Crypto World

Bitcoin miners are selling: is capitulation here?

Published

1 month ago

3 July 2026

What happens to Bitcoin if US Iran talks break down?

Public miners have dumped Bitcoin at a record pace, hashprice has collapsed to post-halving lows, and older machines are switching off. That is the textbook definition of capitulation. The harder question is whether it marks a bottom or the start of a deeper shakeout.

Summary

Publicly traded Bitcoin miners sold more than 32,000 BTC in the first quarter of 2026, a single-quarter record that exceeded their combined sales for all of 2025 and topped the roughly 20,000 BTC sold during the Terra-Luna collapse in 2022.
The pressure is economic: hashprice, the revenue a miner earns per unit of computing power, fell to post-halving lows in the high-$20s per petahash per day by mid-2026, well below the roughly $35 breakeven for older machines, putting a large share of the industry underwater.
Network hashrate has started to fall as older hardware powers down, the classic signature of a miner capitulation, in which the least efficient operators stop mining at a loss.
The bull reading is that capitulation has historically marked bottoms, because it clears weak capacity, lowers difficulty, and rewards the survivors. The bear reading is that this squeeze is structural, with heavy debt, record ETF outflows, and even Strategy turning seller removing the usual counterweight.
Whether this is a bottom or a way station depends on whether Bitcoin can reclaim miner production cost, estimated by some near $80,000, against a price sitting closer to $58,000.

Bitcoin miners are supposed to be the market’s most committed holders, the operators who spend real money to produce coins and who have every incentive to keep them. So when miners start dumping Bitcoin at a record pace and switching off machines, the market pays attention, because it usually means something has broken in the economics of production. That is exactly what has happened through the first half of 2026. Public miners have sold more Bitcoin than in any prior quarter on record, hashprice has fallen to lows not seen since the last halving, and network hashrate has begun to slip as older rigs go dark.

This piece works through what is driving the selling, what capitulation actually means, and the real disagreement underneath it: whether a miner capitulation at these levels marks the bottom, as it often has, or whether this cycle is different. The signal matters because miners sit at the production edge of Bitcoin, where price, power costs, difficulty, debt, and treasury strategy meet. It also lands at a moment when Bitcoin sentiment is already washed out, making every capitulation signal easier to overread.

The record selling

The headline number is stark. Publicly traded mining companies, including MARA, CleanSpark, Riot Platforms, Cango, Core Scientific, and Bitdeer, collectively sold more than 32,000 Bitcoin in the first quarter of 2026, according to industry trackers. That figure set a single-quarter record. It exceeded what those same companies sold across all four quarters of 2025 combined, and it surpassed the roughly 20,000 Bitcoin they offloaded during the second quarter of 2022, the depths of the bear market that followed the Terra-Luna collapse.

When miners sell more in three months than they did in a full prior year, and more than during one of the worst crises in crypto history, the signal is hard to ignore. The individual disclosures fill in the picture. Riot Platforms sold 3,778 Bitcoin in the first quarter at an average price near $76,626, generating about $289.5 million, while producing only 1,473 coins in the same period, meaning it sold far more than it mined. Core Scientific liquidated roughly 1,900 Bitcoin worth about $175 million in January alone. Cango sold 2,000 Bitcoin in March for approximately $143 million, using the proceeds to retire Bitcoin-backed loans.

In a single week, MARA, Genius Group, and Nakamoto Holdings revealed combined sales of more than 15,000 coins, with the largest share from MARA. These were not routine sales of freshly mined coins to cover the power bill; they were drawdowns of treasury reserves the companies had previously chosen to hold. The trend shows up in the aggregate data too. The total Bitcoin held by miners, a metric some analysts call the miner reserve, has been declining since 2023, falling from more than 1.86 million coins at the end of that year toward roughly 1.8 million by mid-2026.

Selling that once looked like occasional balance-sheet management has become a sustained drawdown, and the pace accelerated as prices fell. The question is what forced it. The answer begins with mining economics, but it does not end there.

Why miners are selling

The answer is a profit squeeze that has been building since the last halving. The central metric is hashprice, which measures the daily revenue a miner earns per unit of computing power. Hashprice has been sliding since mid-2025, and by the first half of 2026 it had fallen to record post-halving lows, dropping into the high-$20s per petahash per day on some trackers, down roughly two-thirds from the October 2025 peak. The breakeven level for many miners running older equipment sits near $35 per petahash per day.

With hashprice well below that line, a large share of the industry, estimated at around a fifth at points earlier in the year, has been operating at a loss. Several forces compounded to produce that squeeze. The April 2024 halving cut the block reward in half, instantly halving the Bitcoin miners earn for the same work. Network difficulty has climbed relentlessly since, sitting roughly 10 times higher than in 2021, which means far more computing power now competes for that smaller reward.

Energy costs rose as Middle East conflict pushed oil higher and pressured power prices. Bitcoin itself fell, dropping toward a 21-month low near $58,000, so the coins miners produce are worth less at the moment they most need the cash. Taken together, mining profitability has compressed by close to an order of magnitude from its peak. Debt turned the squeeze into forced selling.

Aggregate miner debt surged over the past year, rising from around $2.1 billion to roughly $12.7 billion as companies borrowed to fund expansion, buy more efficient rigs, and diversify. Debt has to be serviced regardless of price, so when revenue collapses, miners with loan obligations have little choice but to sell coins or, in some cases, sell coins specifically to repay Bitcoin-backed loans. Some estimates put the all-in cost to produce a single Bitcoin near $80,000, well above the current price, which means the least efficient operators are now mining at a loss on every coin. That is the condition that forces capitulation.

What capitulation actually means

Capitulation is a loaded word, so it helps to define it precisely. In mining, capitulation is the point in a cycle where revenue falls below what a meaningful share of the network costs to run, and those operators power down their machines rather than keep mining at a loss. It is not a crash or a malfunction. It is the market clearing, the mechanism by which the least efficient capacity leaves the network when it can no longer pay for itself.

The signature of capitulation is a falling hashrate, and that is now visible. As unprofitable machines switch off, the total computing power securing the network declines. By mid-2026, a meaningful slice of older hardware had gone offline, and the 30-day average network hashrate had fallen by several % from its highs, after earlier swings in which difficulty dropped sharply and then rebounded as miners reconnected. When hashrate falls and stays down, Bitcoin’s built-in difficulty adjustment eventually lowers the bar, making it cheaper and more profitable to mine for the operators who remain.

That self-correcting loop is what distinguishes a mining capitulation from a permanent decline. Analysts track this through indicators built on hashrate momentum, which flag when short-term hashrate falls below its longer-term trend, historically a marker of miner stress and, often, of a market bottom forming. The pattern moves through recognizable stages: revenue falls below cost, weak operators power down, hashrate and difficulty drop, and the survivors, who sit on cheaper power and more efficient machines, absorb the share the leavers gave up and become more profitable. The shakeout is loud and it photographs like a collapse, but the underlying mechanism is orderly.

Whether that orderly clearing is bullish or bearish for the Bitcoin price is where the disagreement begins. For miners, capitulation is an industry sorting event. For traders, it is a possible bottom signal. Those are related, but not identical.

The bull case: capitulation marks bottoms

The optimistic reading rests on history. Miner capitulations have consistently preceded recoveries rather than endings. The logic is mechanical, not hopeful. When high-cost operators power down, network difficulty falls, which lowers the cost to mine for everyone still online.

The efficient survivors, running new machines on cheap power, then capture a larger share of a reward that has become cheaper to earn, so their margins expand even if the price does not move. The capitulation sorts the industry on a single variable, cost per hash, and consolidates it around its lowest-cost producers. For the price, the argument is that miner capitulation tends to coincide with peak seller exhaustion. Miners are a persistent source of supply, selling coins into the market to fund operations.

When the highest-cost miners give up and switch off, that stream of forced selling thins out, removing pressure that had been weighing on the price. Historically, the crossover in hashrate momentum indicators that signals capitulation has aligned with attractive long-term entry points, because it marks the moment the weakest hands, on the production side, have been washed out. The recovery mechanism has proven fast in the modern, industrialized mining sector. Earlier in 2026, a difficulty drop of around 11% was followed within two weeks by a record upward adjustment near 15% as miners reconnected the moment conditions eased.

That speed is the point: surviving operators are committed and well-capitalized enough to scale back up quickly when hashprice recovers. In this reading, the record selling and the falling hashrate are not a warning but a washout, the part of the cycle where the field clears before the next leg up. The bull case does not deny the pain. It argues that the pain is how the reset finishes.

The bear case: this squeeze may be structural

The skeptical reading argues that the usual capitulation-marks-a-bottom pattern assumes a market backdrop that no longer holds. The first difference is debt. The mining sector carries far more leverage than in past cycles, with aggregate debt having climbed toward $12.7 billion, which means capitulation now involves not just idle machines but the risk of defaults, forced liquidations, and distressed asset sales that can overhang the market longer than a simple hashrate reset would. The second and larger difference is who is buying.

In past capitulations, miner selling was absorbed by a mix of retail and, more recently, institutional demand. In 2026, the marginal buyer has turned into a seller. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded their worst month on record in June, with roughly $4.5 billion in net outflows, removing the very demand channel that had absorbed supply on the way up. Even Bitcoin treasury companies, long the reliable counterweight to miner selling, have wobbled: the largest corporate holder made its first Bitcoin sale in years to fund a dividend and has come under pressure over its financing structure.

When miners sell into a market where ETFs are bleeding and the corporate bid is faltering, the supply has fewer places to go, and the price can keep falling even as capitulation runs its course. The third concern is duration. Capitulation clears quickly only if price recovers to pull survivors back and thin the selling. If Bitcoin remains stuck well below the estimated production cost for an extended period, held down by a hawkish Fed and tight liquidity, the squeeze can grind on, pushing even mid-cost operators toward the exit and turning a healthy shakeout into a prolonged contraction.

In this view, the capitulation signal is real, but the conditions that historically turned it into a bottom, rebounding demand and easing macro, are absent, so the pattern may not repeat on its usual schedule. This is also where Strategy’s balance sheet matters, because the market’s biggest corporate Bitcoin buyer is no longer treated as an unconditional bid. The bear case is not that miner capitulation does not exist. It is that capitulation may not be enough when the buyers are missing.

The AI pivot: capitulation or reinvention

There is a third storyline that complicates the simple capitulation frame, and it is specific to this cycle. Many miners are not simply powering down; they are repurposing. The same data centers, power contracts, and cooling infrastructure that mine Bitcoin can, with investment, host the computing demand of artificial intelligence and high-performance workloads, which command far higher and more stable revenue than mining at current hashprice. Several operators have pivoted hard in that direction, converting capacity or striking deals to serve AI customers instead of mining coins.

BREAKING: Google doubled down on #Bitcoin miner TeraWulf, raising its stake from 8% to 14% with a $3.2B investment 💰
The deal backs @TeraWulfInc‘s NY data center expansion — and hints at a growing crossover: Bitcoin mining infrastructure powering @Google‘s AI push pic.twitter.com/vleM3p6NNw
Advertisement

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) August 19, 2025

That pivot muddies the read on hashrate and selling. Some of the machines going dark are not distressed operators giving up but companies reallocating capacity to a more profitable use, and some of the Bitcoin being sold is funding that transition instead of covering losses. For those firms, selling coins and reducing mining is a strategic reallocation, not a capitulation in the traditional sense. It is a rational response to a world where a unit of power and compute is worth more pointed at AI than at a halved block reward.

The implication cuts both ways for Bitcoin. On one hand, the AI pivot means some hashrate decline reflects opportunity rather than distress, which is less bearish for the price and could permanently shrink the pool of forced sellers. On the other hand, it means the mining industry’s most valuable operators may increasingly treat Bitcoin as a secondary business, weakening the reflexive commitment that made miners such steadfast long-term holders. A sector that once mined and held because it believed in the asset is becoming a sector that mines, or computes, wherever the margin is best.

That shift also connects miners to the broader class of Bitcoin treasury companies, where balance-sheet Bitcoin is no longer always sacred. Coins can be collateral, reserves, working capital, or transition funding. In a tight market, that difference matters. It means miner selling is not always panic, but it is still supply.

The divergence that matters

Underneath all of it sits one divergence worth watching more than any single figure. On the supply side, miners are selling into weakness while their reserves shrink and their hashrate falls. On the demand side, the buyers who absorbed that supply on the way up have stepped back, with ETFs posting record outflows and the flagship corporate holder turning seller. In prior cycles, miner capitulation coincided with new demand stepping in at low prices, which is what turned the washout into a floor.

This time, the demand side is thinner precisely when the supply side is capitulating. That is why the capitulation signal, on its own, is not enough to call a bottom in 2026. The historical pattern is real, and the mechanics that clear weak capacity and reward survivors still function. But the pattern completed into a recovery in past cycles because demand returned to meet the reduced supply.

The open question now is whether a new source of demand, renewed ETF inflows, a macro shift toward easier policy, or a return of the corporate bid, arrives to meet the capitulating miners. Until it does, the cleaner read is that miners are doing exactly what they do at cycle lows, while the buyers who usually meet them there have not yet shown up. That makes this capitulation signal important, but incomplete. It is a setup, not a confirmation.

The same distinction applies to corporate Bitcoin holders. A company can hold Bitcoin and still create supply pressure if it sells, or demand if it accumulates. The market does not care which category a holder belongs to; it cares whether they are adding or removing coins from available supply. Right now, the supply-side pressure is visible, and the demand-side recovery has not yet proven itself.

What to watch

For anyone trying to judge whether this capitulation marks a turn, a handful of signals matter more than the daily price. The first is hashprice: a sustained recovery back above the roughly $35 per petahash breakeven would ease the forced selling at its source, while a further slide would deepen it. The second is hashrate and difficulty: a stabilization in network hashrate, followed by a downward difficulty adjustment, would confirm the clearing is working and would improve economics for the survivors. Momentum indicators built on hashrate crossing back above their longer-term trend have historically flagged the completion of a capitulation.

The third is the demand side, which this cycle makes decisive. A return of net inflows to spot Bitcoin ETFs would signal that the marginal buyer is back, and a resumption of corporate treasury accumulation would restore the counterweight to miner selling. The fourth is the price relative to production cost: Bitcoin reclaiming and holding above the estimated all-in cost to mine a coin would pull the economics back into profitability and remove the pressure driving the sales. Until those turn, the record miner selling and the falling hashrate tell a consistent story of an industry clearing its weakest capacity, with the crucial question, whether fresh demand arrives to complete the pattern, still unanswered.

That is the disciplined read. Miner capitulation can mark a bottom, but it does not create one by itself. It needs confirmation from price, hashprice, ETF flows, and corporate demand. Without that, capitulation remains evidence of stress, not proof of recovery.

Frequently asked questions

Why are Bitcoin miners selling so much Bitcoin?

Miners are selling because their economics have collapsed. Hashprice, the revenue earned per unit of computing power, fell to post-halving lows in the high-$20s per petahash per day by mid-2026, below the roughly $35 breakeven for older machines. The 2024 halving cut rewards, difficulty rose about 10 times from 2021, energy costs climbed, and Bitcoin fell toward a 21-month low, forcing miners with heavy debt to sell coins to cover costs.

How much Bitcoin did miners sell in 2026?

Publicly traded miners including MARA, CleanSpark, Riot, Cango, Core Scientific, and Bitdeer collectively sold more than 32,000 Bitcoin in the first quarter of 2026. That set a single-quarter record, exceeding their combined sales for all of 2025 and topping the roughly 20,000 Bitcoin sold during the 2022 Terra-Luna bear market. The total Bitcoin held by miners has fallen from about 1.86 million at the end of 2023 toward 1.8 million. The pace of selling shows miners treating reserves as working capital in a stressed market.

What is miner capitulation?

Miner capitulation is the point in a cycle where mining revenue falls below what a meaningful share of the network costs to run, so those operators power down instead of mining at a loss. Its signature is a falling network hashrate as unprofitable machines switch off. It is a market-clearing mechanism: weak capacity leaves, Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment lowers the bar, and the efficient survivors become more profitable. It is painful for the sector but can improve economics for the miners that remain.

Does miner capitulation mean the price has bottomed?

Historically, miner capitulation has often preceded recoveries, because it clears weak capacity, lowers difficulty, and thins the forced selling that weighs on price. But that pattern completed into a bottom in past cycles because new demand stepped in at low prices. In 2026, ETFs have posted record outflows and even the largest corporate holder turned seller, so the usual demand counterweight is thinner, making the signal less reliable on its own. Capitulation is a bottoming condition, not a guaranteed bottom.

What is hashprice and why does it matter?

Hashprice is the daily revenue a miner earns per unit of computing power, typically quoted per petahash per second per day. It combines the Bitcoin price, network difficulty, and transaction fees into a single profitability measure. When hashprice falls below a miner’s cost to operate, roughly $35 per petahash for older machines, that operator loses money on every coin, which is what drives capitulation and forced selling. A recovery in hashprice would be one of the clearest signs the pressure is easing.

Are miners capitulating or pivoting to AI?

Both are happening, which complicates the read. Some miners are genuinely distressed and powering down, while others are repurposing their data centers, power contracts, and cooling infrastructure to serve artificial intelligence and high-performance computing, which pays more than mining at current hashprice. That means some hashrate decline reflects strategic reallocation instead of distress, and some coin sales fund the transition instead of covering losses. The result is a sector that is both stressed and reinventing itself.

How does this capitulation compare to past cycles?

The mechanics are familiar, but the backdrop differs in two ways. Miner debt is far higher, having climbed toward $12.7 billion, so capitulation now carries default and forced-liquidation risk. The demand side is weaker too, with spot ETFs recording their worst month on record in June and the flagship corporate buyer turning seller. Past capitulations resolved into bottoms partly because fresh demand met the reduced supply, which is less certain now.

What signals would show the capitulation is ending?

Watch four things: hashprice recovering back above the roughly $35 breakeven, network hashrate stabilizing followed by a downward difficulty adjustment, a return of net inflows to spot Bitcoin ETFs and corporate treasury buying, and Bitcoin reclaiming the estimated production cost near $80,000. Hashrate momentum indicators crossing back above their longer-term trend have historically marked the completion of a miner capitulation. In this cycle, ETF inflows may be the most important confirmation because they show the marginal buyer has returned.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency prices and mining economics are highly volatile, and historical patterns do not guarantee future outcomes. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Always do your own research and consider consulting a licensed professional before making financial decisions. Figures are accurate as of July 2, 2026, and will change.

Source link

Crypto World

Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH’s Double Rejection at $2K Spells More Trouble Ahead

Published

18 minutes ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

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.

Source link

Crypto World

XRP Price Analysis: Is a Drop Below $1 Inevitable as Sellers Stay in Control?

Published

30 minutes ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

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.

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin Price Analysis: Will the Next Liquidity Sweep Push BTC Below $60K?

Published

38 minutes ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

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.

Source link

Crypto World

$1.6 Million Drained in a Blink: User Recounts His Dramatic Coldcard Wallet Hack

Published

1 hour ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

$1.6 Million Drained in a Blink: User Recounts His Dramatic Coldcard Wallet Hack

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.

$1.6 million dollars in Bitcoin was drained from my account on July 29th in the Cold Card wallet hack.
My Bitcoin was in cold storage. My keys were on a ColdCard device kept in a safety deposit box that had never been connected to the internet.
This part’s nerdy, but here’s… pic.twitter.com/Lf9kJv9Jo4
— Jonathan Goodman 🇨🇦 (@itscoachgoodman) August 1, 2026

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.

Galaxy Research estimated the observed size of the Coldcard hack is now 1,367.05 BTC across 4,585 addresses. Source: X/@glxyresearch

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.

Coldcard’s own manual describes the default way of making a seed as the method that “involves the most trust.” It also calls that method “low risk to users.” The company’s tagline is “Don’t Trust, Verify”. Galaxy Research has now linked 1,367 bitcoin taken from 4,585 source… pic.twitter.com/ejV66wYb9S
— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) August 2, 2026

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.

Please treat this as urgent. Follow the advisory for your model, upgrade your device, generate a new seed, and carefully move your funds.
Help spread the word, especially to people who are less online and may not see this update. https://t.co/aC2zdazILQ
— COLDCARD (@COLDCARDwallet) August 1, 2026

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.

Source link

Crypto World

Iran Denies Trump’s Hormuz Deal, Oil Jumps but Bitcoin Watches

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

WTI Crude Oil and Bitcoin Price Performance. Source: TradingView

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.”

“The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II. Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that… pic.twitter.com/Ylmlm06j3E
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 2, 2026
Advertisement

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.

🔴 Iran’s acting Defense Minister, Brigadier General Seyyed Majid Ibn Al-Reza:
🔺 Although the enemy’s recent statements are part of a psychological and cognitive warfare campaign, we consider every threat to be real and take it seriously. pic.twitter.com/15hRMHE9Mw
— Press TV 🔻 (@PressTV) August 2, 2026

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.

Oil Traffic In the Strait of Hormuz. Source: EIA

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.

Oil Price Performance. Source: TradingView

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.

Bitcoin Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto

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.

Source link

Crypto World

South Koreans are Sending Stablecoins to Foreign Exchanges at Record Rate

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Panic Hits Japan and South Korea Markets: Can Crypto Become the Big Winner?

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.

South Korean Stablecoins Post 18 Straight Months of Net Outflows to Overseas Exchanges
According to Yonhap News Agency, South Korea’s five major won-based crypto exchanges sent 2.7625 trillion won in stablecoins to overseas platforms in June 2026, while receiving 2.2022 trillion… pic.twitter.com/sDFsaBmDKN
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 2, 2026

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.

Asia’s leverage boom is rapidly reversing:
Margin debt in South Korea has declined -$4 billion from its June peak, to $22 billion, the lowest since mid-April.
At the same time, stock margin loans in China have dropped -$59 billion, to $385 billion, the lowest since the 2nd week… pic.twitter.com/iSrnHsJzsU
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) August 1, 2026
Advertisement

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.

South Korea’s benchmark stock index has become the world’s most volatile.
The AI protagonist in South Korea have clearly flown TOO CLOSE TO THE SUN and had their feathers singed.
IT’S CLEAR THAT INVESTORS AROUND THE WORLD ARE GROWING WEARY OF THE OBVIOUS AI HYPE AND NONSENSE. pic.twitter.com/2uU5KdfGqt
— Steve Hanke (@steve_hanke) August 2, 2026

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.

Source link

Crypto World

Crypto meets Wall Street using perps

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

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.”

Source link

Crypto World

Trump Media transfers 2,628 BTC as holdings shrink

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Trump Media transfers 2,628 BTC as holdings shrink - 2

Trump Media-linked wallets transferred 2,628 Bitcoin, valued at about $165 million, to Crypto.com on Aug. 2, according to on-chain analysts Lookonchain.

Summary

2,628 BTC moved to Crypto.com, but no company filing has confirmed an outright sale yet.
Trump Media reported 9,542.16 BTC in March, including 4,260.73 BTC pledged as secured convertible-note collateral.
Lookonchain estimates realized and unrealized Bitcoin losses at $555 million after seven months of transfers.

The movement reportedly reduced the wallets’ remaining balance to about 4,261 BTC.Lookonchain described the movement as another sale and estimated that Trump Media had disposed of 7,281 BTC over seven months. However, neither Trump Media nor an SEC filing had confirmed the latest coins were sold as of Aug. 2. An exchange deposit can precede a sale, custody change, collateral arrangement or another internal transaction.

Source link

Crypto World

Michael Saylor says BIP-110 lacks miner consensus

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 can no longer reach its 55% voluntary miner threshold during the current difficulty period, according to blockchain signaling data and an Aug. 1 analysis from Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor.

Summary

28 signaling blocks appeared among 1,108, leaving BIP-110 at 2.53% support as of Aug. 2.
Saylor said all 24 initial signals came from DATUM miners sharing rewards through OCEAN’s system.
Mandatory signaling starts at block 961,632, when enforcing nodes reject every non-signaling block as invalid.

Strategy’s official website identifies Saylor as the company’s executive chairman. At block 960,561, Saylor counted 24 signaling blocks among 946, equal to 2.54%. He said every signal came from miners using DATUM while sharing rewards through OCEAN, with none identified outside that system. By 11:13 UTC on Aug. 2, the public BIP-110 monitor had advanced to block 960,723 and counted 28 signals among 1,108 blocks, or 2.53%. Only 908 blocks remained.

At block 960,561, BIP-110 has 24 signals in 946 blocks (2.54%). Every signal came from a DATUM miner sharing rewards through OCEAN. Signals outside OCEAN: 0. The 55% voluntary threshold is now mathematically unreachable this period. This is not miner consensus.
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) August 1, 2026
Advertisement

BIP-110 cannot reach voluntary lock-in

The proposal needs 1,109 signaling blocks within one 2,016-block difficulty period to lock in voluntarily. Even if every remaining block in the current period signals, the total could reach only 936. Saylor therefore said the threshold was “mathematically unreachable” and argued that the observed count was “not miner consensus.”

The latest monitor supports that arithmetic. However, it does not independently establish Saylor’s attribution of every signaling miner. His pool claim applied to the 24 blocks examined at block 960,561. The monitor confirms that the overall rate remained almost unchanged after four additional signals appeared.

BIP-110 would restrict Bitcoin transaction data

BIP-110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, proposes seven temporary consensus restrictions. These include limiting most new output scripts to 34 bytes, capping OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes, restricting certain data pushes to 256 bytes and temporarily limiting several Taproot features. Outputs created before activation would remain exempt.

Supporters say the one-year rules would reduce arbitrary data storage and keep Bitcoin focused on monetary activity. Critics, including Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back, argue that consensus rules should not determine which currently valid transaction structures deserve block space. As previously reported, Saylor said fee markets and individual node policies offer a safer response to disputed data use.

Saylor questions OCEAN and DATUM’s role

Saylor also alleged that OCEAN made BIP-110 signaling the default on an existing endpoint. He called the initiative a “vertically integrated marketing campaign for Knots and OCEAN/DATUM.” That description represents his interpretation rather than a finding by an independent technical body.

The official BIP-110 installation guide directs users toward Bitcoin Knots and includes instructions for pointing rented hashpower at a DATUM node. OCEAN’s DATUM documentation says miners create block templates through their local nodes, while the pool coordinates reward splits instead of constructing mining work. Those documents confirm the technical relationship, but they do not independently establish Saylor’s claim about promotional intent.

Mandatory signaling becomes the next test

The current voluntary period ends at block 961,631. From block 961,632 through 963,647, software enforcing BIP-110 is designed to reject every block that does not signal bit 4. The proposal would then lock in at block 963,648 and activate at block 965,664, when its transaction restrictions would begin for 52,416 blocks.

Saylor warned that any 100% signaling reading during the mandatory window would reflect the software rule rather than a fresh vote of support. Foundry USA Pool has separately asked its mining customers to vote on whether the pool should signal, with its voting window scheduled to close near block 961,632. No verified result was publicly available by Aug. 2.

The next decisive evidence will come from major mining pools, exchanges, wallets and node operators before the mandatory period starts. Low voluntary signaling does not automatically cancel BIP-110 because its deployment includes mandatory signaling. However, enforcing nodes could follow a minority chain if most hashpower continues mining non-signaling blocks. Saylor and Back warned that enforcing the proposal without broad agreement could divide the network.

Source link

Crypto World

Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin has seen a spike in very small transfers—moves of less than 1 BTC—that match the intensity last observed around the collapse of FTX. The renewed activity comes as researchers continue to track a suspected Coldcard wallet-related hack, underscoring how quickly users are reacting when self-custody tools appear compromised.

According to CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno, Friday recorded the highest daily level of sub-1 BTC transfers since November 2022, with 39,600 BTC moved. The total was just 300 BTC below 39,900 BTC transferred on Nov. 16, 2022, shortly after FTX filed for bankruptcy. Moreno framed the comparison as a sign of urgency and said users appear to be “taking action.”

Key takeaways

Daily Bitcoin transfers below 1 BTC hit their highest level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard incident caused estimated losses of 1,367 BTC across 4,585 addresses, after identifying a further 207.7 BTC taken in an additional wave.
Galaxy’s Alex Thorn warned that the attack was still ongoing and urged affected users to move funds immediately from Coldcard-generated addresses.
The incident is reigniting debate over whether self-custody is safer than relying on third-party platforms, with executives arguing the impact differs across user approaches.

Small-transfer surge echoes the post-FTX era

While large market moves often capture headlines, the current data point focuses on behavior at the granularity of everyday wallet operations: sub-1 BTC transfers. Moreno’s analysis suggests the market is seeing a level of small withdrawals not observed since the period following FTX’s bankruptcy filing.

The comparison matters because it points to reflexive user behavior—moving funds in smaller increments—rather than a single, coordinated “whale” action. In the wake of FTX, exchange-related uncertainty drove users toward faster, more defensive moves. Here, the catalyst is different: ongoing concerns tied to Coldcard-generated addresses.

Moreno’s observation that these transfers had not occurred at similar daily intensity since the FTX collapse suggests that the Coldcard incident may be triggering a comparable sense of immediate risk. That doesn’t prove equivalence in scale or cause, but it does show that user reaction can look similar even when the underlying event is distinct.

Galaxy Research details additional theft wave

Galaxy Research, part of Galaxy Digital, reported Saturday that it had identified another attack wave tied to the suspected Coldcard hack. In that wave, an additional 207.7 BTC was drained—valued at roughly $13.2 million at the time Galaxy cited.

Including the newly identified activity, Galaxy estimated total losses of 1,367 BTC, affecting 4,585 addresses. Galaxy’s reporting suggests the incident is not a single moment of exploitation, but an ongoing process where both victims and attacker infrastructure continue to emerge as investigators refine their tracking.

Galaxy also points readers to a Coldcard-focused tracking resource, “Coldcard Watch,” as part of the broader transparency around wallet activity connected to the suspected incident.

“Still ongoing” warnings push users toward immediate withdrawal

Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, said in an X post on Sunday that the attack remained active. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.

Thorn added that his team continues to identify both new victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also noted that reports from users have helped investigators and authorities track stolen funds, reinforcing a practical implication for readers: in incidents where on-chain patterns are evolving, user-provided information can accelerate investigative work.

The warning is also a reminder that self-custody isn’t only about holding assets—it’s about operational readiness. When wallet-generated addresses are implicated, the “time to react” becomes part of the security model, whether users follow best practices or not.

Self-custody debate returns as commentators argue “failure” vs “risk control”

The suspected Coldcard hack has again pulled the conversation toward the long-running fault line in crypto security: self-custody versus third-party custody. Self-custody is a foundational principle in Bitcoin, emphasizing user control without dependence on intermediaries. Yet security incidents involving consumer-grade tools can complicate the narrative and raise fresh questions about usability and safety.

Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that “self-custody is over.” He argued that because self-custody is distributed, users have time to respond as threats are identified. Neuman also estimated that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.

That position reframes the debate from whether an incident can occur at all to how the system responds once the risk becomes visible. In Neuman’s view, the existence of ongoing victims does not negate the defensive advantage that self-custody can provide—especially when users monitor, verify, and act on warnings.

Others took the issue in a different direction. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued via X that Bitcoin exchange-traded funds may offer a safer and more convenient alternative for many users, pointing to the longer operating history of ETFs.

In contrast, critics of that argument say the Coldcard episode reflects a failure of a specific wallet provider or implementation rather than a fundamental breakdown of self-custody itself. The tension here is important for readers to recognize: “self-custody” is not a single technology—it’s a set of practices and tools—so incidents can be interpreted as either systemic or localized depending on what readers believe broke down.

What to watch next

With Galaxy saying the attack is still unfolding and continuing to identify new victim and attacker addresses, the next key signal will be whether transfer patterns and wallet-specific indicators stabilize as users move funds. For investors and builders, the bigger question is how quickly the broader community can validate affected addresses and coordinate response—because in cases like this, speed is part of the security outcome.

Source link