Bybit has taken another step toward expanding its regulated business in Europe after its Austria-based payments unit, Bybit Payments GmbH, received an electronic money institution (EMI) license from the country’s Financial Market Authority. The approval gives the exchange a clearer regulatory foundation to introduce payment-related products alongside its existing Europe-focused platform.

In an announcement shared on Tuesday, Bybit said the EMI authorization enables its future payment capabilities, which may eventually include person-to-person transfers, merchant payment services, open banking functionality, and card products. For users and partners, the practical impact is that Bybit is positioning to offer payment rails and e-money services under a supervisory framework rather than relying solely on third-party arrangements.

Key takeaways

• Bybit Payments GmbH has received an electronic money institution license from Austria’s Financial Market Authority.
• The authorization is intended to support future payment and e-money products, potentially including P2P, merchant solutions, open banking, and cards.
• Payments will be offered through Bybit.eu alongside existing services from a separate Austrian crypto-licensed entity.
• Bybit EU GmbH continues to operate under EU MiCA authorization (granted in May 2025), with responsibilities kept distinct from the EMI permissions.
• Bybit stated Malta is excluded, citing MiCA passporting requirements that must be met for each jurisdiction.

Austria approval lays groundwork for regulated e-money and payments

The EMI license centers on Bybit Payments GmbH’s ability to provide regulated electronic money and payment services. Bybit did not describe a specific go-live date for any particular product, but it tied the authorization to a broader plan to expand payments features as they are introduced.

For institutional and business users, this matters because payment services typically require ongoing regulatory oversight that extends beyond exchange operations. By obtaining an EMI license, Bybit can create a more direct, jurisdictionally supervised pathway to integrate with banks, payment providers, and enterprises—potentially improving operational control and reducing dependence on external payment infrastructure.

How Bybit plans to split roles across two Austrian entities

Bybit’s European structure now hinges on two different Austrian entities, each carrying different regulatory permissions. The exchange said Bybit Payments GmbH will manage the EMI and payment-related activity as e-money and payment products are launched. Meanwhile, Bybit EU GmbH—another Austrian entity—remains responsible for crypto services under EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).

According to Bybit, Bybit EU GmbH is authorized to provide crypto custody, exchange, placement, and transfer services. This separation is designed to keep permissions and obligations distinct: one entity under the crypto regime for crypto-asset activities, and the other under the payments regime for electronic money and regulated payment products.

Bybit also said both services will be made available through Bybit.eu, suggesting the user-facing platform will continue to act as a single destination while the underlying compliance responsibilities are managed by the appropriate licensed entity.

Which regions will have access—and why Malta is missing

Bybit Payments GmbH’s services are expected to run through Bybit.eu for users across the European Economic Area (EEA), with an exception: Malta.

Bybit did not give a specific operational reason for the exclusion. Instead, it referenced its own website guidance, stating that services are offered only in jurisdictions where applicable MiCA passporting requirements have been met. The statement suggests that regulatory coverage for the overall Bybit offering—including how crypto and payments are packaged for particular regions—depends on whether passporting conditions have been satisfied.

For readers, the key takeaway is that licensing alone may not automatically translate into immediate availability across every EEA jurisdiction. Even when an entity is licensed in one country, market access can hinge on broader cross-border permissions tied to the regulatory framework involved.

Why the milestone could change how Bybit partners with banks

Beyond product expansion, Bybit framed the EMI license as a relationship-strengthening development with banks, payment providers, and enterprises. Bybit suggested the new approval could also reduce reliance on third-party payment infrastructure.

That shift is particularly relevant in Europe, where fintech and crypto firms often face a trade-off: speed to market versus the cost and complexity of building and maintaining compliant payment operations. Establishing an EMI license can support more direct routing of payment flows and potentially help standardize integrations with counterparties. It may also make it easier for partners to understand which part of Bybit’s business is responsible for regulated payment activities.

At the same time, it remains to be seen how quickly Bybit will convert the license into concrete consumer-facing offerings. An EMI authorization provides a regulatory capability, but product rollouts—especially those involving card services or open banking—typically require additional implementation work and coordination with payment networks and partners.

Related: Crypto exchange Bybit launches in Indonesia after NOBI acquisition

Investors and users should watch how Bybit translates the EMI license into specific payment features on Bybit.eu, and whether the exchange later broadens availability to additional jurisdictions currently excluded—particularly Malta. The other open question is the pace of integration between the MiCA-authorized entity and the newly licensed EMI unit, since the two permissions are meant to stay distinct even if the experience is unified.

Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan said on Aug. 4 that the crypto industry would continue expanding even if the U.S. Senate fails to advance the CLARITY Act before its August recess.

In a new investor memo, Hougan said crypto “will be fine” without immediate congressional action. He argued that Securities and Exchange Commission rulemaking could provide an alternative path while traditional financial companies continue adopting digital assets. His assessment is a forward looking industry view, not a confirmed regulatory outcome.

The bill’s immediate prospects remain uncertain. The Senate’s Aug. 4 floor schedule did not include H.R. 3633, and the chamber’s official list of pending cloture motions named two unrelated matters. No cloture filing for the CLARITY Act had been announced by the end of Tuesday’s session.

CLARITY Act faces an Aug. 5 procedural test

Hougan identified Wednesday, Aug. 5, as the practical deadline for Senate leaders to file cloture and preserve a possible Friday procedural vote. Senate Rule XXII ordinarily requires a cloture vote one hour after the chamber meets on the following calendar day but one after filing. Sixteen senators must sign the motion.

Ending debate on legislation normally requires three fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 votes when every seat is filled. The measure could move faster under a unanimous consent agreement, but such an arrangement would require cooperation that Senate leaders have not announced.

The Senate Banking Committee approved the bill 15 to 9 on May 14. Senator Cynthia Lummis later released a merged 616 page proposal combining work by the Banking and Agriculture committees. The revised measure remains on the Senate legislative calendar but has not received a full chamber vote.

As crypto.news reported on Aug. 4, government funding legislation and nominations occupied the available floor schedule. The omission does not legally kill the CLARITY Act, but it leaves little time for debate, amendments and a final vote before lawmakers depart.

SEC rules could help but cannot replace the bill

Hougan based his fallback scenario on comments from SEC Chair Paul Atkins, who said the agency was “ready, willing, and able” to address several matters covered by the legislation. Hougan believes rules adopted under Atkins could initially prove more favorable to innovation than compromises required for a bipartisan law. He said they “may even be an accelerant,” although no such effect is assured.

Atkins has supported agency action through Project Crypto, including work on token classifications, capital formation and securities market rules. However, he has also backed congressional legislation. In an official speech, Atkins said statutory language provides the strongest protection against future regulators reversing the current approach.

The distinction matters because the CLARITY Act would divide digital asset jurisdiction between the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The updated congressional summary covers token disclosures, digital commodity exchanges, customer property, decentralized finance, stablecoin rewards and anti money laundering requirements.

The SEC can change rules governing securities, registered intermediaries and token offerings within its existing authority. It cannot independently grant the CFTC nationwide authority over digital commodity spot markets. SEC rules could therefore provide part of the framework, but not the complete structure Congress is considering.

As previously reported by crypto.news, agency rules would also be less durable than legislation. A future commission could revise or withdraw them through another regulatory process. A federal statute could only be changed through new congressional action.

Political disputes still threaten Senate support

Seven Democratic senators said on July 22 that the updated Republican text “falls short.” Catherine Cortez Masto, Angela Alsobrooks, Cory Booker, Ruben Gallego, John Hickenlooper, Mark Warner and Raphael Warnock requested stronger rules for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity. They also said negotiations would continue.

The merged bill already contains an ethics division that would restrict covered officials and spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets for compensation while in office. It would also require additional financial disclosures. Democrats have not accepted those provisions as sufficient.

Banks are separately seeking tighter restrictions on rewards linked to payment stablecoin balances. The current proposal prohibits interest paid solely for holding stablecoins but allows certain activity and loyalty rewards. Banking groups argue that some exceptions could still resemble deposit interest and draw funds away from community lending.

Prediction markets have created another dispute. Twelve senators asked committee leaders to prevent CFTC registered platforms from listing contracts that resemble sports wagers or casino games. They also requested protections for state authority, tribal sovereignty and tribal gaming compacts.

These disagreements make the 60 vote threshold harder to reach. They also show why SEC action cannot resolve every issue. Questions involving CFTC powers, banking law, political ethics and tribal gaming require broader federal authority or additional legislation.

A delay would move the fight into a harder calendar

The Senate’s published calendar places lawmakers in a state work period from Aug. 10 through Sept. 11. Failure to act this week would not remove H.R. 3633 from the calendar, but it would push consideration into a period crowded by government funding, the November election and other unfinished legislation.

Hougan described that outcome as a “walking dead” period in which the bill remains alive without a clear route to passage. He suggested lawmakers could revisit it in September or attach provisions to a year end package. Those possibilities remain speculative because Senate leaders have announced neither a fall vote nor an omnibus strategy.

Polymarket traders currently give the CLARITY Act a 23% chance of becoming law by Dec. 31, down from 27% when Hougan published his memo. The market has attracted approximately $3.9 million in volume. Its price measures trader sentiment and is not an official congressional forecast.

A cloture filing on Aug. 5 would be the next concrete development. Without one, ordinary Senate procedure would leave almost no route to a pre recess vote. The industry could still receive narrower SEC rules, but the long term allocation of U.S. digital asset oversight would remain unsettled.

That’s because the ability to write messages is tied to a quirky Bitcoin feature called OP_RETURN, which lets anyone attach a small text string to a transaction. The text gets permanently timestamped into the blockchain alongside the transfer of money. The function exists for technical purposes; mainly, developers use it to timestamp documents or embed small proofs. That said, users can use the function to leave personal notes.

The Coldcard hardware wallet exploit, first detected on July 30, has snowballed into a major self-custody breach, with confirmed losses now topping $100 million.

What people are actually writing

The plea that opened this article isn’t the only one. Several similar messages have surfaced, according to on-chain tracker Arkham Intelligence.

One reads “Please Please Please” alongside an address; another bluntly asks for “80% of my 5 BTC” back. Whether these come from genuine hack victims or opportunists capitalizing on the sympathy wave is difficult to verify.

Other messages are opportunistic rather than sympathetic.

One reads, “I clean btc, do kyc and cashout. I take 10%,” complete with a Telegram handle — a laundering pitch hoping to land the hacker as a client. Another begs, “1 BTC for my Bitcoin journey,” which is entirely unrelated to the hack. The sender seems to be using the hacker wallet’s spotlight to solicit money from strangers.

Three Missouri men have pleaded not guilty to a federal charge tied to an alleged plan to steal Bitcoin through a home invasion in Connecticut. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced the charges on Aug. 4 against Sedric Louis, 32, John Davis, 34, and Martel Williams, 27, all of St. Louis.

A New Haven grand jury returned a second superseding indictment on May 22. It charged the three defendants with conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, commonly known as Hobbs Act robbery. Federal law allows a sentence of up to 20 years, although any punishment would depend on a conviction and the court’s findings.

According to the Justice Department, the defendants traveled to Connecticut between Aug. 21 and Aug. 24, 2024. Prosecutors allege that they obtained rental vehicles, air rifles and walkie talkies before watching the intended target and his parents for two days.

Bitcoin rose about 1.6% to trade near $63,700 on Aug. 4 after CNBC host Jim Cramer said he planned to sell his holdings because of concerns about quantum computing.

Cramer tied the decision to a CNBC interview with IBM Chairman and CEO Arvind Krishna. Krishna said investors should become “paranoid” about cryptocurrency security within three to four years. Cramer later said, “I’m going to sell mine.” Neither the size of his holdings nor evidence of an executed sale has been disclosed.

Bitcoin rises despite Cramer’s sell plan

Bitcoin climbed from an intraday low near $62,387 to as high as $64,117 before easing. The recovery left the asset about 1.6% higher over 24 hours, although the price remained inside the range that has controlled trading since the June decline.

The market reaction does not prove traders dismissed Cramer’s warning. Bitcoin was also absorbing Strategy’s recent sale, miner distribution estimates and the Coldcard security incident. As crypto.news reported, buyers continued defending the area above $60,000 despite those pressures.

The TradingView daily chart supplied with the story shows Bitcoin consolidating after its sharp June decline. Support remains near $60,000, while $65,000 to $67,000 is the main resistance zone. Volume near 5,950 BTC appeared modest compared with earlier selloff periods, suggesting the rebound still lacked strong participation.

A sustained move above $67,000 would strengthen the recovery case. Until that happens, the price remains range bound rather than in a confirmed new uptrend.

Quantum warning describes a future risk

Krishna’s three to four year estimate is a forecast, not proof that a quantum machine can currently break Bitcoin. IBM’s official roadmap targets a large scale, fault tolerant system called Starling for 2029. The company says the planned machine would use 200 logical qubits and perform 100 million quantum operations. IBM has not claimed that Starling could recover Bitcoin private keys.

Google Quantum AI tightened the theoretical risk estimate in March. Its researchers said a future cryptographically relevant quantum computer could solve the elliptic curve problem used by many digital assets with fewer than 500,000 physical qubits under stated hardware assumptions. The estimate was about 20 times lower than previous calculations.

However, Google described this as a future capability. It urged blockchains to begin moving toward post quantum cryptography before such machines become available. Current systems do not have the scale and error correction needed to conduct the proposed attack.

Glassnode has measured which Bitcoin outputs could face exposure if that capability emerges. Its May analysis classified 1.92 million BTC, or 9.6% of issued supply, as structurally exposed because the associated public keys are already visible.

It placed another 4.12 million BTC in an operationally exposed category linked largely to address reuse and custody practices. Glassnode explicitly said its study did not predict whether or when a practical quantum attack would become possible. As crypto.news reported, the figures measure exposure rather than an active theft risk.

Whale transfer and thin trading add caution

Blockchain tracker Lookonchain reported that a wallet holding 16,400 BTC, worth about $1.04 billion, transferred its full balance to a new address after seven months of inactivity.

The transaction was a wallet to wallet movement. The funds did not go directly to an identified exchange, meaning the transfer does not establish that the holder was preparing to sell. It may have reflected custody changes, security measures or internal wallet management.

Market depth remains a separate concern. The Kobeissi Letter, citing Kaiko data, said daily spot activity across 44 exchanges fell to about $15 billion, around 70% below its January peak.

The underlying Kaiko dataset was not available in a public report reviewed for this article. The $15 billion figure should therefore remain attributed to the post rather than treated as an independently confirmed market total.

Social media users also revived the “inverse Cramer” meme, which treats his bearish calls as contrarian buy signals. The meme reflects several widely discussed calls that later moved against him, but it is not a tested indicator and does not explain Bitcoin’s price movement by itself.

Bitcoin must reclaim $67,000

Bitcoin’s immediate test remains the $65,000 to $67,000 resistance band. A sustained close above that area, supported by stronger volume, would improve the short term structure. Failure to maintain the current recovery could return attention to $62,000 and then the key $60,000 support level.

The longer term question is whether developers, exchanges and custodians accelerate preparations before quantum computers become cryptographically relevant. Bitcoin companies have begun funding post quantum research, while BitGo recently introduced four wallet controls designed to measure and reduce public key exposure.

Cramer’s statement does not change Bitcoin’s current security, and no practical quantum computer is known to have broken its cryptography. The next verified developments would include evidence that Cramer completed a sale, movement of the 16,400 BTC toward an exchange, stronger spot volume or measurable progress on Bitcoin’s post quantum migration plans.

XRP extended its decline on Aug. 5, 2026, trading near $1.07 as buyers struggled to move the token away from its lower range.

crypto.news data showed XRP down about 0.9% over 24 hours, with trading volume near $911.7 million and market capitalization around $66.7 billion. XRP remained the sixth largest cryptocurrency.

The decline left XRP close to the $1.05 to $1.06 area that has repeatedly attracted buyers since late June. However, momentum indicators, spot flows and derivatives positioning offer little evidence of a confirmed recovery.

The current setup is not a typical liquidation collapse. Leverage has declined, funding remains close to neutral and liquidations have been relatively balanced. These conditions may reduce the risk of an immediate forced selloff, but they also show that traders have limited conviction in a rebound.

XRP price remains trapped near its lower range

The supplied XRP/USDT daily chart shows a broad decline from above $2.50 to around $1.0676. Recent candles have formed a narrow consolidation close to the bottom of that move. XRP has not established a sustained recovery above $1.10, leaving the short term structure weak.

The relative strength index stood at 43.71, below both the neutral 50 level and its moving average of 44.87. The reading shows that buying momentum remains limited, although XRP has not entered deeply oversold territory on the daily chart.

MACD also remains mildly bearish. The MACD line was near negative 0.0110, below the signal line around negative 0.0101. The histogram remained slightly negative at about negative 0.0009. The small difference between the lines points to weak downside momentum rather than a sharp acceleration.

The immediate technical test sits between $1.05 and $1.06. A daily close below that range could expose the psychological $1 level and the late June lows around $1.01. XRP briefly broke the $1.05 area on July 28 before buyers returned. The earlier decline also pushed the four hour RSI into oversold territory, but that reading did not create a lasting reversal.

A recovery above $1.10 would provide the first evidence that buyers are regaining control. XRP would then need to clear the $1.13 to $1.15 region, which has repeatedly limited advances since June.

Analyst Ali Charts described $1.06 as the deciding level. His upside estimates of “$1.35 and $1.64” depend on XRP holding support and confirming a recovery. His downside levels of “$0.80 and potentially $0.62” require a clear breakdown. Neither path has been confirmed.

Other social media forecasts calling for “$23” or “$50+” are highly speculative. Those targets sit far above the current price and are not supported by present momentum, verified institutional forecasts or an established breakout structure.

Advertisement

Lower leverage points to a quiet positioning reset

CoinGlass data showed XRP futures volume near $1.35 billion and total derivatives open interest around $2.25 billion at the time of reporting. The price on the platform stood near $1.067. The supplied data snapshot showed volume falling 10.27% and open interest declining 5.59% over 24 hours.

Falling price and falling open interest usually mean traders are closing positions rather than adding aggressive new shorts. This can reduce the fuel available for large liquidation driven moves. It does not, however, establish that spot buyers are ready to take control.

A separate CryptoQuant analysis found that its XRP open interest measure had fallen into a six month range low between 362 million and 369 million. The estimated leverage ratio also declined toward 0.139 to 0.142, close to the lowest reading during the same period.

CryptoQuant contributor CryptoOnchain also noted that funding remained between roughly negative 0.009 and positive 0.010 during the latest decline. Long and short liquidations alternated rather than producing a one sided cascade. The analyst interpreted the structure as a positioning reset rather than forced capitulation.

Advertisement

Network valuation also compressed faster than reported transaction activity. CryptoOnchain said the network value to transactions ratio fell 42.7% compared with its three month average, while transaction count declined 23.3%. This may indicate that market valuation weakened faster than ledger usage, but it does not provide a reliable timing signal for a price reversal.

The supplied CoinGlass spot flow chart recorded a net outflow of about $2.15 million on Aug. 5. Recent negative readings have been smaller than the large outflow spikes recorded in late 2025. Selling pressure appears less intense, but sustained positive flow would offer stronger evidence that demand is improving.

U.S. XRP demand has not produced a breakout

U.S. spot XRP exchange traded funds have continued attracting capital despite weak price performance. Recent flow data reportedly showed four consecutive inflow sessions totaling about $15.4 million. 

XRP nevertheless remained near $1.08 during that period, showing that the purchases were not large enough to overcome selling elsewhere in the market.

As crypto.news reported in an earlier analysis, five U.S. spot XRP funds launched between November and December 2025 and had attracted roughly $1.5 billion by mid 2026. The funds created a new regulated source of demand, but XRP remained confined to a range around $1.00 to $1.13.

Advertisement

This divergence suggests that ETF inflows alone have not been enough to change the wider trend. Fund purchases must compete with token sales, exchange activity, derivatives hedging and weaker demand across offshore spot markets.

Regulated derivatives activity provides another U.S. market signal. CME Group data showed activity across its standard XRP futures contracts, while the settlement page listed prior day open interest of 6,894 contracts. CME contract data cannot be compared directly with CoinGlass totals because the products use different contract sizes and reporting methods.

The legal risk surrounding Ripple has also changed. The SEC and Ripple dismissed their appeals in August 2025. The district court’s final judgment remained in force, including a $125.04 million penalty and an injunction concerning future registration violations. The dismissal removed the active appeal, but it did not erase the court’s findings involving Ripple’s institutional sales. The SEC litigation release confirms that status.

Wider U.S. legislation remains unresolved. The CLARITY Act has reached the Senate calendar, but it still requires sufficient floor support, reconciliation with other legislative text and presidential approval. Seven Democratic senators said in July that the Republican proposal still fell short on several matters, and no final Senate vote had been confirmed by Aug. 5.

Advertisement

A confirmed vote or renewed delay could influence sentiment toward XRP and other U.S. traded digital assets. It would not, by itself, guarantee a sustained price move.

Ripple developments have not changed near term momentum

Ripple announced strategic investments in ZILO and Licuido on Aug. 3. The companies plan to add transfer agency, token issuance, trading and collateral tools to Ripple’s institutional infrastructure on the XRP Ledger. Ripple did not disclose the investment amounts or financial targets. The official company announcement described RLUSD as a settlement asset for tokenized fund transactions.

As crypto.news reported in related coverage, the investments support Ripple’s broader move into tokenized capital markets. They have not yet produced disclosed revenue, transaction volume or XRP demand that can be tied directly to the token’s price.

The XRP Ledger also faced a validator manifest flood in late July. Developers released xrpld version 3.2.1 to restrict the processing and storage of untrusted manifests. The ledger continued closing normally, and no confirmed loss of funds or altered transactions was reported. Node operators were urged to install the update.

Advertisement

The next price signal will likely come from the market itself. Traders will watch whether XRP can hold $1.05, reclaim $1.10 and build stronger volume above $1.15. Open interest should also stabilize without price making new lows. Continued ETF inflows would be more constructive if they coincide with positive spot flows and stronger momentum.

A break below $1.05 would keep $1.00 exposed. A confirmed daily recovery above $1.15 would weaken the immediate bearish structure. Until either event occurs, XRP remains in a low conviction range with reduced leverage and limited bullish confirmation.

FAQs

Is XRP oversold?

Not on the supplied daily chart. Its RSI near 43.71 remains below neutral but above the conventional oversold level of 30. Shorter time frames have reached oversold readings during recent declines, although those readings did not confirm a lasting bottom.

Does falling open interest support an XRP recovery?

It can reduce liquidation risk because fewer leveraged positions remain open. A recovery still requires stronger spot demand, improving momentum and price confirmation above resistance.

Advertisement

Why have XRP ETF inflows not lifted the price?

ETF demand represents only one part of the market. It can be offset by direct token selling, hedging, weak offshore demand and distributions from existing holders.

What are the main XRP levels to watch?

The immediate support range is $1.05 to $1.06, followed by $1.00. Initial resistance sits near $1.10, with stronger confirmation required above $1.13 to $1.15.

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

Advertisement

BNB price traded near $590 on Tuesday after holding a trendline breakout, but resistance at $592 and a large liquidation cluster above $605 could decide its next move.

BNB price holds breakout above $581

According to data from crypto.news, BNB (BNB) price was trading at $590.10 at press time after moving between $588 and $593.09 during the daily session. The token has gained roughly 4% over the past week, recovering from a recent low near $566.

The 4-hour chart shows that BNB broke above a descending trendline that had capped its recovery since early July. Buyers then defended a retest near $576 before pushing the price back toward $590.

This sequence converted the former trendline resistance into short-term support. BNB also remains above the 4-hour Supertrend, currently positioned near $576.57, keeping the short-term structure bullish.

The daily chart provides another important level at $581.62. This marks the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement of BNB’s decline from $745.33 to $537.05. Holding above it strengthens the breakout, while a daily close below the level would weaken the current setup.

However, the Chaikin Money Flow reading on the 4-hour chart remains at -0.06. This shows that capital inflows have not fully confirmed the price recovery, leaving the move vulnerable if buying volume fades.

What is driving the BNB move?

Rising network activity has supported BNB’s recovery. BNB Chain recorded approximately $19 billion in weekly decentralized exchange volume, placing it ahead of Ethereum and Solana during the measured period.

Network utilization also increased from roughly 17% to almost 30%. Higher activity can support demand for BNB because the token is used to pay transaction fees and deploy contracts across the network.

The chain’s latest quarterly burn provides a longer-term supply tailwind. BNB Chain removed approximately 1.62 million BNB, worth about $932 million at the time, during its 36th quarterly burn in July. The reduction left the total supply near 133.17 million BNB.

These fundamentals have helped BNB outperform a largely range-bound altcoin market. Still, the immediate move appears primarily technical, following the confirmed breakout and retest visible on the 4-hour chart.

$592 could decide whether BNB reaches $616

BNB is now testing $592, a level that has repeatedly acted as resistance during 2026. The token briefly traded above this area but has yet to establish a decisive daily close beyond it.

A confirmed break above $592 would bring the $600 psychological barrier into focus. The one-week liquidation heatmap shows the largest nearby concentration of leveraged positions between $605 and $610.

If BNB moves into that range, forced short liquidations could add buying pressure and accelerate the advance. The next chart-based target would then sit at $616.61, corresponding to the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement.

Beyond $616, the daily chart identifies additional resistance at $641.19 and $665.77. Those targets would require stronger spot demand because BNB would be moving into a broader supply zone created during its June decline.

The daily MACD supports the bullish case. The MACD line remains above its signal line, while the positive histogram stands near 0.47. RSI has climbed to 57.45, above its moving average of 50.90 but still below overbought territory.

Analysts see the retest as bullish confirmation

Crypto analyst Batman said BNB had reclaimed its 50-day moving average and successfully retested the breakout zone.

“This opens up a big move ahead,” the analyst wrote.

Satoshi Stacker also identified $592 as the key level separating a broader uptrend from a temporary recovery. The analyst said flipping that resistance into support would strengthen the case that BNB has moved beyond a relief bounce.

The bearish scenario begins if BNB fails at $592 and loses $581.62. In that case, the 4-hour Supertrend area between $575.80 and $576.57 would provide the next support.

Below that zone, the liquidation heatmap shows liquidity around $567, while the 4-hour chart places major horizontal support near $556. A break beneath $556 would invalidate the current higher-low structure and expose the daily range floor around $537.

US liquidity remains the main external risk

For US investors, BNB’s breakout remains sensitive to broader dollar liquidity and Federal Reserve expectations. Higher Treasury yields or a renewed risk-off move could limit demand for altcoins even if BNB Chain activity remains strong.

Geopolitical pressure and elevated oil prices add to that risk by keeping inflation concerns active. If those conditions push US rate expectations higher, BNB may struggle to attract enough capital for a sustained move through $600.

For now, the technical structure favors buyers while BNB remains above $581.62. A daily close above $592 would improve the probability of a move toward the $605–$616 region, while a loss of $576 would return the token to its previous consolidation range.

Western Union and stablecoin payments company Rain launched Stablecard on Aug. 4, giving customers in 37 markets a way to receive, hold and spend Western Union’s USDPT stablecoin. 

The product combines a digital wallet with a Visa card and is available through dedicated applications on Apple’s App Store and Google Play.

USDPT is issued by Anchorage Digital Bank on Solana and is redeemable at a one to one rate for U.S. dollars. Customers can receive eligible Western Union transfers into the Stablecard wallet, transfer USDPT from compatible wallets or exchanges, and spend through Visa merchants or ATMs.

A draft Ethereum Improvement Proposal from a group of six researchers and developers—including Ethereum Foundation’s Justin Drake—would change how new ETH is issued to validators. The “Tapered Issuance Burn” proposal, provisionally numbered EIP-8363, aims to reduce validator rewards more aggressively as more ETH is staked, with an increasing portion of consensus rewards burned to curb long-term inflation.

The proposal targets a fixed staked-ETH threshold of 60.25 million ETH (about 50% of the current ETH supply). As the staking ratio approaches that level, the burn mechanism would intensify, reaching 100% deduction once the threshold is met. The changes are designed to phase in over roughly 18 months. The draft is published on GitHub as an EIP draft.

Key takeaways

• EIP-8363 would “taper” validator issuance by burning an increasing fraction of consensus rewards as staking grows.
• The mechanism is tied to a threshold of 60.25 million staked ETH, at which point the deduction would reach 100%.
• Critics argue the proposal could disadvantage solo validators and reduce DeFi borrowing and yield tied to staking rewards.
• Some developers and community members also question whether there is enough time for careful review, given its proximity to proposal deadlines around Ethereum’s Hegotá upgrade.
• The draft has not been approved or scheduled and is not currently included in Hegotá.

A proposed monetary lever tied to staking saturation

The authors’ central concern is the trajectory of staking. According to the draft’s advocates, under the current issuance and incentive curve, staking rewards would not meaningfully “turn off,” even if nearly all ETH were staked. One of the proposal’s authors, Jérôme de Tychey, argued that this creates a persistent incentive to stake, raising the question of what ultimately stops the process.

In the proposal discussion, de Tychey also highlighted the potential for growing concentration of ETH held through large custodians and staking derivatives. The thesis is not only about dilution from issuance, but about the role of ETH as “a neutral, trustless store of value.” He warned that unchecked issuance could increasingly shift the ecosystem’s “working money” from raw ETH to intermediated staking claims.

As described in the draft’s framing, EIP-8363 would bound and make issuance more predictable. The proposal sketches a scenario in which issuance would peak at roughly 0.5% of ETH supply per year at its highest point (with about 20% of ETH staked), then decline toward zero as the staking ratio reaches the 60.25 million ETH threshold.

Supporters also position the change as complementary to existing Ethereum supply-reduction mechanics, including EIP-1559 and the protocol’s Blob burn structure. De Tychey argued that, with these in place, Ethereum’s net supply trend could more often decrease, while the network maintains a “sustainable security budget.”

Why the timing is drawing fire

Even though EIP-8363 is still an early draft, its publication came shortly before a deadline being discussed in relation to Ethereum’s Hegotá upgrade. Some community members see the schedule pressure as a process risk, especially for a change that would affect monetary policy.

Community developer Greg Koumoutsos said the proposal “clearly doesn’t leave adequate time for community review” of a monetary-policy change of this magnitude. In response to some confusion around the timetable, the article’s reporting indicates that the relevant Aug. 6 deadline is for pull requests proposing additional EIPs for Hegotá, rather than a deadline for deciding which proposals will ultimately be included.

Ethereum community organizer Trent Van Epps indicated that the selection process could continue until Nov. 8. According to the reporting, Hegotá is likely to reach mainnet in the second quarter of 2027, based on the project schedule referenced in the coverage.

Developer and DeFi concerns: solo validators, institutions, and yield markets

While the proposal’s goals are framed as reducing dilution and strengthening neutrality, it has met backlash from parts of the Ethereum development ecosystem, including stakers and DeFi builders.

One line of criticism is that lowering staking rewards could reduce institutional demand for ETH. The article notes concerns about whether reward cuts could affect how institutions interpret yield and exposure, and it points to linked coverage about institutional staking interest.

Another major critique centers on validator structure. The argument from some quarters is that solo validators would be hit harder because they generally face higher relative costs than larger operators. According to the reporting, Mike Silagadze, CEO of Ether.Fi, said the mechanism would push out solo stakers not subsidized by entities such as the Ethereum Foundation. His view is that the staking landscape would become dominated by large centralized organizations, leaving users to hold ETH indirectly while those operators capture the remaining incentive structure.

De Tychey disputed the “guaranteed solo exit” framing. In a response on the Ethereum Magicians forum, he argued that users of large staking providers must pay fees, which could make such services less attractive as rewards fall. However, the reporting also emphasizes that related research is “contested,” leaving the economic second-order effects uncertain.

Beyond validator economics, critics warn that staking reward changes could ripple into DeFi markets that depend on staking yield. Stani Kulechov, founder of Aave, characterized the proposal as harmful—arguing it could weaken institutional demand for ETH and reduce borrowing activity across DeFi. His critique is that the proposal does not achieve its intended outcome and could negatively affect Ethereum’s broader ecosystem incentives.

Backers see bounded inflation and potentially long-run upside

Support for EIP-8363’s direction is not confined to the proposal’s authors. The coverage also points to Grayscale research leadership. In May, Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl said limiting staking incentives would be “positive for the price of Ether over time,” framing the idea as part of improving Ethereum’s long-run economic profile.

In the proposal’s own narrative, the change is designed to address a specific economic tension: a world where staking keeps expanding, issuance continues unabated, and more of the ecosystem’s exposure becomes mediated through staking derivatives. Supporters argue that burning an increasing share of rewards as staking rises can cap issuance growth and reduce dilution, while still maintaining security incentives early in the process.

Yet, with the draft at an early stage and schedule constraints under debate, the most immediate takeaway is that the proposal is not yet a policy. It is one part of a larger, contested set of considerations about Ethereum’s monetary future as staking participation rises and as staking derivatives evolve.

As Ethereum approaches the Hegotá selection window, readers should watch for how the community evaluates EIP-8363’s economic modeling—especially the projected impact on solo validators, liquid staking incentives, and DeFi borrowing flows—and whether the proposal is revised, delayed, or replaced by alternatives before any formal inclusion.