Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Bitcoin ETF outflows deepen as ether and XRP funds quietly attract inflows

Published

on

(SoSovalue)

Bitcoin exchange-traded funds saw fresh outflows on Tuesday even as ether- and XRP-linked products drew net inflows, indicative of a growing split in how investors are positioning across major crypto assets during the latest bout of market volatility.

U.S.-listed spot bitcoin ETFs recorded roughly $272 million in net outflows on Feb. 3, according to data compiled by SoSoValue, extending a pattern of distribution that has emerged during bitcoin’s recent price swings.

(SoSovalue)

(SoSovalue)

The withdrawals came as bitcoin whipsawed sharply, sliding toward $73,000 before rebounding above $76,000, a move traders attributed to thin liquidity and fast-moving macro headlines.

Advertisement

In contrast, spot ether ETFs posted net inflows of about $14 million on the day, while XRP-focused products attracted nearly $20 million, suggesting some investors are rotating exposure rather than exiting crypto markets outright.

(SoSovalue)

(SoSovalue)

The divergence reflects shifting risk preferences rather than a wholesale loss of confidence in digital assets.

Bitcoin has increasingly traded as a macro-sensitive risk asset, reacting quickly to equity-market stress, tighter financial conditions and concerns around technology valuations.

Advertisement

Tuesday’s selling coincided with a sharp selloff in U.S. software stocks after Anthropic’s new AI automation tool reignited fears that artificial intelligence could disrupt traditional software business models, pressuring broader tech benchmarks.

The flows also echo a broader theme visible across markets: selective risk-taking rather than blanket risk-off behavior. While bitcoin ETFs have borne the brunt of near-term de-risking, capital is still moving within the crypto complex, favoring assets perceived as offering distinct use cases or relative value.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Charles Hoskinson: Bitcoin Quantum Upgrade Cannot Save Coins

Published

on

Brian Armstrong's Bold Prediction: AI Agents Will Soon Dominate Global Financial

TLDR

  • Charles Hoskinson said Bitcoin’s quantum proposal would require a hard fork instead of a soft fork.
  • He argued that the plan would invalidate existing signature schemes used by current Bitcoin users.
  • Hoskinson stated that the proposal cannot recover about 1.7 million early mined bitcoin.
  • He said roughly 1.1 million of those coins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto.
  • The proposal suggests users could reclaim frozen funds through zero-knowledge proofs tied to BIP-39 seed phrases.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson challenged a new Bitcoin proposal that targets quantum threats. He said the plan would require a hard fork rather than a soft fork. He also argued that the change cannot recover early coins linked to Satoshi Nakamoto.

Bitcoin’s Quantum Proposal Faces Hard Fork Dispute

Bitcoin developers proposed BIP-361 to freeze addresses vulnerable to future quantum computers. They said the change would phase out old signature schemes and protect dormant funds. However, Hoskinson rejected the claim that the plan qualifies as a soft fork.

He stated, “To actually do this, you need a hard fork,” in a YouTube video. He argued that the proposal invalidates signature rules that users still rely on. Therefore, he said old software would stop working unless every participant upgrades.

Developers described BIP-361 as a rule tightening that older nodes could accept. In contrast, Hoskinson said the measure changes core validation standards. He added that Bitcoin culture has long opposed hard forks because they alter network history.

Advertisement

BIP-361 co-author Jameson Lopp addressed the debate on X this week. He wrote that he does not like the proposal and hopes adoption never becomes necessary. He called it “a rough idea for a contingency plan” rather than a final plan.

Satoshi-era Holdings Remain Beyond Recovery

Hoskinson said the plan cannot protect about 1.7 million early bitcoin. He stated that around 1.1 million of those coins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto. He argued that those holdings predate modern wallet standards.

BIP-361 suggests that users could reclaim frozen funds through zero-knowledge proofs. The proof would tie ownership to a BIP-39 seed phrase used in newer wallets. However, Hoskinson said early wallets did not use seed phrases.

He explained that the original Bitcoin software relied on a local key pool. That system generated private keys without a deterministic seed phrase. Therefore, he said no proof based on BIP-39 can verify those older coins.

Advertisement

He said, “1.7 million coins can’t do that. It’s not possible.” He added that migration would require cryptographic proof that early holders cannot produce. As a result, those coins would remain frozen under the proposal.

Lopp estimated that 5.6 million bitcoin sit dormant across the network. He argued that freezing them would prove safer than letting quantum attackers unlock them. He presented the freeze as a protective option rather than a finalized policy.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

After Kalshi Appeal, Prediction Markets Fight Could Head to Supreme Court

Published

on

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets

An appellate court is expected to reach a decision after hearing arguments from Kalshi and lawyers representing the state of Nevada.

Some legal experts speculated that the state vs. federal jurisdiction battle over regulating prediction markets companies could soon be headed to the United States Supreme Court.

On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments from lawyers representing prediction markets platform Kalshi and Nevada authorities over the state’s ban on the prediction markets’ event contracts. The appeal was over a lower court decision preventing Kalshi from offering certain event-based contracts in Nevada, based on claims that the company needed a gaming license.

Advertisement
Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets
Thursday oral arguments by Kalshi and the State of Nevada. Source: US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The appellate judge overseeing Thursday’s oral arguments and the lawyer for Kalshi acknowledged that there had been several state-level enforcement actions against the company and other prediction market platforms, including criminal charges filed in Arizona. However, last week a federal court blocked Arizona authorities from enforcing the state’s gambling laws on Kalshi’s event contracts.

“I think the body of case law does demonstrate that what we really need to avoid here is having a state and a federal court considering exactly the same issue at exactly the same time and potentially reaching different outcomes,” said Colleen Sinzdak, representing Kalshi.

Related: CFTC probes oil futures trades tied to Trump’s moves in Iran: Report

Central to Kalshi’s argument was that the platform’s event contracts were “swaps” falling under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than state gaming authorities. CFTC Chair Michael Selig has backed this position in the case of Crypto.com’s prediction markets against Nevada authorities.

The appellate court did not immediately announce a decision following oral arguments. Any ruling could affect how state courts treat prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket as policymakers come to terms with the growing market, expected to reach $1 trillion by 2030.

Advertisement

Coinbase’s top lawyer weighs in on prediction market arguments

Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal, whose company was not a party to the Kalshi proceedings but has a stake in the prediction markets fight, speculated that the case could go the US Supreme Court.

“The questions at oral argument are an unreliable signal in predicting the leanings of a court,” said Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal in a Thursday X post following the oral arguments. “Either way, I stand by my longstanding prediction— the Supreme Court will resolve whether sports [contracts] on [Designated Contract Markets] are swaps subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.”

The US Supreme Court gave states the authority to regulate sports gambling in its 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Advertisement

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