maintain its ETH holdings while generating returns from the lending operation. This methodology connects treasury asset management with credit-based revenue generation rather than relying exclusively on staking rewards.

Management positioned the transaction within its Strategic Asset Company framework. The company suggested the lending arrangement’s economics could potentially surpass conventional ETH staking returns. Furthermore, the structure enables WhiteFiber’s operational expansion while maintaining Bit Digital’s cryptocurrency exposure.

This initiative represents an untested application of Bit Digital’s balance sheet philosophy. The organization now leverages Ethereum-backed financing to generate income from a related infrastructure business. Yet the immediate market response demonstrated selling pressure on BTBT shares during pre-market hours.

Board Oversight Process Evaluates WhiteFiber Arrangement

Bit Digital disclosed that its board of directors authorized the transaction following comprehensive governance procedures. A committee composed of independent, disinterested directors conducted a separate evaluation of the deal’s financial merits, structural components, risk factors, and shareholder value considerations. The assessment particularly examined the intercompany relationship dynamics.

Needham and Company provided Bit Digital’s board with a formal fairness assessment in writing. Separately, Seaport Global Securities delivered an independent written fairness evaluation to WhiteFiber’s board. Both advisory opinions contributed to the deliberation process before final board approvals were granted.

The transaction positions Bit Digital at the intersection of three converging investment narratives. It merges Ethereum treasury deployment, artificial intelligence infrastructure participation, and strategic lending operations within a single framework. The pre-market weakness in BTBT shares suggests investors quickly incorporated concerns about the financing structure into their valuations.

CME Group has officially entered the always-on crypto market. Beginning Friday, CME Bitcoin futures and options now trade 24 hours a day, seven days a week on Globex, CME’s electronic trading platform, with only a 60-minute weekly maintenance pause between 10PM and 11PM UTC each Sunday.

While weekend trades will still clear on the next business day, the broader implication is significant as the long-standing CME weekend gap has effectively disappeared.

For years, the Friday close through Sunday reopen created one of bitcoin’s most recognizable structural inefficiencies. Traders routinely positioned around “gap fills,” exploiting the disconnect between CME’s limited trading hours and Bitcoin’s continuous spot market. Thin weekend liquidity often exaggerated those moves, turning the CME gap into both a technical indicator and a speculative strategy.

Volatility would often spike sharply at the 11PM UTC Sunday reopen as futures markets recalibrated to wherever spot had drifted over the weekend. That weekend price action was characteristically low-volume and largely noise, thin order books amplifying moves that would frequently snap back once institutional participants logged on late Sunday.

With CME’s maintenance window now scheduled for that same 10PM–11PM UTC Sunday slot, it’s worth noting that window may retain some of its old character. Liquidity will thin as Globex goes offline, and the reopen at 11PM could still see brief volatility bursts as the market finds its footing. It’s a dynamic worth monitoring closely in the weeks ahead.

That era is now largely over. By aligning futures trading with bitcoin’s native 24/7 market structure, CME is reducing weekend risk premia and improving hedging efficiency for institutional participants. Asset managers, hedge funds, and corporate treasury desks can now manage exposure continuously rather than waiting for markets to reopen.

Still, CME remains behind where liquidity truly sits. Founder & CEO, Cole Kennelly at Volmex Labs, told CoinDesk, BlackRock’s IBIT ETF options currently holds roughly $27 billion to $30 billion in open interest, dwarfing CME Bitcoin futures options, which sit closer to $800 million to $900 million. That imbalance helps explain why the BVIV-US Index (BVUS), derived from IBIT’s deeper options market, has emerged as the preferred institutional benchmark for Bitcoin volatility.

Offshore perpetual futures and ETF options will likely retain their dominance for now. But CME’s shift to 24/7 trading removes a critical friction point.

As it stands, there are currently three open CME gaps, all created this year. Two sit above Bitcoin’s current spot price of roughly $73,000, one formed in late January near $80,000 and another around $78,500. The third remains open below the market, just under $70,000.

Italy’s Banca Sella has completed the notification process required under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation (MiCA) with the Bank of Italy, unlocking authorization to offer crypto-asset services. The institution asserts that it becomes the first Italian bank to be authorized to provide crypto-asset services under MiCA, with plans to roll out a custody, transfer, and receipt solution for digital assets in 2026 targeting selected customer segments.

The Sella Group characterized the milestone as a meaningful step for Italy’s banking sector, providing a regulated entry point into digital assets amid a broader EU shift from crypto pilots to licensed custody, tokenized payments, and stablecoin infrastructure. The group notes that Banca Sella, the commercial bank of the Sella Group, operates nearly 300 branches and employs more than 2,400 people.

Andrea Tessera, managing director of digital banking at Banca Sella, framed tokenization as a driver of a payments landscape that will be “instant, interoperable, and programmable,” and positioned the bank’s forthcoming crypto service as part of that ongoing transformation.

According to the bank, MiCA authorization represents a regulated entry point for Italy’s banking sector into digital assets moving beyond pilots and partnerships toward full custody and related services under a harmonized EU framework.

In what prefaces a broader integration of crypto into traditional banking, Banca Sella also highlighted its prior crypto-related engagements, including participation in a distributed ledger technology (DLT) pilot promoted by the Bank of Italy’s Fintech Milano Hub in 2022.

The bank also noted its role in the creation of internal DLT and digital assets capabilities, and it is among the founders of Qivalis, a consortium of 37 European banks that aims to issue a euro-denominated stablecoin.

The legacy of Banca Sella’s crypto activities goes back to its digital banking brand, Hype, which partnered with Italian crypto firm Conio to offer Bitcoin wallet services. Conio has described its first banking integration as operational in March 2020 through the Hype partnership, enabling retail customers to buy, sell, send, and receive digital assets. Today, Hype’s offerings include a Bitcoin wallet accessed via the Hype app for seamless on-ramp/off-ramp activity.

Reflecting on scale, Reuters reported in 2024 that Banca Sella serviced roughly 1.3 million customers, while Hype served about 1.7 million customers, underscoring the breadth of the group’s reach prior to MiCA-aligned expansion.

This development arrives as European financial institutions increasingly align with MiCA’s regulatory framework, transitioning from crypto experiments to licensed custody, payments, and infrastructure for tokenized assets and stablecoins. The MiCA regime is designed to create a consistent, pan-EU standard for crypto-asset service providers, with implications for licensing, supervision, AML/KYC practices, and cross-border activity among banks, exchanges, and other financial institutions.

With Italy’s largest commercial bank brands edging into regulated crypto services, observers will watch whether additional lenders follow Sella’s lead, how custodial and settlement capabilities evolve, and what this means for cross-border operations within the Eurozone. The move also places regulatory and enforcement considerations at the forefront—clarifying licensing requirements, customer protections, custody standards, and the governance of tokenized payments and stablecoin arrangements across European jurisdictions.

Key takeaways

• Banca Sella has obtained MiCA-related authorization from the Bank of Italy to offer crypto-asset services, becoming the first Italian bank to do so under the regulation.
• The bank plans to launch a crypto service in 2026 focused on custody, transfer, and receipt of digital assets for selected customer segments.
• The milestone marks a regulated entry point for Italy’s banking sector into digital assets within a harmonized EU framework, signaling a shift from pilots to licensed infrastructure for custody, tokenized payments, and stablecoins.
• Banca Sella’s crypto footprint includes prior exposure through Hype (its digital banking brand) and Conio, as well as participation in the Bank of Italy’s 2022 Fintech Milano Hub DLT pilot.
• The group is a founder of Qivalis, a European bank consortium pursuing a euro-denominated stablecoin, reflecting broader industry moves toward central-bank–backed or tokenized monetary infrastructure.

Regulatory and ecosystem context: MiCA, governance, and cross-border implications

MiCA provides a unified regulatory approach for crypto-asset service providers across the European Union, aimed at aligning supervision, licensing, and consumer protections. The Italian authorization for Banca Sella demonstrates how national regulators are translating MiCA into concrete operating licenses for traditional financial institutions willing to expand into digital assets. This evolution matters for banks, exchanges, and custodians seeking scalable, compliant access points to crypto markets, as well as for institutional investors evaluating regulated custody and settlement environments across Europe.

From a policy perspective, the development highlights the interplay between supervision and innovation: authorities are calibrating enforcement, risk management standards, AML/KYC controls, and governance practices as licensed entities handle tokenized assets and potential stablecoin infrastructure. For banks, regulatory clarity on custody standards and the scope of permissible crypto activities under MiCA will influence licensing strategies, internal risk frameworks, and the design of customer protections in digital assets programs.

Historical context and ecosystem implications

The Sella Group’s crypto trajectory has been characterized by a blend of internal capability-building and external collaboration. The Bank of Italy’s 2022 DLT pilot, conducted through the Fintech Milano Hub, provided early exposure to distributed ledger technology and its potential applicability to financial services. Banca Sella’s subsequent formation of an internal DLT and digital assets team signals an intent to operationalize crypto capabilities within a regulated banking framework.

As a founder of Qivalis, Sella aligns with a broader European push to explore euro-denominated stablecoins as a bridge between traditional financial rails and new digital settlement mechanisms. The Qivalis initiative, backed by a coalition of European banks, signals industry readiness to consider standardized, cross-border settlement formats that leverage digital currency tokens while adhering to prudential and consumer-protection standards.

Conio’s 2020 integration with Hype marked an earlier, practical foray into consumer crypto services within a banking-enabled ecosystem. Hype’s Bitcoin wallet functionality—available to retail customers—illustrates how bank-affiliated digital brands have historically served as early on-ramps, even as MiCA regulatory expectations matured. The ongoing transition from such pilots to licensed, institutionally governed services represents a notable shift in the European crypto infrastructure landscape.

Market observers also note the regulatory implications for banks’ relationships with crypto firms and fintechs. As institutions begin to offer compliant crypto custody and settlement, third-party service providers and partner ecosystems will need to align with enhanced AML/KYC standards and custody governance. This alignment is critical not only for consumer protection but also for ensuring the resilience of broader financial market infrastructure as digital-asset activity scales within regulated channels.

Closing perspective

Italy’s MiCA milestone for Banca Sella signals a tangible step toward a more integrated, regulated digital-asset ecosystem within Europe. The next developments to watch include how additional Italian banks pursue MiCA authorizations, how custody and settlement infrastructure evolves for licensed institutions, and how cross-border supervisory coordination shapes the deployment of tokenized payments and stablecoins within the Eurozone. While the regulatory path remains dynamic, the alignment between traditional banking and digital-asset services appears to be gaining regulatory legitimacy and operational clarity, underpinned by MiCA’s harmonized framework.