Crypto World
Bitcoin is trading like a tech stock, not gold
Bitcoin was sold as digital gold, an uncorrelated hedge that would hold up when markets broke. In 2026 it fell roughly 50% alongside the Nasdaq while gold hit record highs. So what is Bitcoin now, and did the hedge thesis ever survive contact with Wall Street?
Summary
- Bitcoin has spent 2026 moving with the Nasdaq rather than against it, with rolling correlations to U.S. tech indices reaching as high as 0.80 early in the year while its link to gold fell toward zero.
- The change traces to the spot ETF era: once institutions could hold Bitcoin inside the same portfolios as tech stocks, the same capital flows began driving both, tying Bitcoin to equity risk appetite.
- Analysts describe the current setup as the worst of both worlds, with Bitcoin taking the downside when stocks fall but not the full upside when they rally, behaving as a high-beta tail of macro risk instead of a standalone store of value.
- The counter-case is that Bitcoin is not a clean tech proxy either, since it fell on crypto-specific shocks even when tech rose, and that long-term holders kept accumulating, pointing toward an independent asset class instead of a tech clone.
- Whether the correlation is structural or a feature of the current tight-liquidity regime is the open question, and it decides whether the digital gold thesis is dead or merely dormant.
Bitcoin was supposed to be the asset that zigged when everything else zagged. For years it was sold as digital gold, an uncorrelated hedge that would protect a portfolio when stocks fell and uncertainty rose. In 2026, it has done close to the opposite. Bitcoin is down roughly 50% from its October 2025 record near $126,200, and it fell in near lockstep with technology stocks while gold climbed to record highs above $5,000 an ounce.
The asset marketed as a crisis hedge behaved like a leveraged bet on the same risk appetite that drives the Nasdaq. This piece works through the evidence that Bitcoin now trades like a tech stock, why that happened, and the serious counter-argument that the story is more complicated than a simple correlation chart suggests. The answer matters because it changes how investors should size Bitcoin, how they should compare it with gold, and whether the ETF era strengthened the asset or quietly rewired it into the same macro trade it was supposed to diversify away from.
The evidence: Bitcoin moves with the Nasdaq now
The correlation data is the starting point, and it is stark. Rolling 30-day correlations between Bitcoin and the Nasdaq 100 reached about 0.80 early in 2026, the highest level in close to four years, and Bitcoin’s longer-run five-year correlation with the tech-heavy index sits near 0.54. Standard Chartered analysts have pegged the Bitcoin-Nasdaq correlation around 0.5 with peaks near 0.8, while short-term readings against U.S. tech indices have ranged between roughly 0.55 and 0.68 through the year. However you measure it, Bitcoin and the Nasdaq have been moving together.
The relationship with gold has gone the other way. As Bitcoin’s tie to tech strengthened, its correlation with gold fell toward zero, at points reaching just 0.2. And the price paths made the divergence impossible to ignore. While Bitcoin dropped through 2026, gold surged to record highs above $5,000 and briefly toward $5,600 an ounce, outperforming Bitcoin by a wide margin over the same stretch.
The clearest test came under real stress. When conflict in the Middle East pushed oil higher and rattled markets, gold did what a safe haven does and climbed, while Bitcoin fell alongside risk assets. A hedge is supposed to prove itself precisely in those moments, and Bitcoin did not. The pattern that defined 2026 is simple to state: when the tech trade got hit, Bitcoin got hit, and when investors fled to safety, they chose gold.
Why the digital gold thesis mattered
To understand what has been lost, it helps to recall what the digital gold pitch actually claimed. Bitcoin’s founding appeal to institutions was not only its potential for gains but its supposed independence from everything else. It had a fixed supply capped at 21 million coins, no central issuer, and no cash flows tied to the economy, which in theory made it a store of value that would not move with stocks, bonds, or the business cycle. In its early years, Bitcoin was not just uncorrelated with equities; it was uncorrelated with nearly every major asset class, which made it look like the ultimate portfolio diversifier.
That property was the entire institutional case. A diversifier that zigs when the rest of a portfolio zags reduces overall risk, and that is worth paying for. Wall Street bought into the idea that Bitcoin could serve as a hedge against monetary debasement, market volatility, and economic uncertainty, a role gold has played for centuries. The digital gold narrative underpinned much of the adoption story, from corporate treasuries to the campaign for spot ETFs, because it promised something distinct from a simple speculative growth bet.
The trouble is that an asset’s identity depends not only on its design but on who owns it and how it is traded. Bitcoin’s code did not change in 2026. What changed is the profile of the people holding it and the machinery through which they buy and sell. That shift, more than anything about the protocol, is what turned the hedge into a high-beta risk asset.
What changed: the ETF made Bitcoin a portfolio asset
The pivotal event was the arrival of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024, and the irony is sharp. The ETFs were celebrated as the moment Bitcoin was legitimized, folded into the regulated financial system at last. That same integration is what tied it to the equity market. Research published in late 2025 found robust evidence that ETF approval structurally altered Bitcoin’s role, marking a shift from an independent, idiosyncratic asset toward a conventional risk asset whose correlation with the S&P 500 rose sharply after the launch.
The mechanism is straightforward once you follow the money. Before ETFs, much of Bitcoin sat with crypto-native holders who traded it on its own logic. After ETFs, large institutions could hold Bitcoin exposure inside the same portfolios as their technology stocks, managed by the same risk desks using the same tools. When those desks adjust risk, they buy or sell Bitcoin and tech at the same time, for the same reasons, which welds the two together.
The marginal dollar in Bitcoin became, increasingly, the same dollar chasing artificial intelligence and growth equities, so when that dollar turned cautious, it sold both at once. This is the deeper story behind capital rotating into AI stocks that has drained crypto momentum all year. It is not only that money left Bitcoin for semiconductors; it is that the money still in Bitcoin now behaves like the money in tech, responding to the same Federal Reserve signals, the same liquidity conditions, and the same growth expectations. Bitcoin did not choose to become a tech stock. Its new owners made it one.
The worst of both worlds: downside without the upside
If Bitcoin simply tracked the Nasdaq one for one, that would be a clean story. The reality analysts have flagged is worse for holders. Trading firm Wintermute has argued that while Bitcoin’s directional correlation with the Nasdaq stayed high, the quality of that correlation deteriorated into what it called a bearish skew. In plain terms, Bitcoin has kept the downside beta, falling hard when equities fall, while losing much of the upside participation, failing to rally proportionally when equities recover.
Wintermute’s Jasper De Maere tied this to a shift in investor attention. As mindshare and risk-on capital crowded into mega-cap tech, Bitcoin remained correlated when global sentiment turned negative but stopped benefiting fully when optimism returned. He described Bitcoin as reacting like a high-beta tail of macro risk rather than a standalone narrative, keeping the downside beta while shedding the upside premium. The Kobeissi Letter put the same idea more bluntly, noting that Bitcoin was increasingly behaving like a leveraged technology stock.
That combination, all of the downside and only part of the upside, is the least attractive profile an asset can have. It means Bitcoin has been amplifying the pain of equity selloffs without delivering the diversification that justified holding it, and without matching the gains of the tech names it now mirrors. For a portfolio manager, an asset that adds volatility without adding either diversification or reliable upside is hard to defend, which is part of why some funds have re-labeled Bitcoin from a long-term hedge to a tactical growth position sized like any other speculative bet.
The counter-case: Bitcoin is decoupling, just not how bulls hoped
Here the story turns, because the simple tech-proxy narrative has a serious flaw. If Bitcoin were purely a leveraged Nasdaq, it would have risen when tech rose. Instead, for stretches since the October 2025 peak, Bitcoin fell while the Nasdaq strengthened, a divergence that some analysts said had rarely been so wide. Tech stocks climbed on strong earnings while Bitcoin dropped more than 30% from its high, driven by forces that had nothing to do with corporate profits.
Those forces were crypto-specific. The October 10 flash crash triggered a cascade of leveraged liquidations that hit Bitcoin while barely touching equities. Spot ETF outflows accelerated, pulling out the marginal buyer. The reflexive feedback loop around Bitcoin treasury companies like Strategy, most visibly Strategy, threatened to reverse from a buyer of last resort into a source of supply. And post-halving mining economics added their own pressure through miner selling pressure. None of that is in a Nasdaq chart.
So the honest reading is that Bitcoin is not a clean tech proxy: it takes the downside when tech falls, but it also falls on its own crypto-native shocks when tech rises. That is a worse outcome than pure correlation, but it also means Bitcoin is not simply a technology stock in disguise. The distinction matters for anyone trying to model the asset. A pure tech proxy would at least be predictable, rising and falling with the Nasdaq. What Bitcoin actually did in 2026 was absorb equity-market downside through the ETF-era ownership channel while simultaneously generating its own downside through leverage unwinds, ETF redemptions, treasury-company stress, and miner selling. It behaved less like gold, less like a clean tech stock, and more like a uniquely fragile hybrid during a bad year.
The maturation argument: a third asset class
There is a more optimistic frame that some analysts and long-term holders favor, which is that Bitcoin is becoming its own asset class instead of a copy of gold or tech. On this view, the correlation to equities is a phase driven by who happens to hold the marginal coin today, not a permanent identity. Bitcoin still has properties neither gold nor a tech stock shares: a hard-capped supply that cannot be expanded by decision, no cash flows or earnings to miss, and no management team or governance structure that can fail. Those features do not disappear because a correlation chart spikes.
The behavior of long-term holders supports the maturation read. During the same 2026 window when the ETF complex bled, the supply held by long-term holders moved in the opposite direction, with those flows running far larger in magnitude than ETF flows and skewing toward net accumulation. In other words, the traders treating Bitcoin as a high-beta risk asset were selling through ETFs, while conviction holders who treat it as a long-term store of value were buying. Two different populations, two different theses, playing out in the same asset at the same time.
Which group defines Bitcoin’s identity depends on which one is setting the marginal price, and that can change. Standard Chartered, for its part, has kept multiyear price targets well above current levels even while acknowledging the rotation into AI, framing the moment as a question of timing and competition for capital rather than a verdict on what Bitcoin fundamentally is. The maturation argument does not deny that Bitcoin trades like a risk asset right now. It argues that the current correlation is a snapshot of a particular ownership mix and liquidity regime, not the final word on an asset that is still only in its second decade.
Is this structural or cyclical?
The whole debate reduces to one question: is Bitcoin’s correlation with tech a permanent feature of the ETF era, or a temporary product of the current environment? The case for structural is that the ownership change is not reversing. ETFs are here to stay, institutions will keep managing Bitcoin alongside equities, and as long as they do, the flows that link the two assets will persist. If that is right, the digital gold thesis is effectively dead for as long as this ownership base dominates, and Bitcoin is a growth allocation that happens to be more volatile than most.
The case for cyclical rests on how correlations behave over time. Cross-asset correlations tend to spike during tight-liquidity, risk-off regimes and to loosen when liquidity returns and assets trade more on their own fundamentals. Bitcoin’s correlation with the Nasdaq has swung dramatically before, from deeply negative to strongly positive within weeks, which is not the signature of a fixed relationship. A shift in Federal Reserve policy, a change in the liquidity backdrop, or a rotation of capital away from the crowded AI trade could all loosen the tie and give Bitcoin room to trade on its own narrative again.
Some analysts even argue the correlation has already begun to break, though so far in the unhelpful direction of falling while tech rose. What would restore the digital gold thesis is a period where Bitcoin holds up while equities fall, proving the hedge in the only way that counts. That has not happened in 2026, which is why the thesis is on the ropes. But a single bad year in which a leverage-driven crypto drawdown collided with an AI-fueled equity rally is not a controlled experiment, and reading a permanent identity change off it may be as premature as the original digital gold claim was.
What it means for how to hold Bitcoin
For anyone actually holding Bitcoin, the practical takeaway is to match the thesis to the timeframe. Over the horizon that matters in 2026, Bitcoin has behaved as a high-beta risk asset, so treating it as a crisis hedge or a portfolio insulator has not worked and is not supported by the data. An allocation sized as if Bitcoin will hold up when stocks crash is mis-sized, because this year it fell harder than the stocks it was meant to hedge. The more defensible approach in the current regime is to treat Bitcoin as a volatile growth position, size it to risk tolerance, and watch the Nasdaq and AI-stock sentiment as closely as the crypto charts, because that is where much of the near-term direction is being set.
Over a longer horizon, the store-of-value case does not depend on short-term correlation. The fixed supply, the absence of governance and cash-flow risk, and the accumulation behavior of long-term holders are the pillars of that argument, and they survive a year of trading like a tech stock. The honest conclusion is that Bitcoin is currently being priced as a leveraged expression of risk appetite, not as digital gold, and that this reflects who owns it in the ETF era more than any change in what it is. Whether it grows into the independent, hedge-like asset its supporters imagine, or stays a high-beta satellite of the tech trade, will be settled by the next regime, not this one.
For now, the market has given its answer, and it is not gold. The strongest near-term read is not ideological; it is practical. In a world of a hawkish Fed and tight liquidity, Bitcoin behaves like a risk asset, and risk-off market sentiment matters as much as on-chain conviction. The digital gold thesis is not dead by definition, but in 2026 it has not been the trade.
Frequently asked questions
Is Bitcoin still considered digital gold?
Less and less in practice. Through 2026, Bitcoin behaved like a high-beta risk asset instead of a safe haven, falling alongside technology stocks while gold climbed to record highs. Its correlation with the Nasdaq reached as high as 0.80 while its link to gold fell toward zero. The digital gold label describes Bitcoin’s design and long-term thesis, but its 2026 trading behavior did not match it.
Why does Bitcoin move with tech stocks now?
The main driver is the spot ETF era that began in January 2024. Once institutions could hold Bitcoin inside the same portfolios as technology stocks, managed by the same risk desks, the same capital flows started moving both. When those desks adjust risk exposure, they buy or sell Bitcoin and tech together, which ties Bitcoin to equity market sentiment and Federal Reserve policy the same way growth stocks are.
How correlated is Bitcoin with the Nasdaq?
Correlation varies with the time window, but it has been high in 2026. Rolling 30-day correlations with the Nasdaq 100 reached about 0.80 early in the year, the highest in nearly four years, and the five-year correlation sits near 0.54. Short-term readings against U.S. tech indices have ranged roughly between 0.55 and 0.68. Correlations shift over time and have swung from negative to strongly positive within weeks.
Did the Bitcoin ETFs cause this?
They appear to be the central cause. Research from late 2025 found that spot ETF approval structurally raised Bitcoin’s correlation with the S&P 500, marking a shift from an independent asset to a conventional risk asset. The ETFs legitimized Bitcoin by integrating it into traditional finance, and that same integration tied its price to equity flows and institutional risk management.
What is the bearish skew analysts mention?
It refers to Bitcoin keeping the downside of its tech correlation while losing much of the upside. Trading firm Wintermute described Bitcoin as falling hard when equities fall but failing to rally proportionally when they recover, behaving as a high-beta tail of macro risk. That combination, full downside and partial upside, is a poor profile because it adds volatility without reliable gains or diversification.
Is Bitcoin just a leveraged tech stock then?
Not cleanly. If Bitcoin were purely a leveraged Nasdaq, it would have risen when tech rose, but for stretches in 2026 it fell while tech strengthened, driven by crypto-specific shocks: the October flash crash, ETF outflows, treasury-company stress, and miner selling. So Bitcoin took equity downside while also generating its own downside, which is a fragile hybrid instead of a simple tech proxy.
Could Bitcoin become a hedge again?
It is possible, and it hinges on whether the correlation is structural or cyclical. Cross-asset correlations tend to spike in tight-liquidity, risk-off regimes and loosen when liquidity returns. A shift in Federal Reserve policy or a rotation away from the crowded AI trade could let Bitcoin trade on its own narrative again. Restoring the hedge thesis would require Bitcoin to hold up while equities fall, which has not happened in 2026.
How should investors treat Bitcoin given this?
Match the thesis to the timeframe. In the current regime, Bitcoin trades as a volatile growth asset, so sizing it as a crisis hedge is not supported by the data, and investors may watch the Nasdaq and AI sentiment as closely as crypto charts. Over a longer horizon, the store-of-value case rests on fixed supply, no governance risk, and long-term holder accumulation, which do not depend on short-term correlation.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile, and correlations between assets change over time and may not persist. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Always do your own research and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before making investment decisions. Information is accurate as of July 2, 2026, and may change.
While Strategy’s preferred STRC shares ended July well below their $100 par value, investors were told that their August dividend will not increase, holding at 12%.
Executive chairman Michael Saylor delivered the news in a tweet on Saturday, continuing to pitch STRC as a way to “stretch your income.” August will be the second month that the dividend will be paid semi-monthly after shareholders approved that change in June.
STRC shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, clocking a 5.42% price increase for the month which began with a dividend hike — 50 basis points to 12% — after a poor stock performance in June. The volume on the Nasdaq-traded shares on Friday were about two-thirds of their daily average.
STRC shares continued to trade significantly below their $100 par value in July.
Source: TradingView
On Friday, Strategy CEO Phong Le reiterated that management’s “corporate objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time,” without elaborating when investors might expect that to transpire.
Related: Bitcoin ETFs end July in the green despite late-month selling
Building cash reserve to make preferred payouts
Saylor, however, did take to social media on Sunday to dangle the possibility that the company will be making an announcement of a change in its Bitcoin treasury holdings. “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” read his X post, following a familiar pattern of posting a chart of Strategy’s BTC buys from Saylortracker.com to start off the week.
Last week, Strategy reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, driven primarily by an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin (BTC) holdings as the cryptocurrency’s price declined during the quarter.
The Bitcoin treasury company said it has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve to support preferred stock payouts following the launch of its BTC monetization program.
Strategy also said it has built a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve, enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest obligations. The company recently repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and said it intends to continue buying the securities while they trade below $100.
Magazine: Here’s why the CLARITY Act’s ethics deal may be so hard to reach
Minnesota’s prediction market ban remained blocked on Aug. 2, one day after the law was scheduled to take effect.
Summary
- July 27 injunction keeps Kalshi and Polymarket operating while Minnesota’s preemption case continues in court.
- Walz barred state employees from using confidential information to trade prediction markets for private benefit.
- Fairshake reported $126.97 million cash on hand through June, amplifying crypto’s broader election influence nationwide.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez granted a preliminary injunction on July 27 to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Kalshi and Polymarket US. The order prevents Minnesota from enforcing its new statute against CFTC-registered designated contract markets while three related cases continue.
The Minnesota law would make it a felony for businesses to create, operate or intentionally support covered prediction markets. It also reaches certain data providers, payment services and advertisements. Menendez found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on at least part of their federal preemption claim because many event contracts may qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Court win protects federal markets, but only for now
The ruling does not settle the dispute. Menendez found that the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction probably covers a “considerable swath” of contracts offered by Kalshi and Polymarket. However, she also said the platforms had not shown that every listed event contract meets the federal definition of a swap. Any permanent injunction could therefore protect fewer products than the current order.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said prediction markets are “gambling, plain and simple.” That remains the state’s legal position, not a final court finding. Kalshi responded that “States cannot ban things that they don’t have jurisdiction over.” The company’s statement likewise reflects its interpretation of federal law rather than the case’s final outcome.
The injunction only covers the new prediction market statute as applied to CFTC-registered markets. It does not decide whether Minnesota can apply older gambling laws to individual sports or entertainment contracts. The Department of Public Safety has not said whether it views the platforms as illegal under those existing provisions or whether another enforcement action is underway.
As previously reported, the current relief will remain in place until the district court reaches a final decision unless a later order or appeal changes it. The court could ultimately distinguish between contracts with financial or economic consequences and products that more closely resemble ordinary wagers.
Walz shifts Minnesota’s focus to insider trading
Governor Tim Walz responded one day after the ruling with Executive Order 26-09. It prohibits covered state employees, including the governor, lieutenant governor and agency commissioners, from using nonpublic or confidential government information to trade prediction-market contracts for private benefit.
The order does not cover the legislature, courts, independent elected officials or several boards and commissions. Walz encouraged those institutions to adopt similar policies. It becomes effective 15 days after publication in the State Register and filing with the secretary of state.
A new federal enforcement case also shows that CFTC oversight does not leave manipulation entirely unpoliced. On July 31, the agency ordered former U.S. Representative George Santos to disgorge $17,569.98, pay a $17,500 penalty and accept a three-year trading ban over manipulative activity in a State of the Union event contract.
The CFTC order said Santos traded on whether he would attend the speech while making misleading public statements about his plans. The agency said those statements moved contract prices in a direction that favored his positions.
Meanwhile, as crypto.news reported, Kalshi has introduced employer disclosures, risk scoring and expanded surveillance for higher-risk contracts. The company said it blocked more than 100 potential insider trades and made 20 law-enforcement referrals during the first quarter of 2026. Those remain company-reported figures.
U.S. politics could pull crypto lawmakers and PACs into the fight
The Minnesota ruling could give pro-crypto lawmakers another example for arguing that national financial markets need one federal framework. The CLARITY Act does not regulate prediction markets directly. However, its supporters are also seeking a larger CFTC role in U.S. digital asset oversight. Senate lawmakers released updated market-structure text on July 22 after the Banking Committee advanced the measure in May.
The court dispute also creates a counterargument for lawmakers wary of expanding the commission’s mandate. A July 21 Senate letter asked the Government Accountability Office to review a reported 25% reduction in CFTC staffing and weaker enforcement activity. Critics could argue that Congress should not widen the regulator’s duties without ensuring it has enough staff to oversee both digital assets and fast-growing event markets. This is a political inference based on the agency’s expanding workload and the staffing concerns raised in Congress.
The case does not involve Fairshake or another crypto PAC. Still, it could shape campaign arguments surrounding candidates supported by the industry. FEC records showed that Fairshake held approximately $126.97 million in cash at the end of June and had spent $74.25 million during the current two-year reporting period.
In related coverage, Protect Progress spent more than $2 million in Michigan’s 13th District race, where challenger Donavan McKinney tied crypto lobbying to President Donald Trump’s business interests. Similar campaign attacks could connect support for broader CFTC authority with the Trump family’s prediction-market relationships.
Kalshi named Donald Trump Jr. a strategic adviser in January 2025. Polymarket later added him to its advisory board when his investment firm, 1789 Capital, took a stake in the company. Those corporate relationships are confirmed, although they do not prove that the White House directed the CFTC’s Minnesota litigation.
Sports-law attorney Daniel Wallach described the change in federal policy as “classic regulatory capture.” That is his assessment, not a judicial or regulatory conclusion. However, the family relationships may give opponents of pro-crypto candidates a clearer campaign message about industry access, federal authority and possible conflicts.
Conflicting state cases keep national rules unsettled
Minnesota is one part of a wider federal-state contest. The CFTC has filed cases against several states to defend what it calls exclusive jurisdiction over registered prediction markets. Yet courts have not produced one nationwide answer. Minnesota’s injunction favored the platforms, while rulings involving Wisconsin and Washington allowed state gambling challenges to advance.
New York added another case on July 31 by suing Kalshi and alleging that its platform operates as unlicensed gambling. The state seeks an injunction, restitution, penalties and forfeiture of alleged gains. Those claims remain allegations that Kalshi can contest in court.
The CFTC’s proposed prediction-market rule is another key track. The public comment period closed on July 27. The proposal would define “gaming,” establish factors for public-interest reviews and create a process lasting as long as 90 days for certain event contracts. The commission has not issued a final rule.
There’s rarely a big altcoin gainer during the current market conditions, in which every breakout attempt is halted in its tracks. This is particularly true for weekend moves, as the market tends to freeze on Saturday and Sunday.
The latest example came in the past 36-48 hours. Even though the situation in the Middle East continues to develop quickly, with Trump claiming a Hormuz Strait deal is in the making and Iran refuting his statement once again, BTC and most altcoins have remained sluggish.
However, Cardano’s ADA has emerged as the clear winner this weekend, gaining over 9% and jumping past $0.19 hours ago for the first time in almost a month. Here’s the most likely reason and what could follow next.
Whales Are Buying
Since we are excluding a rally from the broader market, perhaps the most obvious reason behind ADA’s impressive resurgence over the past day has been the recent behavior of whales. These large market participants, who can influence the underlying asset’s price moves with big purchases or sales, have gone on an accumulation spree.
Santiment Intelligence data shared by Ali Martinez shows that whales have scooped more than 240 million ADA in less than a week. Their total holdings went to 14.55 billion before retracing slightly.
The analyst concluded that this substantial acquisition has helped fuel the asset’s notable 22% surge in the past five days, while the rest of the market stagnates.
Whales loaded up. Cardano took off.
Over 240 million $ADA have been accumulated in the past five days, helping fuel a 22% price surge per data from @SantimentData. pic.twitter.com/6Q6P6luBZn
— Ali Charts (@alicharts) August 2, 2026
Major Breakout Knocking on the Door
Another analyst going under the X moniker, Gerla, noted that ADA is “knocking on the door of a major breakout.” Their chart shows that ADA is fighting for the $0.19-$0.20 resistance level now, which capped its previous breakout attempt last month.
However, the bullish RSI divergence and the completion of an inverse head-and-shoulders suggest that ADA finally has the strength to overcome that obstacle and aim at the next one, positioned at around $0.30.
ZAYK Charts was even more bullish, indicating that a successful surge past the first resistance level could pave the way for another leg up toward $0.50.
The post Why Is Cardano (ADA) Up 9% Today While the Crypto Market Stalls? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
After several failed attempts to extend its recovery, Ethereum is beginning to show signs of exhaustion beneath the major100-day MA. The latest rejection from this zone has weakened short-term momentum and increases the probability of a broader pullback if key support levels fail to hold.
Ethereum Price Analysis: The Daily Chart
On the daily timeframe, ETH’s outlook is gradually shifting toward a bearish bias after multiple failed attempts to reclaim the 100-day moving average. The repeated rejection from this dynamic resistance around $1.95K, combined with the emergence of bearish daily candles, suggests buyers are losing momentum.
Meanwhile, Ethereum continues to struggle with the descending channel, with the upper boundary represented by the white trendline serving as the most critical support.
If sellers manage to push the price back inside this channel, it would confirm a bearish continuation and likely trigger a deeper decline toward the $1.56K to $1.64K demand zone. On the upside, bulls must first reclaim the $1.88K to $1.91K resistance area before attempting another move toward the 100-day MA near $1.95K.
ETH/USDT 4-Hour Chart
The 4-hour chart has turned more bearish after Ethereum broke below its ascending trendline, signaling that buyers have lost short-term control. This breakdown shifts the focus toward lower support levels unless bulls can quickly reclaim the broken structure.
The first support now lies within the $1.85K to $1.87K demand zone, where price is currently attempting to stabilize. Losing this area would likely accelerate the decline toward the next major demand zone between $1.75K and $1.79K.
On the other hand, the $1.88K to $1.91K supply zone has become the primary threshold for buyers. A successful reclaim of this region would invalidate the immediate bearish scenario and could allow Ethereum to challenge the descending resistance and the 100-day moving average once again.
Sentiment Analysis
The Coinbase Premium Index remains in negative territory, indicating that Ethereum continues to trade at a discount on Coinbase relative to other major exchanges. This persistent negative premium suggests buying pressure from U.S.-based institutional participants remains relatively weak despite the recent recovery.
Historically, sustained positive readings have accompanied stronger bullish phases, whereas prolonged negative values often reflect cautious institutional sentiment. Until the premium returns to positive territory and remains there consistently, the current rebound may struggle to develop into a sustained uptrend, leaving Ethereum vulnerable to additional downside pressure if technical support levels begin to fail.
The post Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH’s Double Rejection at $2K Spells More Trouble Ahead appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Ripple’s XRP remains under steady selling pressure as the latest rebound attempts continue to lose momentum. The recent price action suggests sellers are maintaining control, while buyers are once again being forced to defend a critical support area.
Ripple Price Analysis: The Daily Chart
The daily chart shows little improvement compared to the previous analysis. The asset continues to trade beneath the descending resistance trendline while remaining well below the major moving averages, preserving the broader bearish market structure.
The latest candles indicate that sellers remain in control after another failed recovery attempt, pushing the price back toward the key demand zone around $1.01 to $1.04. This support has repeatedly prevented a deeper decline over the past several weeks, making it the most important level to monitor.
As long as XRP remains below the descending trendline and the main resistance between $1.24 and $1.29, the broader outlook favors continued weakness. A decisive breakdown below the $1.01 to $1.04 support zone would likely accelerate the decline toward the next major support around $0.89.
XRP/USDT 4-Hour Chart
On the 4-hour timeframe, rather than recovering from support, XRP has continued to print lower highs and lower lows while remaining capped by the descending resistance trendline.
The recent rejection near $1.09 was followed by another decline toward the $1.01 to $1.04 demand zone, showing that buyers have yet to regain control. This area remains the last significant short-term defense for the bulls.
If this support fails, the bearish momentum is likely to intensify and extend the decline toward lower levels. Conversely, buyers would first need to reclaim the descending trendline before any meaningful recovery toward the $1.24 to $1.29 resistance zone could be considered. Until then, rallies are likely to face selling pressure and remain corrective in nature.
The post XRP Price Analysis: Is a Drop Below $1 Inevitable as Sellers Stay in Control? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Bitcoin continues to trade without a decisive directional bias as both buyers and sellers defend key technical levels. Until one side forces a confirmed breakout, the current environment is likely to remain dominated by range-bound price action and short-term liquidity grabs.
Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart
The daily chart suggests Bitcoin is still locked in a prolonged consolidation phase between the major support around $57.8K to $60.2K and the primary resistance at $66.2K to $66.8K. Despite several attempts by both buyers and sellers, neither side has managed to establish a sustained trend beyond these boundaries.
This type of market structure typically favors liquidity sweeps and stop hunts around local highs and lows before a genuine directional move develops. As long as the asset remains trapped between these two zones, traders should expect continued choppy price action rather than a sustained trend.
A confirmed breakout above the $66.2K to $66.8K resistance could trigger another leg toward the higher resistance around $72K to $74K. Conversely, losing the $57.8K to $60.2K demand zone would invalidate the current consolidation and expose Bitcoin to a deeper correction.
BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart
On the 4-hour timeframe, Bitcoin is trading inside an even tighter range within the broader daily consolidation. Buyers continue defending the support region at $61.8K to $62.2K, while sellers repeatedly cap rallies below the resistance around $64.9K to $65.6K.
Holding above the buyers’ defense could allow another recovery attempt toward the upper boundary of this range. However, the recent sequence of lower highs indicates that sellers still hold a slight advantage, making a breakdown below the $61.8K to $62.2K support zone the more likely scenario if buying momentum continues to weaken. Such a move could accelerate selling pressure toward the lower boundary of the broader daily range.
Sentiment Analysis
The two-week liquidation heatmap shows a notable concentration of liquidity just beneath Bitcoin’s recent lows. This suggests futures market participants have been actively defending that area, with buyers stepping in to absorb selling pressure whenever the price approaches the lower liquidity cluster.
At the same time, a substantial pool of liquidity remains above the market around the $66K to $67K region, indicating that both sides still have attractive liquidation targets. As long as Bitcoin remains inside its broader consolidation, the price is likely to continue oscillating between these liquidity zones before a decisive breakout determines the next major trend.
The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: Will the Next Liquidity Sweep Push BTC Below $60K? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
A Canadian entrepreneur lost more than $1.6 million in Bitcoin (BTC) from a Coldcard hardware wallet in under seven minutes, part of a wave that may total 1,367.05 BTC.
The case exposes an uncomfortable truth about self-custody: doing everything right may not be enough.
How One Holder Lost 18 BTC in Seven Minutes
Cold storage means keeping private keys on a device that never touches the internet. Jonathan Goodman followed that principle carefully, storing his Coldcard in a safety deposit box.
His 18.25 BTC sat in wallets secured across multiple safes. He never shared his seed phrase and kept every device isolated from online exposure.
None of it mattered on July 29, 2026. Between 9:36 and 9:43 that evening, every wallet he controlled was emptied.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.
Goodman first heard about a broader problem while at his cottage.
Assuming it would not affect him, he checked the balances in the Wasabi wallet software and found a series of red withdrawal transactions.
The vulnerability traces back to 2021. A flaw in the code that generates seed phrases left certain devices exposed, and attackers allegedly used artificial intelligence to brute-force the affected seed phrases.
He is filing reports with the police and the Ontario Securities Commission. Recovery hopes remain slim, though he wrote that the hardest part was having done everything right.
The scale extends far beyond one victim. Galaxy Research identified three suspected attack waves targeting addresses generated by Coldcard devices.
Those waves involved 4,585 source addresses and drained 1,367.05 BTC, worth roughly $88.6 million at the time of reporting.
What Galaxy Research Found in the Attack Data
Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn indicates that the attacks appear to be ongoing. He urged users who have not moved funds from potentially vulnerable setups to act immediately.
The first two waves showed similar transaction patterns and may share a common operator, though that remains unconfirmed. The third differed significantly, suggesting either updated tools or a separate actor exploiting the same key space.
The stolen Bitcoin remains in attacker-controlled addresses, with no further movement. Drained holdings had sat dormant for an average of 3.18 years, suggesting most victims were long-term holders rather than institutions.
Galaxy stressed an important caveat. Its findings rely solely on on-chain data and have not definitively confirmed insufficient randomness in the generation of the affected addresses.
“…this is a blow to bitcoin self-custody and we need to do better as a community: with security, with education, and with being realistic about complexity, expectations, and recommendations we make to friends, family, and the public…,” Alex Thorn said.
Analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera highlighted a deeper irony in Coldcard’s own documentation. The manual describes its default seed-generation method as the one it trusts most, while labeling it as low risk to users.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.
Alternatives exist within the same device. Users can combine hardware output with dice rolls, or rely on dice alone, which the manual says removes all trust in the hardware. Most users likely followed the default path. That is precisely the method Galaxy Research now links to the losses.
The conceptual tension runs deeper. Reproducibility, prized for verifying firmware, becomes a liability in secret generation, since both weak and strong seeds produce valid 24-word phrases that appear identical.
Devices marketed under a “Don’t Trust, Verify” ethos can still harbor entropy flaws, leaving no visible trace. Affected users should assess their setups and migrate funds where necessary.
The post $1.6 Million Drained in a Blink: User Recounts His Dramatic Coldcard Wallet Hack appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Iran has denied President Donald Trump’s claim that a deal exists to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s busiest oil route. Oil jumped on the denial.
Bitcoin (BTC) barely moved. That gap says a lot about what crypto traders now choose to ignore.
Trump Says a Hormuz Deal Exists. Iran Says It Does Not
Trump posted on Truth Social early Sunday. He said he had canceled a planned strike on Iran.
He wrote that Iran and its neighbors asked him to hold off. The reason, he said, was that “the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to.”
That deal would open the Strait of Hormuz right away. It would also end Iran’s nuclear threat.
Iran answered within hours. Fars News Agency quoted a source close to the nuclear talks.
“There is no agreement regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the news published about it is false,” Fars News Agency, via CGTN.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Iran’s acting defense minister, Seyyed Majid Ibn Al-Reza, called Trump’s words psychological warfare. Fars International called Trump’s terms a wish list.
None of this is new. An earlier pause in strikes in late July also went nowhere.
Talks did happen, though. Qatari mediators met Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, and US envoy Steve Witkoff on Saturday. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged Trump to cool things down.
Why Oil Jumped and Bitcoin Did Not
Start with the map. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow sea lane between Iran and Oman.
About 20 million barrels of oil passed through it every day in 2024, EIA data shows. That is roughly a fifth of the oil the world uses.
Here is the problem. Only about 2.6 million barrels a day can go around it, through pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
The rest has nowhere else to go. That is why one denial can move a market this big.
WTI crude, the US benchmark, closed at $84.67 on Friday. It then rose about 2.4% to trade near $86.79.
The denial also puts an official forecast in doubt. On July 7, the EIA cut its Brent crude forecast for this quarter by $27 a barrel, to $74. It cited the June US-Iran deal and busier traffic through the strait.
That June deal has since fallen apart. Analysts tracking Hormuz reopening timelines now expect the route to stay restricted into 2027.
Bitcoin did almost nothing. It added 0.08% in 24 hours and sat near $63,063.
It also trades about 50% below its record of $126,080, set on October 6, 2025. The muted Bitcoin price reaction suggests traders now ignore headlines that change nothing on the water.
What Happens Next
Oil matters to crypto for one reason. It feeds inflation.
June proved the link. US energy prices fell 5.7% that month, the steepest drop since April 2020.
The BLS said energy did most of the work. Headline prices fell 0.4% over the month. Annual inflation cooled to 3.5% from 4.2%.
Energy is still expensive over a full year, however. Gasoline is up 26.7%.
So a lasting jump in oil would undo that progress. That makes Federal Reserve rate cuts harder to justify. Rate cuts are what assets like Bitcoin want.
The next check comes August 12, when the BLS publishes July inflation.
Until ships can sail through Hormuz freely, oil keeps its war premium. Bitcoin keeps waiting.
The post Iran Denies Trump’s Hormuz Deal, Oil Jumps but Bitcoin Watches appeared first on BeInCrypto.
South Koreans sent $367 million more in stablecoins out of the country than they brought back in June. It was the 18th month in a row that money left.
The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) handed those numbers to lawmaker Lee Jong-wook. The streak started in January 2025. Traders are chasing something they cannot get at home.
Why South Korea’s Stablecoin Outflows Keep Widening
Five exchanges handle almost all local crypto trading. They are Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax.
In June, they sent roughly $1.8 billion in stablecoins to foreign platforms. About $1.44 billion came back. The gap was $367 million.
Local media reported that across the whole second quarter, close to $1.1 billion left.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The size is what caught the attention of lawmakers. Koreans bought about $470 million of foreign shares in June, according to the Korea Securities Depository. The stablecoin outflow matched 77.6% of that figure.
A year earlier, the ratio sat near 20%. Crypto money now leaves the country almost as fast as stock money.
The trend held even as the local market shrank. Seoul confirmed a 22% crypto tax for 2027, and domestic trading volume fell nearly 55% in the first half.
One caveat belongs here. The FSS counts only the five licensed exchanges, so coins sent to private wallets first never show up.
What Foreign Exchanges Offer That Seoul Cannot
Korean platforms mostly offer plain spot trading. That is the whole problem.
Foreign venues offer far more.
- Crypto derivatives with heavy leverage
- Dollar-based real world assets (RWAs)
- Decentralized Finance (DeFi) protocols
- Staking rewards
Some also list Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Hyundai Motor as tradable contracts. Leverage on those can run into the tens of times. A stablecoin transfer is the cheapest way in.
The same hunger shows up in regulated markets. Koreans put a net $1.28 billion into foreign leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in June. That was more than triple the May total.
Seoul did try to compete. Korea listed its first single-stock leverage ETFs on May 27. Less than a month later, FSS Governor Lee Chan-jin publicly criticized them.
A bigger fix is on the way. Four agencies published a plan on July 19 to legalize won-backed stablecoins. A separate bill would treat crypto as national wealth.
The Leverage Unwind Sitting Behind the Numbers
The regulator’s worry proved well founded. Fourteen leveraged ETFs track Samsung and SK Hynix. Their assets shrank from about $10.7 billion at the end of June to $6.3 billion by July 13.
Margin loans fell too. Korean brokerages held roughly $21.8 billion on July 30, down about $4.4 billion since June 24.
The Kobeissi Letter says $67 billion has drained from margin accounts across Korea, China, and Taiwan. BeInCrypto could not confirm that total.
The KOSPI lost 22.19% in July, its worst month since 1997. Then it jumped 17.91% on July 31, a record single day.
Economist Steve Hanke blames global fatigue with AI hype. That rebound, led by a 29.95% gain in SK Hynix, cuts against the idea. Asia’s unwinding AI trade has swung just as hard in Tokyo.
The stablecoin figures tell a steadier story. Korean money is not hiding. It is relocating, much as it did when Korean investors cashed out late last year.
Lee sits on the National Assembly’s finance committee for the People Power Party. He wants the government to act.
“As the ‘coin move’ from domestic to overseas spreads, funds are flowing abroad, and investors are being defenseless against high-risk derivatives on foreign exchanges,” local media reported, citing Lee.
Seoul can close the exits or widen the menu at home. That choice decides what month 19 looks like.
The post South Koreans are Sending Stablecoins to Foreign Exchanges at Record Rate appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Everything under one login
Round-the-clock trading is one part of the plans exchanges have for traditional assets. Coinbase and Binance want customers to trade crypto, stocks and other products through one account, a model both have described as an “everything exchange” or financial super app.
Coinbase is preparing to offer U.K. customers equities and derivatives alongside crypto after securing investment-services authorization from the Financial Conduct Authority under rules based on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or MiFID.
The authorization allows Coinbase to offer traditional shares to retail customers and crypto, equity and commodity perps to eligible institutional and advanced traders, the company said.
“Perpetual futures are a core focus of what Coinbase is trying to bring to market,” said Keith Grose, U.K. CEO at Coinbase, in an interview with CoinDesk. “We’re really focused on being the ‘everything exchange.’”
Grose said the longer-term plan is to bring spot crypto, perpetual futures, traditional equities, and eventually tokenized versions of other assets into one place. That could allow customers to use positions across different markets as collateral or borrow against their equities.
Using stocks as collateral
Binance is testing another part of the model by allowing some high-net-worth clients to use tokenized stock positions as collateral for other trades.
“We recognize you could have Nvidia or SpaceX stock, a tokenized version,” Jan said. “You could actually have a tokenized stock put on our exchange, and we’ll use that as collateral for you to trade something else. It could be a crypto derivative.”
WWE SummerSlam 2026 card: Complete list of matches for Night 2 on Sunday
UV Printer? 3D Printer? HeyGears Says “Why Not Both”?
Indian Real big money…. #shorts #money #india #indiamoney
-
Sports7 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business4 days agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Wit & Wisdom
-
Tech7 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Politics2 days agoMeta enters AI-training agreement with far-right ‘propaganda rag’ Newsmax
-
Politics6 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World1 day agoMicroStrategy Post-Earnings CLARITY Act Push Could Add New Catalyst for Its Stock
-
Politics5 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Entertainment5 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
News Videos7 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Business4 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
News Videos3 days agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Crypto World1 day agoXRP Ledger v3.3.0 brings five institutional features
-
Crypto World5 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Tech6 days agoNew macOS Sequoia & Sonoma security updates for older Macs
-
News Videos5 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
-
Politics3 days agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
-
Sports3 days agoSeema Kaliramna Wins Discus Throw Bronze, Takes India’s CWG Medals Tally To 17
-
Business5 days agoJohnson & Johnson agrees to $5.5B settlement over talc cancer claims
-
Crypto World6 hours agoCrypto PAC spending tops $2M in Michigan House race
You must be logged in to post a comment Login