Key takeaways:

• Despite ETH’s price gains, weak onchain activity and low DEX volumes signal trader caution.
• Record Ethereum staking at 34% reduces sell pressure, yet sustained upside needs external catalysts.

Ether (ETH) tested the $1,950 mark for the first time in seven weeks on Tuesday, triggering $62 million in liquidations across leveraged bearish positions. The move delivered 29% gains from the $1,500 low on June 26 and aligned with the broader risk-on mood that drove Bitcoin (BTC) above $66,500. Can ETH push through to $2,100?

Total crypto market capitalization (left) vs. ETH/USD. Source: TradingView

Ether’s price largely tracked the overall crypto market trend, which shifted to positive momentum in July. Tuesday’s gains in the US stock market helped ease investor worries about stretched valuations after the artificial intelligence stock rally. Traders expect solid corporate earnings after 3M Company (MMM US) reported results Tuesday morning.

Google’s parent, Alphabet, is expected to report quarterly results on Wednesday after US stock markets close. Investors look for 64% growth in cloud services revenue amid heavy AI investments. Strong earnings could restore confidence and help push the cryptocurrency market past the $2 trillion total capitalization mark.

Weak Ethereum onchain metrics and muted ETH derivatives persist

Despite recent ETH price gains, Ethereum onchain metrics show stagnation. Demand for blockchain processing has not recovered to levels seen six months ago, partly because traders are showing less interest in memecoins and utility tokens. Some of Ethereum’s top projects posted losses of 50% or more year-to-date, including Ethena (ENA), Mantle (MNT) and Arbitrum (ARB).

Ethereum network weekly DEX volumes & DApps revenues, USD. Source: DefiLlama

Weekly revenue for Ethereum’s decentralized applications (DApps) fell to the lowest levels since September 2024, hitting $9.8 million. Among the strongest performers are Sky (formerly MakerDAO) at $3.2 million in weekly revenue and Chainlink, which brought in $1.2 million over the same period. Overall, decentralized exchange (DEX) volumes dropped to $7.2 billion per week.

Ethereum’s weak onchain data mirrors the subdued mood in derivatives markets.

ETH perpetual futures annualized funding rate. Source: Laevitas

The annualized funding rate on ETH perpetual futures has struggled to remain within the neutral 6%-12% range over the past month. Still, sentiment has improved from the negative rates seen in late June, which reflected heavy bearish demand. Rising interest in Ethereum staking has likely boosted trader expectations for price gains and reduced downside risks.

Ethereum staking data. Source: StakingRewards

According to Staking Rewards data, a record-high 34% of all ETH supply is now staked, up from 33% one month earlier. Analysts expect reduced sell pressure as long-term holders keep accumulating supply, including Tom Lee’s Bitmine Immersion (BMNR US), which added 156,719 ETH over the past month. The company now controls 4.8% of available supply.

ETH price is 61% below the all-time high from August 2025, which helps explain why bulls lack enthusiasm in derivatives markets. The soft on-chain metrics and six-month bear market have left traders skeptical about sustained upside.

Ether’s path to $2,100 likely depends on reduced risk aversion across markets, which makes Google’s revenue guidance on Wednesday especially important.

Solana price has climbed to $78 after buyers defended support near $74, though repeated failures below $80 and lingering concern over the BONK governance attack have kept market sentiment cautious.

According to data from crypto.news, Solana (SOL) price traded at $78.03 at press time, up marginally over the past 24 hours after moving between an intraday low of $77.42 and a high of $78.88. The token has recovered about 5% from its July 18 low but remains below the $82–$84 zone reached earlier this month.

Confidence across the Solana ecosystem took a hit after an attacker drained nearly $20 million from the BonkDAO treasury. According to crypto.news, the attacker spent roughly $4.4 million to acquire enough BONK to meet the governance threshold, then passed a proposal with 99.9% approval.

The incident did not compromise Solana’s base layer, but it exposed weak safeguards within a major ecosystem project. BonkDAO had low voter participation, no execution delay, and enough concentrated voting power for one participant to control the result, according to crypto.news analysis.

Meanwhile, demand through regulated investment products has provided some support. U.S. spot Solana exchange-traded funds recorded $8.36 million in net inflows on July 6, their strongest day in nearly two months, according to data from SoSoValue. Early-July inflows reached about $5.75 million during one full trading week, with no daily outflow reported over the period.

Geopolitical pressure remains a hurdle for high-beta cryptocurrencies. Brent crude settled at $91.01 on July 21 after U.S.-Iran hostilities, and Houthi threats against Red Sea shipping routes raised concern over energy supplies. The dollar index also advanced to 101.16 as traders increased bets that higher oil costs could keep the Federal Reserve focused on inflation, Reuters reported.

A stronger dollar and renewed rate-hike expectations usually reduce demand for speculative assets. Solana may therefore need both crypto-market strength and less pressure from energy prices to sustain a move beyond nearby resistance.

Solana needs a daily close above $80 to unlock the next range

The daily chart places SOL directly below resistance at $78.92, a level that previously acted as support in February, April and early June. Buyers briefly reclaimed it during the first half of July, but price slipped back underneath after stalling near $83.

A daily close above $78.92 would clear the first barrier, while $80 remains the psychological level required to confirm a breakout. Beyond it, the July swing highs between $82.50 and $84 form the next supply zone. A close above $84 could open the route toward $90 and the previous range high near $97.60.

Daily momentum favors another test. The Aroon Up reading stands at 71.43%, while Aroon Down has fallen to zero, showing that recent highs carry more weight than recent lows. However, the Chaikin Money Flow remains slightly negative at -0.02, which shows that capital inflows have not yet matched the price recovery.

According to crypto trader Daan Crypto Trades, SOL has reached a “key high timeframe region” that will decide whether bulls can attack the upper end of the range.

“Either the bulls push through and set a higher low here to take a stab at the range high in the $90s. Or this rejects here and dribbles back down to that mid $60s area.”

The 4-hour chart offers a more constructive setup. SOL trades above its 20-period moving average at $77.01, its 50-period average at $76.42, its 100-period average at $77.60 and its 200-period average at $75.55. Regaining all four lines has placed short-term control with buyers.

The 4-hour MACD remains above its signal line, although its histogram has narrowed to 0.13. Momentum has therefore stayed positive, but buyers need stronger follow-through before the move can extend through $80.

Derivatives liquidity could help accelerate a breakout. CoinGlass’ three-day liquidation heatmap shows concentrated short-liquidation bands near $78.50, $79.20 and $80.60. A move through $79 could force leveraged bears to close positions and add market buy orders, creating the conditions for a quick test of $81.

Loss of $75.50 would invalidate the bullish setup

Below the market, the largest nearby liquidation pools sit around $76.80, $76.10 and $75. A downturn through those levels could trigger long liquidations and pull SOL toward $74, where buyers stepped in during the latest retracement.

The 4-hour 200-period moving average at $75.55 serves as the main invalidation line. A sustained close below it would return SOL beneath its moving-average cluster and expose $72.50, followed by the June range floor near $67.

Oil above $90, further U.S.-Iran escalation, or another Solana ecosystem security incident could strengthen the bearish case. For now, the charts support another attempt at $80, but SOL must close above that level with stronger capital inflows to turn the recovery into a confirmed breakout.

Movement Labs has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy with no more than $500,000 in assets and liabilities that could reach $10 million following more than a year of turmoil around the MOVE token.

Court records show that MVMT Labs submitted its petition on July 15 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The original developer of the Movement blockchain listed between $100,001 and $500,000 in assets, up to $10 million in liabilities and as many as 299 creditors.

Former co-founder and chief executive Rushikesh “Rushi” Manche holds the largest unsecured claim at more than $1.6 million, according to the filing. The document also names the Delaware Division of Corporations, Move Industries, Anchorage Digital and security auditor OtterSec among the claimants, with the Delaware agency allegedly owed $459,000.

Despite being removed from the company in May 2025, Manche still owns a 34.25% equity stake in Movement Labs. He previously sued the company in the Delaware Court of Chancery and secured payment of legal expenses connected to a U.S. Department of Justice grand jury investigation into the MOVE launch.

Movement Labs originally served as the main research and development company for Movement Network, which launched as an Ethereum layer-2 using the Move programming language. Meta initially developed Move for its abandoned Libra and Diem digital currency projects.

Before the token controversy, Movement Labs had attracted substantial venture funding. The company raised $38 million in a Series A round led by Polychain Capital, while Reuters reported in January 2025 that it was close to completing another $100 million round at a proposed $3 billion valuation.

MOVE scandal left lasting damage

Movement Labs’ problems intensified after MOVE debuted on exchanges in December 2024. An investigation by CoinDesk found that a market-making agreement handed 66 million MOVE tokens, or about 5% of the supply, to a little-known intermediary called Rentech.

According to internal documents reviewed by CoinDesk, wallets linked to market maker Web3Port sold the tokens one day after MOVE’s exchange debut and generated about $38 million. The sale placed a large share of the publicly traded supply under one counterparty’s control and contributed to a steep fall in the token’s price.

Scrutiny also fell on the structure of the agreement because Rentech appeared in contracts both as a Movement Foundation agent and as a Web3Port affiliate, CoinDesk reported. Rentech denied misrepresenting itself, while Movement co-founder Cooper Scanlon told employees that the project was examining whether it had been misled.

Reviewing the documents, crypto founder Zaki Manian argued that the terms created incentives to raise MOVE’s valuation before selling tokens to retail traders.

“Even participating in a discussion where that’s on paper is insane,” Manian told CoinDesk.

Binance later banned the market-making account for what the exchange described as misconduct and froze the profits linked to the token sales. Movement Network Foundation subsequently announced a $38 million MOVE repurchase plan using the recovered funds and hired outside firm Groom Lake to investigate the agreement.

Leadership changes followed the inquiry. Movement Labs terminated Manche after alleging that he had signed undisclosed agreements, while the company transferred core development responsibilities to the newly formed Move Industries under chief executive Torab Torabi.

Trading disruptions compounded the damage. The Block reported that Binance and Coinbase suspended MOVE trading after the launch controversy, while TradingView data cited in the original report placed MOVE near $0.0108 following the bankruptcy news, with the token gaining less than 1%.

Move Industries remains outside the filing

Move Industries has denied any involvement in the Chapter 11 case and continues to operate the blockchain separately from Movement Labs. Addressing the filing on X, Torabi stressed that the two companies are distinct legal entities.

“Move Industries is operating normally. We continue to put our heads down and build.”

Movement Network Foundation confirmed in December 2025 that Move Industries had become the network’s primary service provider and assumed its main operating duties. Under that arrangement, the foundation remains the independent network steward, while Move Industries handles development, operations and ecosystem work.

Following the corporate separation, Move Industries converted Movement from an Ethereum layer-2 into an independent layer-1 network. The company has since positioned the chain as infrastructure for stablecoin payments, cross-border transfers and remittances in emerging markets.

Movement Labs is the second prominent crypto company to seek U.S. bankruptcy protection in recent months. In May, Nasdaq-listed Bitcoin Depot entered Chapter 11 in the Southern District of Texas to close its crypto ATM business and sell its assets under court supervision.

Unlike Movement Labs, Bitcoin Depot blamed tighter state rules, lower transaction limits, litigation and enforcement pressure for making its model unsustainable. The company took more than 9,000 kiosks offline and included its Canadian entities in the court-supervised process, according to its May 18 announcement.

August 7 — the fast-approaching final day before the Senate’s summer recess — is seen as a major deadline for finishing the Clarity Act this year. Crypto insiders are expecting the bill to get to the floor as soon as the beginning of next week, which would fit with what Senate Majority Leader John Thune had previously indicated. The legislation could require several days to get to a final vote.

Earlier on Tuesday, CoinDesk had reported that a White House official said Trump agreed to “the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history,” though the actual language he’s accepted hadn’t yet been shared with Democrats. As of press time, it was still unclear if Democrats had seen the exact language. Still, the administration argued that it had “bent over backward” to satisfy Democrats, suggesting it would be their fault if the legislation doesn’t advance.

Trump’s agreement to a crypto constraint of his own business ties raises significant questions about how his involvement would be made sufficiently remote to comply with the limit. The president and his family are deeply connected to several crypto business initiatives, including their ownership stake in World Liberty Financial. While Trump has insisted he’s not conflicted as his administration imposes crypto policies that affect his own businesses, Democratic lawmakers have openly accused him of corruption.

A crypto lobbying organization has sued the state of Illinois over a last-minute tax provision inserted into the state budget last month.

The Digital Chamber alleged that Illinois’ Digital Asset Tax Act violated both the U.S. and state constitutions and is preempted by a federal tax law. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, asks a federal judge to block the Illinois state government from enforcing the tax.

The tax violates the Illinois state constitution’s uniformity and due process clauses, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Internet Tax Freedom Act by specifying digital asset transactions, the suit said.

The Digital Asset Tax Act was passed and approved on short notice last month, right before the Illinois state government wrapped up its session for the year. The 0.2% tax applies to any entities that are based in Illinois or provide services with gross receipts of over $100,000. The tax takes effect in January.

TDC’s lawsuit said the Internet Tax Freedom Act alone created a rule that “electronic commerce would not be subjected to discriminatory state and local taxation.”

A U.S. House hearing this week zeroed in on who should regulate sports-event prediction markets and what kind of customer protections regulators can realistically enforce as these platforms expand. Lawmakers and legal specialists discussed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) role, the agency’s resourcing constraints, and the impact that pending U.S. crypto market-structure legislation—especially the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—could have on oversight of prediction market companies.

During a Tuesday session titled “Examining Customer Protections and Market Integrity in Sports Event Prediction Markets,” Carl Kennedy, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, said the CFTC may be “short-staffed” for both regulatory supervision and enforcement of prediction market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket. Kennedy argued that the CLARITY Act could help by expanding the regulator’s authority to cover not only digital assets but also the “explosive growth of prediction markets.”

Key takeaways

• A House Agriculture subcommittee hearing highlighted a perceived mismatch between the CFTC’s capacity and the rapid growth of sports prediction markets.
• Experts pointed to the CLARITY Act as a potential vehicle to expand the CFTC’s jurisdiction over prediction markets alongside crypto assets.
• The CFTC chair’s “exclusive jurisdiction” stance has intensified federal-versus-state regulatory conflict involving Kalshi and Polymarket.
• Legislators expect the CLARITY Act’s bill text to be released soon, though details on prediction-market treatment have not yet been made public.

Why lawmakers are pushing on prediction market oversight

The hearing focused on how customer protections and market integrity should work in the specific context of sports event prediction markets. Kennedy’s intervention put a practical lens on the debate: even if the legal framework is clarified, enforcement still depends on agency resources.

He told the committee that the CFTC likely lacks enough staffing to fully address both regulation and enforcement for prediction market platforms. Kennedy’s argument linked this operational challenge to legislative timing—suggesting that any additional authorities from the CLARITY Act would need to come with the capacity to carry them out.

That point matters for market participants because prediction markets often rely on clear rules about how customer funds are handled, how conflicts are addressed, and how platforms maintain orderly trading. In a fast-moving sector, regulators typically face pressure to move quickly while also building the infrastructure to supervise new product types.

The CFTC’s jurisdiction claim and the state-federal clash

Part of the hearing’s urgency comes from ongoing legal and regulatory conflict. The CFTC chair, Michael Selig, has taken the position that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction market companies. Selig’s reasoning is that event contracts traded on these platforms are classified as “swaps,” placing them within the CFTC’s remit.

As Kennedy’s comments and related expert discussion underscored, this approach has fueled disputes with state authorities. Many Democratic senators have characterized the CFTC’s stance as an “assault” on states trying to regulate prediction markets. Several states have pursued legal action against Kalshi and Polymarket over sports-betting-like activity.

One flashpoint involved a Michigan court ruling that Kalshi said put it in an untenable position between state and federal directives. Earlier, reporting noted that Selig ordered Kalshi to ignore the Michigan court ruling—something the company described as creating a difficult compliance bind.

Legal experts quoted in earlier coverage have also suggested that these disputes could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The underlying issue is structural: whether states can regulate prediction markets in parallel with the CFTC’s federal authority when the regulator views the contracts as swaps.

What the CLARITY Act could change—and what’s still unknown

In the hearing, attention turned to the CLARITY Act as the most immediate legislative lever on the horizon. Kennedy said the bill could grant the CFTC additional authority to address the “explosive growth” of prediction markets, implying that Congress may be willing to clarify—at least procedurally and jurisdictionally—how these products fit within the commodities regulatory framework.

However, the specific mechanics of how the CLARITY Act would treat prediction markets were not publicly detailed as of Tuesday. In reporting from the hearing session, Republican senators pushing for a vote before August state work periods said they expect to release the bill’s text soon, but no public details were provided on how the legislation would address prediction markets, ethics, or other concerns raised by legal experts.

One signal of the policy pressure surrounding the bill comes from earlier activity in Congress. In June, gambling industry groups petitioned the U.S. Senate to add language to CLARITY that would “explicitly prohibit” event contracts tied to sports and casino-style gaming. The White House has also been linked to ethics-related provisions in the package, with reporting stating the Trump administration “agreed to the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history” and worked to accommodate Democratic concerns.

Taken together, these threads show a tension that markets will watch closely: legislators appear to be trying to expand regulatory clarity for digital assets and related markets, while simultaneously debating whether prediction markets—particularly those resembling sports betting—should face stricter boundaries.

Why the timeline matters for platforms and customers

The sector’s near-term planning depends heavily on what Congress does next. If the CLARITY Act’s language expands the CFTC’s authority, it could potentially reduce some uncertainty for platforms—though it may also intensify legal battles with states if the legislation is interpreted as narrowing state power.

Just as importantly, the hearing made clear that authority alone may not solve the enforcement question. Kennedy’s “short-staffed” framing suggests the market could see continued compliance and supervision gaps even as legal frameworks evolve. For customers, those gaps can translate into uneven protections—especially during periods of rapid growth.

Readers should watch the release of the CLARITY Act text and closely track how it defines prediction markets, customer protection obligations, and the relationship between federal oversight and state regulation. The next legal steps—particularly any moves that could raise questions up the court system—may determine whether the regulatory tug-of-war ends or simply shifts into a new legislative framework.