Crypto World

Bitcoin nears Fidelity power law support

Published

3 weeks ago

13 July 2026

Bitcoin nears Fidelity power law support

Bitcoin is trading around 62,700 dollars, and Jurrien Timmer, Fidelity’s director of global macro, is watching it drift toward a line he has tracked for more than a decade.

Summary

Bitcoin is trading near Fidelity’s power law support zone, with the model’s lower boundary around 58,000 dollars.
Jurrien Timmer views the area as an accumulation zone but is not calling a bottom without a clear catalyst.
The power law support has aligned closely with major Bitcoin lows in 2015, 2018, and 2022.
Bitcoin’s deviation from trend and its underperformance against gold now resemble prior cycle-bottom conditions.
The main missing ingredient is liquidity, which has historically determined when accumulation zones turn into recoveries.

On his power law model, a logarithmic chart that bounds Bitcoin’s entire price history between an upper resistance curve, a middle trendline, and a lower support curve, the floor currently sits near 58,000 dollars. That lower line has caught every major Bitcoin bottom since 2015. Timmer’s label for the zone the market has now entered is unambiguous: accumulation. His caveat is just as unambiguous: he sees no catalyst for a reversal, and he is not calling a bottom.

That combination, a historically reliable floor approaching and a strategist refusing to ring the bell, is the most honest summary of the Bitcoin market in July 2026. The asset is coming off its worst quarter since the 2022 bear market, spot ETFs just recorded their largest quarterly outflow since launch, the speculative premium that carried the price past 120,000 dollars last year has evaporated, and the fast money has visibly rotated elsewhere, first into gold, then into semiconductor stocks. And yet the two quantitative measures Timmer trusts most, the deviation from the power law trendline and the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio, have both sunk to depths recorded at exactly two prior moments: the 2018 low and the 2022 low. Both of those moments were generational buying opportunities. Both also felt like the end of the world at the time.

This feature takes the model seriously in both directions: what the power law actually says, why its track record earns attention, and why the missing-catalyst objection is not a hedge but the core of the analysis.

What the power law model actually is

The power law framework treats Bitcoin’s price growth as a function that decays over time. Early in the asset’s life, prices could multiply a hundredfold in a cycle; as the network matures and the base grows, each cycle’s percentage gains shrink, and the whole price history, plotted on log-log axes, settles into a corridor that rises steadily but ever more slowly. Timmer’s version of the chart draws three curves through that corridor. The upper line marks the euphoria boundary, where prior cycles topped. The middle trendline marks something like fair value under the model. The lower line marks the floor where sellers have historically exhausted themselves.

The track record of that lower line is the reason the chart circulates every time the market bleeds. In the 2014 to 2015 bear market, the model’s support calculation stood near 252 dollars and the actual bottom printed at roughly 230. In 2018, the support line sat near 2,521 dollars against a low of 3,204. In the 2022 winter, the line read about 15,006 dollars and the market bottomed at 16,366. Three cycles, three bottoms, all landing within shouting distance of a curve drawn from math, not sentiment. In the current fit, that curve passes near 58,000 dollars, with some of Timmer’s postings citing figures around 58,237, and Bitcoin at 62,700 is trading roughly 8 percent above it.

Two companion indicators complete the picture, and both are flashing the same reading. The first tracks how far the price trades above or below the middle trendline. That deviation has swung to negative 56 percent, a depth the chart explicitly labels the accumulation zone and one that aligned with the 2018 and 2022 lows. The second is the 52-week z-score of the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio, which has collapsed to around negative 100 percent, meaning Bitcoin has underperformed gold over the trailing year to a degree seen only at prior points of maximal exhaustion. Historically, readings between negative 100 and negative 120 on that gauge, recorded in late 2014, 2018, and 2022, marked the moments when relative weakness against gold had run its course.

One underappreciated property of the setup: the price does not need to fall for the test to happen. The support curve rises over time, so a market that simply goes sideways will meet the floor from above. Stagnation and decline arrive at the same destination, which is partly why Timmer frames the coming months as a period of drift along support, not a decision point with a date.

The case for the accumulation zone

The bull argument starts with base rates. A signal that has fired three times in eleven years and preceded a major recovery all three times deserves weight, especially when two independent gauges, trendline deviation and the gold ratio, corroborate each other. Markets rarely hand out cleaner historical analogies than negative 56 percent deviation, a level with exactly two precedents, both of them cycle lows.

The structural context has also improved in ways the 2018 and 2022 comparisons undersell. In those winters, Bitcoin had no spot ETF complex, no corporate treasury cohort, and no legislative framework in motion. Today the ETFs exist and, after a June that ranked as their worst month on record, just snapped a ten-day outflow streak with a 221.7 million dollar single-day inflow, their largest daily haul in two months. The corporate treasury era is wobbling but not gone: Strategy has begun selling coins for the first time, a shift in the never-sell orthodoxy that crypto.news examined in depth, yet Grayscale mounted a public defense of that very sale as rational balance sheet management, a case crypto.news also covered. And beneath the visible institutional churn, the largest private holders have leaned in: whale wallets absorbed some 16.7 billion dollars in Bitcoin during the spring drawdown even as Wall Street vehicles bled, an accumulation wave crypto.news documented while it was happening. Deep-pocketed buyers behaving exactly as the accumulation zone label predicts is not proof of a bottom, but it is the pattern the model expects to see near one.

There is also the catalyst calendar, which is not empty. The CLARITY Act’s merged draft is due imminently, with Senate floor action targeted before the August recess, and the May committee vote already showed the reflex: Bitcoin jumped to 81,449 dollars within an hour of that 15 to 9 result. Citi and Standard Chartered carry six-figure targets, 143,000 and 150,000 dollars respectively, contingent on passage. A political catalyst is not the liquidity catalyst Timmer wants, but it is a scheduled, binary event with proven price sensitivity, sitting three weeks away, a countdown crypto.news has tracked through every procedural stumble.

Finally, the model’s own asymmetry favors patience over precision. Timmer’s floor is a zone, not a tripwire, and the historical bottoms landed both slightly above and slightly below the calculated line. For an allocator with a multi-year horizon, the question the chart answers is not whether 58,000 holds to the dollar. It is whether prices 8 percent above a three-times-validated floor represent better risk-reward than prices 90 percent above it did a year ago. Framed that way, the zone does most of the work regardless of where the exact low prints.

The other side of the corridor: what the model said at the top

The power law’s credibility does not rest on bottoms alone. The framework has a symmetrical claim about tops, and its record there is what separates it from the usual gallery of bull market curve-fitting.

When Bitcoin approaches the upper boundary of the corridor, the model labels the region a distribution zone, the mirror image of the current setup. Prior cycle peaks at 1,137 dollars, 19,042 dollars, and 64,337 dollars each printed as large positive deviations above the trendline, the same gauge that now reads negative 56 percent. Last year’s run past 120,000 dollars registered as another such excursion, and the model’s framing at the time, a speculative premium stretched far above structural value, was exactly the language skeptics dismissed as premature. In hindsight, the reading was the warning. Capital that bought the upper deviation is the capital now absent, and the round trip from positive extreme to negative extreme in roughly a year is, in the model’s terms, a complete emotional cycle compressed into twelve months.

That symmetry matters for how much trust the current signal deserves. A model that only ever says buy is marketing. A model that flagged distribution near the highs and now flags accumulation near a historically validated floor has at least earned the right to be argued with seriously. Fidelity’s own 2026 Periodic Table of Investment Returns makes the discomfort concrete: alternative assets including Bitcoin, gold, and long-duration Treasuries sit at the bottom of the annual performance ranking, beneath emerging markets, small caps, and Japanese equities. The model is asking investors to accumulate the asset class the scoreboard says has been the year’s worst idea. That is what the entries at 230, 3,204, and 16,366 dollars felt like too, which is either the entire point or the oldest trap in markets, depending on which side of the argument one occupies.

There is one further nuance in how Timmer talks about the line that deserves precision. He has described the mid-60,000s and the level around 60,000 as a line in the sand for the model, language that refers to where recalibration pressure begins, not where the thesis dies. The structural version of the power law, by his framing, would only be falsified by Bitcoin trading below roughly 17,000 dollars for more than a year, an outcome no serious participant currently prices. Between the tactical line at 58,000 and the structural line at 17,000 stretches an enormous gray zone in which the model can be wrong about timing, wrong about the exact floor, and still right about the destination. Critics call that unfalsifiability. Adherents call it the difference between a trading signal and a valuation framework. Both descriptions are accurate, which is why position sizing, not conviction, is where the argument actually gets settled.

The case for the missing catalyst

The bear argument does not dispute the chart. It disputes the physics behind it, and Timmer himself supplies most of the ammunition.

His stated reason for withholding a bottom call is that the drivers of every prior recovery are absent. Global money supply growth is decelerating, not accelerating. The speculative premium, the gap between price and the model’s structural floor that expands when fast money floods in, has been almost entirely erased, and the capital that produced it has left the building in a traceable sequence: out of Bitcoin, into gold, and now out of gold into semiconductor and AI equities. In Timmer’s framing, Bitcoin does not bounce because it reaches a line. It bounces when liquidity returns, and until it does, the base case is months of sideways drift along the floor instead of a V-shaped snapback. The accumulation zones of 2015 and 2018 were not quick either; both involved long stretches of dead money before the turn.

The demand infrastructure that was supposed to make this cycle different is, at the moment, cutting the other way. The ETF complex that absorbed supply on the way up distributed it on the way down, posting its worst month ever in June and its largest quarterly outflow since launch, a reminder that regulated wrappers transmit institutional risk appetite in both directions. The treasury company cohort has moved from pure accumulation to selective distribution, with Strategy selling coins and smaller vehicles like Empery Digital liquidating roughly half a Bitcoin stack to fund a pivot toward AI data centers. Each of these flows is individually explainable; together they describe a marginal buyer that has, for now, become a marginal seller.

LATEST: ETF net flows dominate Bitcoin spot activity at about 53bps per $100 million since early 2024
Current inflow levels are not strong enough to drive price independently, with broader macro developments like Iran tensions playing a larger role pic.twitter.com/SkxC52L6An
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 12, 2026
Advertisement

The macro overlay is genuinely hostile. The United States has struck Iran three times in a single week, the Strait of Hormuz has reportedly closed again, oil holds above 100 dollars, and the Federal Reserve faces inflation pressure that keeps rate cuts off the table. Risk assets broadly are contending with the same liquidity drought, which is precisely why capital rotated to semiconductors, the one sector with an earnings story strong enough to ignore it. Bitcoin’s correlation regime matters here: in liquidity droughts it trades like a high-beta risk asset, not like gold, and the negative 100 percent reading on the gold ratio is the scar tissue of that regime. The same reading bulls cite as exhaustion, bears read as reclassification: the market spent a year deciding that in this environment, gold is the hedge and Bitcoin is the trade.

And the model itself deserves a dose of humility. Power law fits are parameterization-sensitive: Fidelity’s curve puts support near 58,000, while other published fits place the floor closer to 51,000, and at least one derivation cited in coverage runs as low as 56,488. A zone that moves by 10 percent depending on who draws it is a framework, not a law of nature. The model’s own authors concede the structural version only breaks if Bitcoin spends more than a year below roughly 17,000 dollars, which means the framework can absorb a decline of 70 percent from here without being falsified. A thesis that cannot be quickly proven wrong is comfortable to hold and dangerous to size.

Anatomy of the exodus: where the fast money actually went

The rotation Timmer describes is traceable in the flow data, and following it explains both why the drawdown was so orderly and why the recovery lacks an obvious buyer.

The first leg ran from Bitcoin to gold. As the speculative premium deflated through the winter, gold absorbed the store-of-value bid, and the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio began the slide that would eventually reach its negative 100 percent extreme. The second leg ran from gold into semiconductors, as the AI capital expenditure cycle gave momentum capital an earnings-backed home that neither metal nor token could match. Institutional surveys confirm the sequence: digital assets posted three consecutive quarterly losses, the longest streak since 2022, precisely as capital rotated into AI equities, and even crypto-native corporate stories, like the treasury company that sold half its Bitcoin stack to fund data centers, bent toward the same gravity.

What remained in the crypto market redistributed internally instead of leaving entirely. Bitcoin dominance held up because altcoins fell harder, with everything outside the top two losing roughly 23 percent in six months. Stablecoin capitalization, the market’s cash position, shrank by 10 billion dollars over two months, the largest contraction since the Terra collapse, though analysts read it as cyclical de-risking, not structural exit. And the transactional economy kept consolidating into the venues with real usage, from tokenization networks to the stablecoin rails where volume actually lives, a migration visible in the flippening of trading volume toward regulated dollar tokens that crypto.news charted this month.

The composite picture is a market that de-levered without panicking: no cascade, no exchange failure, no credit event, just a year-long transfer of coins from momentum hands to patient ones at steadily lower prices. That is, almost to the letter, the textbook description of an accumulation phase. It is also, and this is the uncomfortable part, indistinguishable in real time from the early innings of a longer decline. The difference between the two is supplied later, by liquidity, which returns the analysis to Timmer’s missing ingredient.

How the two cases actually reconcile

Strip the rhetoric and the disagreement is narrower than it looks. Both sides accept the same facts: the price is near a historically validated floor, the on-chain and whale evidence shows accumulation, the liquidity backdrop shows no fuel for a rally, and the one scheduled catalyst is political rather than monetary. The dispute is about sequencing and about what an investor should do during the gap.

History offers a specific answer about the gap. In each prior visit to the accumulation zone, the market spent between several months and more than a year grinding along the floor before the recovery began, and the recovery started when an external liquidity impulse arrived: the 2015 turn preceded the 2016 halving cycle and easing conditions, the 2019 recovery tracked the Fed’s pivot, and the 2023 exit from the zone rode the turn in global money supply and the ETF approval trade. The floor identified where the low formed. Liquidity decided when. There is no example of the zone producing a durable rally without the second ingredient, which is why Timmer’s refusal to call a bottom is not hedging. It is the model applied correctly.

That reconciliation also clarifies what the CLARITY Act can and cannot do. Legislative passage would be a demand catalyst, activating allocator categories that cannot currently hold the asset, and the market’s hair-trigger response to the committee vote suggests real convexity around the outcome. But a statute does not print money. If the bill passes into a liquidity drought, the plausible result is a strong repricing that then stalls at the trendline instead of reaching a new cycle high, the difference between closing the discount and starting a bull market. If it fails, the floor gets its stress test with no cushion, and the parameterization debate, 58,000 versus 51,000, stops being academic. Elsewhere in the market, the same liquidity question is being answered asset by asset: capital that stayed in crypto has crowded into the few networks with visible usage growth, a concentration visible across the tokenization trade, leaving Bitcoin to trade almost purely on macro.

What to watch while the market drifts

Before the gauges, a word on method, because the practical difference between the two camps is not belief but execution. The accumulation zone framework, taken seriously, argues for scaling over timing: building exposure in defined tranches as price approaches the floor, sized so that a breach of 58,000 is survivable and a visit toward the alternative fits near 51,000 is a continuation of the plan, not its failure. It argues for instruments matched to a months-long horizon, since the model’s own history says the zone can persist for two to four quarters before resolving, and leveraged expressions of a patient thesis are how correct analysis produces liquidated accounts. And it argues for treating a confirmed weekly close below the floor as a thesis review trigger, a scheduled reassessment, not a panic exit, because the difference between the tactical line and the structural one is 40,000 dollars wide. The missing-catalyst framework, taken equally seriously, adds only one amendment: let the macro data, not the price, decide when the accumulation window is closing. Buying the zone is a bet that liquidity returns eventually. Watching the liquidity gauges is how eventually gets a date. Neither camp needs to convert the other for both to be useful; one supplies the map of where value lives, the other supplies the clock that says when the market will agree.

Four gauges will signal the regime change before the price does. Global money supply growth is the master variable; Timmer’s entire framework waits on its second derivative turning positive, and any coordinated easing impulse, from the Fed or elsewhere, is the starting gun the model requires. ETF weekly flows are the institutional thermometer; one 221 million dollar day means nothing, but a month of sustained net inflows through a flat tape would mark the return of the allocator bid. The Bitcoin-to-gold ratio recovering from its negative 100 percent extreme would show relative capitulation has ended even before absolute prices move. And a confirmed weekly close below the 58,000 zone would be the model’s recalibration trigger, the signal to treat the floor as broken instead of tested, with the next published fits clustering around 51,000.

The honest conclusion is that the chart and the strategist are both right, and they are answering different questions. The power law says where: Bitcoin is entering the zone where every prior cycle’s sellers ran out, with corroborating exhaustion readings that have exactly two precedents, both of them bottoms. The catalyst analysis says when: not until liquidity returns, and possibly not for months. Accumulation zones are named for what disciplined capital does inside them, quietly and without confirmation. The word was never a promise that the bell rings at the low. It is a description of who is buying while everyone else waits for one.

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

Source link

Crypto World

Former FBI agent indicted for stealing crypto from FBI

Published

3 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Former FBI agent indicted for stealing crypto from FBI

A former FBI special agent has been indicted after being accused of stealing somewhere in the region of $1 million in cryptocurrency from the agency.

Specifically, Patrick Steven Yaroch, who worked at the FBI from February 2025 through July 2026, has been charged with receipt of stolen goods and interstate transportation of stolen goods.

This is according to an affidavit filed by another FBI special agent.

After stealing the crypto, Yaroch apparently told a Department of Justice employee about what he had done, claiming that it was “eating him up inside.”

On July 29, Yaroch contacted FBIHQ to set up a meeting to discuss what he’d done, and during the interview it was revealed that the value of Yaroch’s wallet was “approximately one million dollars.”

That same day, when the FBI went to his residence to collect property, he surrendered key phrases for crypto wallets, though about half an hour later he withdrew that consent according to the affidavit.

Once the FBI obtained Yaroch’s cell phone, they were able to get access to his Kraken account, which contained “approximately $188,570.58” worth of value, principally in USDC and US dollars.

Additionally, the FBI review revealed that Yaroch had previously transferred approximately $1 million to Suilend.

Yaroch apparently told the FBI agents that “he chose this service simply because he liked that the logo was a water droplet.”

ChatGPT helps plan an escape

While the FBI was reviewing ChatGPT conversations on Yaroch’s phone they found fascinating conversations.

These included him asking ChatGPT:

“If I had a million dollars, how would you suggest investing it/spending it to maximize profit and return”
“If you had a bucket of money (around $1 million) and you wanted to leave the USA and become a resident or citizen of an EU country, what would you do?”

ChatGPT helpfully suggested to him that Portugal would be his best choice.

The FBI affidavit notes, “FBI Agents located an upcoming trip from the United States to Portugal” for Yaroch.

Yaroch also tried to claim to the FBI agents that “he was not planning to funnel money into Portugal,” and while recognizing he would no longer be allowed to visit Portugal, “he hoped his wife and child would still go on the trip.”

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Source link

Crypto World

CLARITY Act delay could trigger another crypto sell-off: Bernstein

Published

9 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Polymarket chart showing CLARITY Act passage odds falling to 28% by August, with $3.77 million in trading volume.

The CLARITY Act’s narrowing path through the U.S. Senate could trigger another crypto sell-off before the market recovers later this year, according to Bernstein analysts.

Summary

CLARITY Act passage odds have fallen to 28% as the Senate’s summer recess approaches.
Bernstein expects a failed vote or delay to produce an immediate negative crypto market reaction.
The bill remains absent from the Senate’s Aug. 3 schedule, leaving lawmakers only days to act.
An Aug. 5 cloture filing could allow an initial procedural vote on Aug. 7.

CLARITY Act misses the Aug. 3 Senate schedule

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act, was not included in the U.S. Senate’s published schedule for Monday, Aug. 3, reducing the time available for lawmakers to begin floor proceedings before the summer break.

The official Senate schedule lists a 5:30 p.m. cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6500, a legislative vehicle for a continuing resolution. It does not include scheduled action on H.R. 3633, the CLARITY Act.

The Senate’s cloture ledger also records the July 30 filing for H.R. 6500 but no corresponding petition for the crypto market-structure bill.

Source link

Crypto World

Bithumb Announces 2028 IPO Timeline After Internal Controls Overhaul

Published

16 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb says it is moving toward a public listing, with plans to apply for a preliminary listing review in 2027 and complete an initial public offering (IPO) in 2028. The timetable is described as flexible and could shift based on market conditions and the scheduling of relevant regulators.

In a statement released Monday, Bithumb linked its IPO roadmap to internal restructuring efforts designed to clarify responsibilities across business units and reduce potential conflicts of interest. The exchange also outlined operational changes it says are part of its preparation for the scrutiny that comes with becoming a listed company.

Key takeaways

Bithumb plans to pursue a preliminary listing review in 2027 and target an IPO for 2028, subject to regulatory and market timing.
The exchange says it reorganized its structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, to better separate responsibilities and limit conflicts of interest.
Bithumb is preparing to strengthen internal controls and transition from domestic accounting standards to K-IFRS.
The company’s listing push follows a separate incident in February involving an over-crediting error tied to a promotional reward mechanism.

Restructuring and accounting changes ahead of an IPO

Bithumb’s IPO plan is anchored in a set of organizational and compliance steps. According to the exchange, it has reorganized its business structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, with the stated goal of clarifying what each unit is responsible for. Bithumb said this approach is intended to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest before it enters the listing review process.

Beyond governance and structure, the exchange also said its preparations include upgrading internal controls. It further stated that it plans to move away from domestic accounting standards and adopt K-IFRS, the international accounting framework used by listed companies in South Korea.

While the company set out a broad timeline—application for preliminary review in 2027 and an IPO in 2028—Bithumb emphasized that the schedule is not guaranteed. It said changes could be required depending on market conditions and how quickly authorities complete their review processes.

A crypto market shifting toward traditional finance ties

Bithumb’s move toward going public is unfolding as several South Korean crypto exchanges tighten their relationships with traditional finance and technology groups. The exchange is among five South Korean platforms that offer fiat currency trading via real-name bank accounts, and it operates that service through a partnership with KB Kookmin Bank.

In the broader sector, the competitive landscape has increasingly reflected corporate and financial integration. Rival exchange Korbit saw a major change when Mirae Asset Consulting took control on July 23, while Upbit operator Dunamu is pursuing a share-swap arrangement that would make it a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Financial, though the transaction is described as subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals.

For investors and market participants, these developments matter because they suggest that the “crypto exchange” category in South Korea is increasingly being treated like a mainstream financial business—one that attracts scrutiny around corporate governance, accounting practices, and the boundaries between crypto operations and affiliated entities.

The February “620,000 BTC” promotional error and governance implications

Bithumb’s listing ambitions arrive after a notable operational failure earlier this year. In a February promotional mistake, the exchange mistakenly credited customer accounts with balances totaling 620,000 Bitcoin instead of distributing 620,000 Korean won in cash rewards, according to earlier coverage. Bithumb later recovered 99.7% of the erroneous credits, but some customers sold about 1,788 BTC before account freezes were applied.

At a February 11 National Assembly parliamentary hearing, Bithumb CEO Lee Jae-won said the exchange’s process for checking the planned distribution against actual holdings had failed. He also stated that the promotional amount had not been set aside in a separate account, a factor that complicated the detection and containment of the error.

While the episode appears to have been addressed through clawback of the majority of the mistaken credits, it is the kind of incident that regulators and auditors often consider when assessing internal controls—precisely the area Bithumb says it is upgrading as part of its IPO preparations.

Listing cleanup for Bithumb-linked public firms continues

Bithumb’s timetable for an IPO also intersects with governance and listing challenges involving entities connected to the exchange. Two Bithumb-linked listed companies have faced ongoing audit and listing issues, with their shares trading suspended since March 2023.

Yonhap reported that Bucket Studio, which indirectly controls Vidente (a major Bithumb shareholder), appointed a former police official as its standing auditor in June. Separately, Vidente has said it plans to appoint a former National Tax Service official to the same auditor role. According to Yonhap, South Korea’s Government Public Service Ethics Committee cleared both hires after concluding there was no close relationship between the officials’ previous duties and their new positions.

These developments are relevant to Bithumb’s listing ambitions because they show how tightly regulated the ecosystem can be in South Korea, not only at the exchange level but also across corporate relationships and audit oversight.

For readers tracking Bithumb’s path to the public markets, the next key indicators will be whether the exchange’s stated internal control upgrades and K-IFRS transition proceed on schedule, and how regulators respond to both the IPO review process and lingering questions raised by prior compliance and governance issues. The 2027/2028 targets are not fixed—so market conditions and authority review timing will likely determine what actually happens next.

Source link

Crypto World

Coldcard Hit By Suspected Fourth Attack Wave As Losses Mount

Published

24 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn has hinted that Coldcard was hit by a fourth wave of attacks on August 3, estimating that the attackers moved 448.7 BTC from 709 wallets belonging to victims.

Thorn based his findings on blockchain analysis rather than device records, describing the addresses as “likely Coldcard victims.”

A Fourth Wave?

Thorn described the addresses hit by the suspected attack as “likely Coldcard victims,” adding that the unspent outputs and transactions matched the vulnerable wallet pattern. Galaxy’s initial snapshot covered blocks 960,778 through 960,792, identifying 218 transactions involving 388.9 BTC and 462 potential victim addresses. The updated estimate expanded the figures to hundreds of transactions involving 448.7 BTC and 709 potential victim addresses.

Thorn posted the findings on X:

🚨 LIKELY 4TH ORGANIZED WAVE COLDCARD ATTACK OCCURRING RIGHT NOW
THERE ARE STILL SIMILAR TXS IN THE MEMPOOL WAITING TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE PREVIOUSLY-CONFIRMED TXS SIGNAL RBF OPT-IN, CHECK YOUR FUNDS AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RBF YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS
pattern identified:
blocks…
— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) August 3, 2026

“LIKELY 4TH ORGANIZED WAVE COLDCARD ATTACK OCCURING RIGHT NOW THERE ARE STILL SIMILAR TXS IN THE MEMPOOL WAITING TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE PREVIOUSLY-CONFIRMED TXS SIGNAL RBF OPT-IN, CHECK YOUR FUNDS, AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RBF YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS.”

According to Thorn, Galaxy measured 13.8 sweeps per block, a 45x increase compared to 0.3 sweeps per block measured during a pre-incident control period. The siphoned funds were sent to a new address instead of a shared wallet. Some of the stolen funds were subsequently moved to new addresses, making them difficult to track.

Previous Waves

Galaxy has already mapped three prior waves that siphoned 1,367.05 BTC from 4,585 addresses, with the first wave targeting 1,082.05 BTC across 1,196 addresses. The latest wave brings the total figures to 1,815.75 BTC across 5,294 addresses. However, the figures are yet to be confirmed by authorities, Coinkite, or the wallet owners. Additionally, it isn’t clear whether one entity was responsible for all four waves.

Thorn also added that there were transactions awaiting approval in Bitcoin’s mempool, giving holders an escape route. According to Thorn, Bitcoin Core documentation states that unconfirmed opt-in Replace-by-fee transactions can be replaced. This means a user still in control of an affected key could broadcast a conflicting transaction with a higher fee and send the funds to a secure wallet. However, it cannot be replaced once it enters the block, and a replacement is not guaranteed to succeed.

Coldcard Users Must Generate New Seeds

The ongoing issue arises from an RNG integration error that occurred during a March 2021 firmware change. Coinkite estimates that the affected Mk2 and Mk3 seeds have around 40 bits of effective entropy, while seeds generated on affected Mk4, Mk5, and Q releases have 72 bits instead of 128.

Additionally, an engineering team from Block discovered that the firmware called a deterministic MicroPython fallback instead of the hardware random-number generator. However, the Block team clarified they could not confirm exploitability without full empirical testing.

Meanwhile, Coinkite has released version 4.2.0 for Mk2 and Mk3, 5.6.0 for Mk4 and Mk5, 1.5.0Q for Q, and 6.6.0X or 6.6.0QX for Edge releases. However, simply updating the existing firmware does not fully address the vulnerability. Once updated, users must generate a new seed and verify the receiving address. Once verified, they must send a test transaction before migrating the complete balance.

Coinkite also clarified that seeds created using a minimum of 50 fair, private dice rolls are not considered at risk, and that a unique BIP-39 passphrase could serve as a second line of defense. However, it recommended that users complete the migration. The advisory does not cover TAPSIGNER, OPENDIME, and SATSCARD because they use separate codebases.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Source link

Crypto World

Greece Battles Raging Wildfires After Collision Between Firefighting Helicopters Kills Two

Published

30 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Greece Battles Raging Wildfires After Collision Between Firefighting Helicopters Kills Two

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, also remembered the contributions of the fallen.

“It takes a special courage to fly towards the flames so that others can be safe. As we continue to battle these fires side by side, Europe grieves with Greece and Denmark,” she said.

Widespread wildfires devastate Europe

Wildfires have swept across regions in France, with President Emmanuel Macron describing the situation as “the toughest since the Second World War.”

Elsewhere in western Europe, an emergency incident was declared in Suffolk, England, last week as firefighters tackled a blaze the size of at least 210 soccer pitches.

Much of Europe is in the midst of yet another heat wave, further compounding the issue and raising concerns that even contained fires may gather pace once more.

Source link

Crypto World

Here’s Why Crypto Traders Need to Watch the Fed’s H.4.1 Report This Week

Published

37 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Crypto investor Arthur Hayes warned on August 3 that markets should watch this week’s Federal Reserve H.4.1 release for signs that Japan used US Treasury holdings as collateral to obtain dollars during recent yen intervention efforts.

The move has raised questions about how central banks may manage currency pressure without disrupting bond markets, with potential effects on global liquidity and risk assets like Bitcoin (BTC).

Watching the Fed’s Balance Sheet

The H.4.1 report publishes weekly details on the Fed’s balance sheet, including any repo activity with foreign central banks, which is why Hayes pointed traders there for confirmation.

His post followed last Friday’s coordinated currency action, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said had been taken to counter “disorderly yen movements,” and that his department is still in close contact with the BOJ and Japan’s Ministry of Finance and “will not hesitate to participate in further joint intervention.” He also called for the FIMA repo facility, which lets foreign central banks borrow against Treasury holdings, to be expanded in the coming months.

“If Bessent can get the counterparty limit increased then the Fed can create money using MOF TSY as collateral,” Hayes wrote in response.

The H.4.1 publication adds to a list of macro events already on the radar of traders, including Friday’s Nonfarm Payrolls report and this week’s ISM Manufacturing PMI.

Bitcoin advocate Adam Livingston called the US-Japan action “one of the funniest pieces of elite macroeconomic theater,” pointing out how the Asian economic giant had spent years pinning rates low, monetizing debt, and turning its fiat currency into a funding source for global carry trades. Now it has weakened, with Washington describing it as “substantially undervalued.”

The crypto author noted that Japan needs dollars to defend the yen, and it holds a large stock of US Treasuries, which, if sold, could push American yields higher and raise US financing costs as well as tighten liquidity. However, a bigger FIMA facility allows Japan to borrow dollars against those Treasuries instead of dumping them onto the market.

The crypto community has been watching the yen issue because Japan’s low-rate environment supported the yen carry trade for years. Investors borrowed the currency cheaply and placed money into higher-yielding assets, like stocks and cryptocurrencies. Last week, analyst EGRAG CRYPTO warned that a fast unwind of such carry trade-funded positions could force selling across risk assets, including BTC, if the yen strengthens too quickly.

Where Crypto Stands This Week

At the time of writing, the global cryptocurrency market cap was holding near $2.2 trillion after a slight 0.8% dip in 24 hours. BTC was trading closer to $63,000 than $62,000, down about 1% on the day and over 4% across one week. Meanwhile, Ethereum (ETH) sat near $1,800, about 6% from where it was a week ago.

Analyst Daan Crypto Trades observed that Bitcoin and the broader crypto market have underperformed the recent bounce in tech stocks. He attributed the pattern to a liquidity rotation where speculation returns more readily to equities once they recover, leaving crypto lagging unless stocks move sideways for a stretch.

The post Here’s Why Crypto Traders Need to Watch the Fed’s H.4.1 Report This Week appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Cardano (ADA) Could Explode to Almost $3 if History Repeats: Analyst

Published

49 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Cardano’s native token is among the best-performing cryptocurrencies (from the top 10 club) over the past week.

Its renewed momentum has naturally drawn more attention, with some market observers now projecting further gains.

The Rally Goes on?

ADA experienced a sudden and rather unexpected revival this weekend, rising to a monthly peak of around $0.19. As of this writing, it trades just south of that mark, representing a 13% increase on a seven-day scale.

The most probable catalyst for the upswing seems to be the accumulation from whales, with Ali Martinez revealing that these big investors have purchased more than 240 million tokens in just five days.

Meanwhile, X user JAVON MARKS believes that ADA’s recent performance resembles that of 2020-2021, which was followed by a massive bull run towards an ATH. That said, the analyst set a target of $2.90, which is currently 1,300% away.

Leon Voss Official also chipped in, claiming that ADA has broken above a long-term descending trendline that had acted as persistent resistance.

“Daily candle comes on stronger side and now obvious touch the support for further confirmation to hold above $0.17. That’s connected to Cardano TVL surge by some +9% over the past week, reclaiming a level of nearly $68 million,” the X user added.

For their part, Crypto Tony said they will look for a short position upon a potential rejection of the recent rally or go long if the price flips the $0.22 zone.

Entering a Dangerous Territory

ADA’s pump is more than evident, yet one should keep in mind the unfavorable condition of the broader crypto market, meaning the bears can regain control at any time and quickly erase the gains.

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) should serve as another warning. Its ratio briefly spiked above 80, easing back to 65, which still keeps it hovering near overbought territory and signals a potential short-term correction.

The post Cardano (ADA) Could Explode to Almost $3 if History Repeats: Analyst appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Kalshi traders think July jobs will come in cooler than estimates

Published

57 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Kalshi traders think July jobs will come in cooler than estimates

A Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) now hiring flyer is displayed for job opportunities as an event security guard at an Inspire Together job and resource fair in Los Angeles, California on July 29, 2026.

Patrick T. Fallon | Afp | Getty Images

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set to release the employment picture for July on Friday, and economists are expecting a gain of 85,000 jobs in the month, according to Dow Jones consensus estimates.

However, traders on prediction market platform Kalshi think those figures may come in lower.

Speculators place just a 47% chance that employers added more than 80,000 jobs in July, but they also give a 60% chance that they added more than 70,000 jobs in the month.

The contracts on the platform ask traders what the jobs number will be for July, asking if the official figure will be above a series of numbers. Contracts are resolved using the official data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A beat compared with consensus estimates isn’t out of the question, even if not likely: traders place a 41% chance employers added 90,000 jobs in July, and just over a one-in-three chance that the number will come in at six figures.

However, traders also think there’s a one-in-three chance the number will come in below 60,000.

Last month, Kalshi traders placed a 63% chance that employers added more than 125,000 jobs in June, above consensus estimates for 115,000. However, the official figure came in much lower, at just 57,000 jobs added.

Disclosure: CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Source link

Crypto World

Fake ‘World Assets’ and Onchain Gacha Drive New Crypto Trend

Published

1 hour ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Fake World Assets (FWAs) have reignited attention on Ethereum’s onchain “gacha” niche—an NFT-based system where users pay to spin for randomly selected collectibles. In just days after launch, the protocol reportedly became a top Ethereum gas consumer by fees, underscoring how quickly gamified mechanics can draw speculative participation.

According to DeFiLlama, FWAs briefly ranked as Ethereum’s largest gas consumer over a 24-hour window in late July, with peak daily fees of about $1.53 million on July 25. The project’s token incentive program and the broader appeal of lottery-like gameplay helped drive rapid traction, though skepticism from some market participants suggests much of the current demand may be incentive-driven.

Key takeaways

Ethereum activity spiked fast: DeFiLlama data shows FWAs briefly became one of Ethereum’s biggest fee consumers by blockspace usage within days of launch.
Strong early liquidity metrics: Total value locked (TVL) reportedly climbed above $6.15 million by July 31, indicating more than a purely ephemeral burst of interest.
Fees have normalized after the initial frenzy: Fee revenue eased to roughly $350,000 per day by the latest figures cited in the reporting.
Demand may be tied to incentives: Investor Simon Dedic argues current participation could be largely fueled by token rewards rather than sustained end-user desire.
The core bet is on retention: The “real test” for onchain gacha, as framed by critics, will come once incentives fade and novelty wears off.

FWAs surge: from launch to Ethereum gas leader

FWAs are built around an onchain lottery mechanic that trades random NFT outcomes for player participation. Within four days of launch, the protocol reportedly consumed enough Ethereum gas to briefly top the chain’s gas usage rankings by fees over a 24-hour period, according to DeFiLlama.

At the height of the early activity—July 25—FWAs generated about $1.53 million in daily fees, briefly overtaking major stablecoin issuers’ associated onchain activity in the same fee-consumption comparisons. The project’s creators, TokenWorks, publicly celebrated the protocol’s rapid arrival, posting that it had reached a major milestone just days after launch.

While growth appears to have slowed from the peak, the scale remains notable. TVL reportedly rose to more than $6.15 million by July 31. Fee revenue was cited as easing to around $350,000 per day, which implies an annualized run rate of roughly $268 million based on the figures referenced.

How the onchain gacha works

At its core, Fake World Assets uses NFTs as the prize pool. Users pay to interact with an onchain “gacha” machine that selects a randomly chosen NFT backed by Ether. Instead of purchasing a specific NFT directly, participants buy the right to spin and potentially receive one of many collectibles.

TokenWorks has positioned FWAs as part of the broader onchain gacha evolution. The system is described as “latest” within Ethereum-based protocol experiments that apply randomness and game-like purchasing behavior to tokenized collectibles. The prize catalog, as reported, draws from multiple recognizable collections, including CryptoPunks, Azuki, Lil Pudgys, and Art Blocks.

Those who hold NFTs can also participate in the protocol differently: NFT holders are described as liquidity providers who deposit collectibles alongside ETH and receive a share of protocol fees while their NFT remains in the pool. Players, meanwhile, purchase spins for the chance to receive a random NFT and then decide whether to keep the prize or redeem most of its attached ETH value.

Blockworks Research is referenced in the source reporting for an additional detail: around 70% of purchasers allegedly choose to convert their winnings to FWA rather than keeping the received asset, suggesting the system is currently functioning as much like an ETH-linked bet as it is a pure collectible acquisition.

Supporters see gamified commerce; critics worry about incentives

Not everyone is convinced that FWAs represent durable demand. Simon Dedic, founder of Moonrock Capital and an early backer of onchain collectible platforms, expressed enthusiasm for gamified commerce while singling out specific concerns about FWA’s current appeal.

Dedic’s skepticism centers on whether participation reflects genuine consumer interest or is mainly driven by token incentives. In the remarks cited, he characterized the activity as targeted at “crypto degens” seeking to gamble and speculate—an important distinction because incentive-led engagement can diminish quickly once rewards decline.

Other participants and commentators in the reporting highlight the novelty of the combined roles inside the mechanism. The protocol blends player behavior (seeking a favorable random outcome) with “house” behavior (earning fees as an NFT liquidity provider), which some see as a more engaging primitive than simple onchain lotteries or typical NFT marketplaces.

Still, the source framing makes clear that the sustainability question is unresolved. Dedic argues that the industry may be moving toward more gamified shopping behavior as Gen Z’s purchasing power grows, but he also notes a preference for selling assets people actually want—such as widely demanded collectibles—rather than forcing interest through rewards for assets that have little independent pull.

The retention test: novelty vs. real utility

Even if FWAs can keep drawing transaction volume, the long-term question is whether the protocol can continue without strong incentive support. The early numbers—high peak fees, rising TVL, and significant early volume and purchase counts mentioned in the source—suggest there is real attention and a willingness to pay for the mechanic.

However, “hype” can be measured in weeks, not months. If users continue spinning even after incentives taper off, that would indicate the system has found something closer to a retail use case. If activity drops sharply once token rewards lessen, FWAs may follow the pattern of other short-lived crypto experiments that attract bursts of attention but fail to convert them into durable user demand.

What makes the outcome particularly relevant for the broader market is that onchain gacha is part of a wider trend: tokenized versions of familiar collectibles and randomized purchase mechanics. If FWAs demonstrate sustained retention, they could strengthen the case that gamified retail primitives can coexist with token liquidity models. If they fail, it may reinforce the view that the current wave is mostly speculation riding on incentives.

For now, readers should watch how fee generation and participation evolve as token incentives change, and whether a majority of users keep engaging for the collectible mechanic itself rather than primarily for conversion to incentive-linked rewards.

Source link

Crypto World

Circle’s 1,000-patent deal alarms crypto startups

Published

1 hour ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Circle has acquired nearly 1,000 blockchain patents from IBM, giving the USDC issuer what it describes as the largest blockchain patent portfolio in the United States.

Summary

Circle acquired nearly 1,000 issued patents spanning more than 680 patent families.
The portfolio covers blockchain, banking, insurance, cloud security, and enterprise infrastructure.
Circle has not disclosed the purchase price or explained whether it could enforce the patents against competitors.
CRCL initially gained about 2%, but later fell after Morgan Stanley cut its target to $38.

Circle takes control of IBM’s blockchain portfolio

Circle announced the acquisition on July 27, saying it had purchased core assets from IBM’s blockchain patent portfolio. The transaction covers more than 680 patent families and nearly 1,000 issued patents worldwide.

The intellectual property spans blockchain systems, financial services, banking, insurance, supply-chain verification, enterprise infrastructure, and secure cloud operations. Circle did not disclose the financial terms.

Circle said the portfolio would support USDC, the Circle Payments Network, its Arc blockchain, and tools designed for artificial intelligence agents. The two companies also plan to consider further commercial agreements.

“Intellectual property is critical to advancing our mission and expanding adoption of onchain infrastructure,” Circle General Counsel Sarah Wilson said.

Wilson added that the acquisition would expand Circle’s ability to develop infrastructure for internet-based finance.

Patent deal raises concerns over possible enforcement

Circle’s announcement did not state whether the company intends to license the patents, use them defensively, or enforce them against other blockchain businesses.

That lack of detail has prompted questions about how Circle could use its newly acquired intellectual property. In an Aug. 3 commentary, Fortune’s Jeff John Roberts warned that the patents could become legal leverage against competitors or startups.

Roberts argued that Circle could theoretically seek licensing payments, bring infringement cases, or transfer patents to separate entities that pursue enforcement. However, Circle has not announced plans to take any of those actions.

The concerns also stem from IBM’s mixed record in commercial blockchain development. IBM previously backed several enterprise blockchain projects, including supply-chain and trade-finance platforms, but many failed to achieve broad adoption.

A large patent portfolio does not necessarily indicate that the underlying products reached commercial success. Still, issued US patents can give their owner the right to restrict others from using covered inventions, subject to their validity and scope.

Circle has also not announced a public defensive patent pledge comparable to commitments used by some other digital-asset companies. Such pledges generally promise that patents will not be used offensively against developers acting in good faith.

US blockchain firms face new intellectual property risk

Circle’s position as the largest US holder of blockchain-related patents could affect companies building stablecoin, payments, interoperability, and enterprise ledger products.

The practical impact will depend on the language of individual patent claims and whether Circle chooses to enforce them. Any infringement dispute would also face review in US courts, where defendants can challenge whether a patent is valid or applies to their technology.

For Circle, the acquisition may provide protection as it expands beyond reserve income from USDC. Arc, Circle Payments Network, cross-chain services, and agent-based payment tools could expose the company to a broader set of technology competitors.

It may also strengthen Circle’s bargaining position in licensing or partnership negotiations. Still, without an enforcement policy, developers and competitors have limited visibility into whether the portfolio will function mainly as a defensive shield or a commercial asset.

CRCL falls despite initial reaction to IBM deal

Fortune reported that Circle shares rose about 2% following news of the acquisition. That gain did not hold as separate concerns about the company’s USDC business weighed on CRCL on Aug. 3.

Circle shares fell nearly 5% to around $59 after Morgan Stanley downgraded the stock to underweight and cut its price target from $106 to $38. The bank cited weaker USDC supply forecasts, pressure on reserve income, and a potential shift toward lower-margin transaction revenue.

Morgan Stanley reduced its USDC supply estimates by 33% for 2027 and 44% for 2028. The downgrade was separate from the IBM patent acquisition, although both developments reflect Circle’s attempt to establish revenue sources beyond interest earned on USDC reserves.

Investors will now watch for details on how Circle intends to integrate, license, or enforce the patents. Until the company provides those details, claims that it will use the portfolio against competitors remain speculative.

Source link