CoinDesk Indices presents its daily market update, highlighting the performance of leaders and laggards in the CoinDesk 20 Index.

The CoinDesk 20 is currently trading at 2062.9, down 0.5% (-9.64) since 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday.

Five of the 20 assets are trading higher.

Leaders: NEAR (+4.1%) and TAO (+1.6%).

Laggards: ICP (-1.6%) and HBAR (-1.3%).

The CoinDesk 20 is a broad-based index traded on multiple platforms in several regions globally.

Liquidators overseeing Terraform Labs’ bankruptcy have unredacted the Jane Street Group lawsuit that accuses the firm of using a secret Telegram chat to profit from Terra’s $40 billion collapse.

Appointed administrator, Todd Snyder, filed the lawsuit last February in a Manhattan court. 

It accuses Jane Street, its co-founder Robert Granieri, and employees Bryce Pratt and Michael Huang of using insider information to front-run transactions and profit from Terraform Labs’ fallout. 

Allegedly key to this was a Telegram group chat called “Bryce’s secret” set up by Pratt. The suit claims he used the group to relay information from various Terraform employees back to Jane Street.  

At the time of filing, Jane Street claimed the suit was full of “baseless, opportunistic claims.” 

Read more: Do Kwon sentenced to 15 years for Terra/Luna fraud

It said, “This desperate suit is a transparent attempt to extract money when it’s well-established that the losses suffered by Terra (UST) and Luna (LUNA) holders were the result of a multibillion-dollar fraud perpetrated by the management of Terraform Labs.”

The lawsuit was mostly redacted but now, many of these redactions have been removed. Protos has compared the documents to reveal what’s new. 

Advertisement

The unredacted claims in Terraform Labs lawsuit

The first set of unredacted lines introduces the group chat “Bryce’s secret,” and notes that it was a secret message chain named after a former Terraform intern and then-current Jane Street systems developer. 

It claims that the insider information allowed Jane Street to unwind hundreds of millions of dollars in potential exposure, “and then to short sell Terraform tokens to reap even more illicit profits.”

Unredacted lines claim Jane Street “made a killing.” The suit then claims that Jane Street, knowing it had used insider information, went on to delete all traces of the crypto wallet linking it to these trades.  

Jane Street was allegedly ‘hungry for defi info’

We’re also now able to see the claim that Jane Street was “very hungry for…defi info,” and that it sold the entirety of its UST holdings. It then allegedly “took short positions in UST and Luna to profit from the crash it helped catalyze.”

Advertisement

Previously-redacted details about Pratt, Granieri, and Huang are then revealed. These note Granieri’s role in authorizing the alleged suspicious UST trades, and claim that he discussed the rescue of the Terraform ecosystem while learning material non-public information.

Pratt was allegedly involved in “acquiring and confirming information from Terraform and providing it to others at Jane Street.”

The suit also claims that Huang discussed decommissioning Jane Street’s wallet, was primarily responsible for executing relevant trades during UST’s 2022 depeg, and frequently received Pratt’s insider information. 

Later unredacted lines claim that Pratt was encouraged by others at the firm to leverage his connections at Terraform. 

Advertisement

Lawsuit says Pratt was allegedly ‘adding colour’  

The newly-unredacted suit also claims that Jane Street staff discussed investing in Terraform and Luna Foundation Guard (LFG), and mulled over LFG’s $1 billion capital raise through an over-the-counter sale of LUNA. 

Employees — who remain redacted — asked how this was achieved, and if the deal had “a four-year lock and 24 participants, with an average price of $51/luna?”

The suit claims Huang was skeptical of the $51 price, and added Pratt to the discussion to “add some colour.” The suit also alleges that Pratt said, “Pricing around $51 sounds right according to my sources.” 

It adds that Pratt heard the raise was supposed to be $2 billion originally, and that the deal was supposed to be at a 40% discount before LUNA fell and various investors backed out. 

Advertisement

Bryce’s secret is allegedly born

From here, unredacted lines claim that “Bryce’s secret” was made on February 22 with Pratt, Terraform Labs’ head of business development, and another unnamed Terraform employee. 

In one discussion, the employee and Pratt allegedly discussed a potential investor in Terraform Labs with the firm’s head of business development.

The suit details that the two were initially coy about the investor, but eventually the unnamed employee revealed to the head of business development that it was “Jane Streeeeeeeet.”

This allegedly piqued the Terraform business head’s interest. The suit notes they asked Pratt “what are you guys looking to do, besides otc,” and “can u market make ust?”

Advertisement

Pratt then replies, “everything. Probably ya. If jump can legally do smtg we probs can too,” according to the suit. 

The lawsuit claims these discussions were “the beginning of near-constant communications between Jane Street and Terraform between February and May 2022 that revealed material non-public information.”

In another instance, the lawsuit notes that, as Jane Street and Terraform negotiated a LUNA purchase deal, Pratt was tasked with drafting a “terra explainer” for Jane Street that would summarise its operations. 

If Pratt was ever unsure about details, he would allegedly “ask [his] friends,” aka former Terraform Labs employees. 

Advertisement

The suit also notes Pratt’s alleged insider knowledge was relied upon in March 2022 discussions about staking on Anchor. When the discussion shifts to shorting LUNA, Huang allegedly halts the discussion so Pratt can share his input, where he then appears to obtain more non-public information.

In March again, the lawsuit claims Pratt told Huang that crypto firm Celsius wanted to invest between $1-2 billion into LFG, but “Terra is probably going to say no.”

Pratt goes on to say that he doesn’t really know what Celsius does, and that “terra is super confused too.” 

Pratt allegedly sought insider info at wedding

The lawsuit notes that on April 1, Pratt told Huang and a redacted individual that  “if we can still get in on [Luna Foundation Guard]… it’s looking better and better.” 

Advertisement

He added, “I am hopefully going to a wedding later this month which basically every Terra exec will be at, including obviously Do. Maybe I can talk to them there and see if we can do something :).”

Pratt also allegedly helped Jane Street understand non-public numbers surrounding the UST/LUNA mint-burn. 

Read more: The high-profile LUNA investors — from prime ministers to beauty queens

This allegedly involved Pratt leveraging his relationship with Terraform Labs’ head of research to confirm outdated sources. 

Advertisement

Huang allegedly told Pratt, “I’m like kind of mad this isn’t just in their docs,” to which Pratt allegedly responded, “On the other hand shouldn’t you be slightly pleased that you have an informational advantage :’).”

Pratt also apparently shared with Huang in that same chat that, based on the info provided by the research head, “Jump makes an absolute killing off of MEV in Terra and that MEV in general should be very high priority for us.”

Lawsuit says Jane Street explored hirings to learn more about Terra

The lawsuit says Terraform’s head of research “was both providing and seeking information” and by March 2022, wanted Jane Street to hire him. One Jane Street employee allegedly wanted to hire him to learn more about Terraform Labs’ inner workings. 

Further unredacted lines note that Pratt tried to quash concerns that the firm’s wallet, positioned as the sixth largest, was a “red flag.”

Advertisement

The suit alleges he said, “estimates I’ve heard from trusted sources put [hedge fund] Alameda’s Anchor deposits somewhere north of $1B.”

He then supposedly added, “Despite us being the 6th largest wallet, I think it’s very unlikely that we’re the 6th largest depositor.”

Jane Street allegedly made suspiciously timely UST sales

The next batch of unredacted lines detail Jane Street’s purchases of UST. 

According to the suit, Jane Street bought 10,000 UST on February 11, then one month later, another 10 million UST on Binance. 

Advertisement

Afterwards, between April 1 and April 11, Jane Street is noted to have bought over 190 million UST on Binance. Altogether, the lawsuit says it owned ~$200 million worth of UST.

The suit then claims that it staked its UST with Anchor and began to earn 20% interest. 

From here, unredacted sections detail the run-up to Terraform’s UST depeg and Jane Street’s unstaking and selling of UST. The suit reveals how Jane Street carried out a test sale of $8 million worth of UST to test the peg’s stability in late April.  

It then held onto the rest of its UST until May 7, the day Terraform withdrew 150 million UST from the Curve3 liquidity pool without public disclosure.

Advertisement

Jane Street exited its entire $192 million UST position that day.

Read more: How Jump Trading allegedly manipulated UST into collapse

The unredacted suit claims, “Jane Street leveraged its material nonpublic information about Terraform’s ecosystem to sell its UST at the most opportune moment.” 

“By selling all of its UST in one day, all effectively at its peg value of $1, Jane Street avoided the catastrophic losses that other investors, including the individual victims, suffered when UST collapsed to virtually $0 just days later.”

Lawsuit says Jane Street traders were nervous 

The unredacted sections then go on to explain how Jane Street began to short UST and LUNA based on non-public information. 

Advertisement

Pratt allegedly learnt through Terraform’s head of research that Jump Trading would help Terraform Labs restore its UST peg, which was, by May 9, trading below $0.80.

He allegedly learned this by asking, “Y jump not doing their shit.”

On May 9, Jane Street co-founder, Granieri, allegedly forwarded on non-public information to fellow Jane Street traders that he learned from Jump Trading’s founder Bill DiSomma and CIO Dave Olsen.

This included efforts from Jump Trading to help Terraform Labs, and Jump’s request to Jane Street to also help bail Terraform Labs out and restore its peg. 

Advertisement

Read more: How did so many Jane Street traders wind up at FTX?

He supposedly learned that Jump Trading would only invest $100-200 million to help Terraform Labs, and alleged that it would need at least $2 billion, or $5 billion to be saved. 

According to the lawsuit, Granieri said Jane Street would think about Jump’s request. Across that same day, and the next, the lawsuit claims Jane Street began shorting UST and LUNA for millions. 

Also alleged in the suit is that some Jane Street traders were concerned about trading on insider information. It added that one supposedly said he “understood that [material non-public information] didn’t really exist in crypto.”

Advertisement

According to one unredacted line, “Jane Street unwound its short positions, pocketing over $19 million of profits on the UST short positions and over $115 million of profits on the Luna short positions.”

It had also allegedly placed another cheap option bet on LUNA that, if the UST depeg was ever restored, it would make Jane Street up to $180 billion by Huang’s estimates. 

The suit then details that Terraform Labs’ head of research was eventually offered a role after the collapse of UST. It notes that he joined, but Jane Street staff  were “unclear… whether he was also still working at Terraform at the time.”

Jane Street allegedly wanted to keep its ‘killer’ trades quiet 

Redacted sections also show that Jane Street was praised by a group of skilled on-chain analytics experts in the weeks that followed for the “killing” it made on its trades. 

Advertisement

Rather than revel in the praise, the lawsuit claims that Huang “expressed anxiety at having been caught.” He allegedly guessed that the firm’s admirers were “friends with exchanges and someone leaked them our wallets at some point.”

One unredacted section details how news of a wallet involved in the depeg began to spook Huang, and that he discussed “affirmatively stripping information that would connect them to this wallet.”

This was despite Jane Street’s name not being publicly linked yet. 

Read more: Researcher ties Jane Street to notorious ‘Wallet A’ that helped depeg UST

Advertisement

The unredacted document goes on to claim, “While it never publicly touted its involvement in the scheme, Jane Street has also never denied that it reaped massive profits from the collapse of UST due to its sales based on insider information.”

Other previously-redacted sections of the document recount specific details around unjust enrichment, market manipulation, insider trading, and other securities violations.  

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.

Advertisement

Hong Kong’s first officially approved HKD-backed stablecoin, HKDAP, has completed a live transfer test on Ethereum involving three licensed firms.

The transfer of Hong Kong’s HKD-backed stablecoin on Ethereum (ETH) demonstrates the regulator’s willingness to adopt innovative DeFi tooling.

According to a May 21 report, Anchorpoint Financial, one of the China’s first entities to secure a stablecoin issuer license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), has successfuly tested the stablecoin alongside OSL Group and PantherTrade, a licensed trading platform backed by Futu Holdings.

What does the HKDAP Ethereum test show?

The test confirms that HKDAP can be issued, transferred, and settled on a public blockchain without technical failure. This is not a sandbox simulation but a mainnet transaction, meaning the infrastructure is production-grade. That distinction matters because previous stablecoin pilots in Asia often remained confined to permissioned environments.

A spokesperson involved in the test said, “The successful mainnet transfer validates both the technical architecture and compliance framework for HKDAP ahead of issuance.” The quote underscores that regulatory approval and blockchain execution are being developed in parallel rather than sequentially.

Why is Hong Kong pushing a regulated stablecoin?

Hong Kong’s approach contrasts sharply with the fragmented regulatory posture seen in the U.S. and parts of Europe. By licensing issuers like Anchorpoint Financial and requiring full backing of reserves, the HKMA is attempting to create a compliant alternative to offshore dollar-pegged stablecoins.

The HKDAP model is explicitly pegged 1:1 to the Hong Kong dollar, positioning it as a regional settlement layer rather than a global reserve asset like Bitcoin (BTC) or a programmable ecosystem token like Ethereum. However, deploying it on Ethereum allows immediate interoperability with DeFi protocols, wallets, and exchanges.

OSL Group’s involvement is also notable. As one of Hong Kong’s few licensed digital asset platforms, OSL provides a regulated on-ramp for institutional users. PantherTrade, backed by Futu Holdings, adds another layer of distribution, potentially linking traditional brokerage clients with on-chain assets.

According to analysts, the timing is also strategic. With phased issuance expected by the end of Q2 2026, HKDAP could become one of the first fully regulated fiat-backed stablecoins in Asia operating on a public blockchain. That would place it in direct competition with existing dollar-pegged assets while offering regulatory clarity that many global stablecoins lack.

“Anchorpoint will issue the HKDAP (i.e. HKD At Par), a regulated Hong Kong dollar‑backed stablecoin, leveraging a business‑to‑business‑to‑consumer (B2B2C) model,” the joint venture said, adding that rollout will begin in the second quarter of 2026 and proceed in phases.

For context, stablecoins currently account for over $150 billion in circulating supply globally, with the majority denominated in U.S. dollars. Hong Kong’s move signals an attempt to localize that liquidity under its own monetary and regulatory system.

Blockchain.com said it confidentially filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a proposed initial public offering (IPO).

The number of shares to be offered and the proposed price range have not yet been determined, according to an announcement on Thursday.

A confidential filing allows companies to begin the SEC review process before publicly disclosing financial details tied to the listing. The IPO remains subject to market conditions and completion of the SEC review process.

Blockchain.com is a cryptocurrency financial services company that offers a range of products tied to digital assets, including a crypto exchange, wallet services, institutional trading and lending products.

The company held talks last year about going public in the U.S. through a merger with the a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), according to reports.

Crypto firms entered 2026 expecting a blockbuster year for IPOs after public debuts from companies including Circle (CRCL) and Bullish (BLSH) (the parent company of CoinDesk) helped reopen investors to digital-asset businesses last year.

But deteriorating market conditions, weaker trading volumes and disappointing post-listing performance from newly public companies like BitGo (BTGO) have since cooled investor appetite.

As a result, several major firms, including Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken, Ethereum app builder Consensys and hardware wallet maker Ledger, have either delayed or paused their IPO plans altogether while they wait for market conditions to improve.

• Aster price surged to $0.74 amid a 300% increase in 24-hour trading volume.
• Rally aligns with broader capital rotation into altcoins led by Hyperliquid.
• ASTER bulls need a close above $0.75 for continuation; a close below $0.65 would risk renewed selling.

Aster (ASTER) recorded modest gains, rising to near $0.74 as traders piled into multiple altcoins seen as offering higher profit potential amid Bitcoin’s ongoing struggle.

Although ASTER later pulled back from its peak, the move highlighted renewed speculative capital flowing into niche derivatives and decentralized perpetual markets.

ASTER price jumps amid 24-hour volume spike

The perpetual DEX protocol’s token may be benefiting from a broader rotation into altcoins and renewed interest in perpetuals-related listings, helping drive a triple-digit surge in daily trading volume.

Market data shows the ASTER token tested intraday highs near $0.74 before pulling back slightly amid profit-taking.

Before slipping to around $0.70, ASTER had climbed to levels last seen a week ago.

Bullish sentiment pushed 24-hour trading volume to roughly $256 million, up 300% from the previous day.

That surge in activity helped bulls lift the token higher before profit-taking trimmed gains. At the time of writing, ASTER was still up about 5% on the day.

Can ASTER mirror Hyperliquid rally?

Strength in high-beta altcoins may partly explain Aster’s rebound, with broader capital rotation into altcoins particularly visible among perpetuals-focused projects.

The standout performer has been Hyperliquid, whose HYPE token has surged more than 19% over the past 24 hours and 46% over the past week.

HYPE reached a new all-time high above $62 on Thursday amid growing institutional demand.

Asset manager Grayscale Investments was among the notable buyers, reportedly purchasing more than 115,700 HYPE during the session.

JUST NOW: $HYPE HITS NEW ATH ABOVE $62, MARKET CAP REACHES $15B

— The Wolf Of All Streets (@scottmelker) May 21, 2026

Liquidity and trader attention also appear to be flowing into Aster and related tokens.

The addition of a SpaceX pre-IPO perpetual contract with up to 5x leverage on Aster’s platform may have further fueled speculative inflows, as traders sought leveraged exposure to a headline-grabbing underlying asset.

Aster price forecast

The near-term outlook for ASTER depends on whether the recent volume-driven rally can sustain momentum or fade into a short-lived breakout.

Bulls will need to maintain buying pressure and push the price decisively above the $0.75 resistance level.

A strong, volume-backed close above that threshold could increase the likelihood of further gains as momentum traders and retail investors continue chasing upside.

On the other hand, fading buyer interest could open the door to renewed downside pressure.

A close below $0.65 may trigger additional selling as traders who entered during the spike begin rotating out, while short-term momentum traders turn bearish.

Key support levels to watch remain in the $0.65-$0.60 range, where previous intraday buyers established positions.

Bitcoin hovered near $77,000 on Thursday as traders weighed the prospect of a breakout after a period of tight range-bound action. With macro headwinds tempering risk assets broadly, analysts warned that the market may be poised for a meaningful move, but cautioned against piling into bearish bets while price action remains structurally constructive.

Key points:

• Bitcoin trades around the $77k mark, with technicians flagging potential for a 5% price move in the near term.
• Market sentiment shows risk for short bets as positioning has tilted against bears, according to data and commentary from traders monitoring the space.
• Macro factors — including a rally in crude oil above $100 and evolving U.S.-Iran tensions — continue to weigh on risk assets while bond yields drift lower on optimism of a potential deal.

BTC eyes a breakout as it clings to $77k

Price action has been notably constrained, with Bitcoin consolidating into a narrow corridor around the $77,000 level. Traders described clusters of liquidity around the $78,000 area and the $76.5k–$77k zone, positioning those levels as near-term magnets. In a rapid-fire view of the tape, one market analyst observed that the last several sessions have seen price sit between key hubs, suggesting a breakout could come into view once a decisive directional cue appears.

“Price has been in a pretty tight price range the past few days so expecting some larger 5%+ move to occur here soon again.”

That sentiment tracks with the general sense of looming volatility, even as most participants avoid taking outright contrarian bets right at the present moment. Several commentators have cautioned that any major squeeze could unfold quickly, given the current configuration of price clusters and leveraged exposure on both sides of the market.

Liquidity signals and risk signals in flux

Beyond price, liquidity metrics are painting a nuanced picture. Data from CoinGlass indicated that short positions captured a majority of losses across the broader crypto space over the 24 hours leading up to the report, underscoring a stubborn bid in the spot market and potential vulnerability for bearish bets when leverage remains elevated.

Analysts tracking order-book dynamics pointed to a paradox: as price rose, open interest on BTC appeared to waver. A prominent X analyst noted that open interest declined by more than 12,000 contracts during the period, a sign that some traders were retreating from positions despite a bullish backdrop. The takeaway for traders is clear — trimming risk in a bullish backdrop can be prudent if the market’s structure remains intact and key support holds.

“Bears on BTC are getting squeezed in real-time. While the price is going up, the Open-Interest has dropped by over 12K. This is exactly why you don’t short a bullish backtest.”

Despite the pressure on bears, another analyst emphasized that maintaining exposure around the latest support could be a rational stance as long as the market’s higher-timeframe structure remains intact. In that view, the most likely near-term scenario remains a hold above a pivotal zone around $74,000, with a sustained move higher contingent on new catalysts materializing in the broader macro backdrop.

Macro backdrop: oil, yields, and geopolitical currents

The broader risk market environment remained tethered to a suite of macro drivers. Crude oil prices re-entered triple digits, with WTI crude trading above $100 per barrel as headlines from the U.S.–Iran front circulated. Traders cited mixed reports on uranium enrichment and ongoing tensions over the Strait of Hormuz as the primary catalysts keeping oil supplies under scrutiny.

On the macro side, several dynamics intersected with crypto pricing. Earlier in the week, reports suggested a softer tilt in U.S. bond yields, with chatter that a potential Iran peace deal could feed into a broader risk-on posture if the trend holds. A well-known analyst highlighted that lower yields typically bolster risk assets, particularly if the improvement in risk appetite is sustained across major markets — including Japan.

“If those yields come down — risk-on assets to rally even higher.”

What this means for Bitcoin and the wider crypto complex is a delicate balance: investors want the safety net of lower yields to support asset prices, but any escalation in geopolitical risk or a renewed spike in energy prices could reintroduce caution. The current crosswinds suggest that near-term momentum will hinge on whether macro indicators align with a rising risk appetite or retreat back into treasuries and cash.

What investors should watch next

Several signals will shape the next leg for Bitcoin. If the price can decisively breach the cluster around $78,000 and sustain above that threshold, the path toward the next major psychological barrier could open up, potentially inviting a more durable rally. Conversely, a break below the critical $74,000 support could invite fresh rounds of volatility and liquidations as leverage re-enters the spotlight.

Traders will also be watching liquidity cues and open-interest dynamics to gauge the durability of any breakout. A shift in open interest away from longs, or a renewed spike in short-position pressure, could indicate that risk appetites are softening even as spot price climbs.

Beyond BTC, the market will stay attuned to developments on the macro stage — particularly oil price trajectories and any tangible progress in U.S.–Iran diplomacy that could influence yields and risk sentiment. Market participants will likely calibrate positions as new data points arrive, staying vigilant to abrupt shifts in the balance of risk and reward.

In sum, while the near term looks poised for potential volatility, the current configuration favors a cautious, technically grounded stance. The key levels around $77,000–$78,000 and the $74,000–$75,000 zone will be crucial in determining whether Bitcoin can cement a sustained breakout or retreat to consolidate further.

As the calendar advances, traders should monitor the evolving macro narrative alongside price action and liquidity signals to gauge whether this period marks merely a pause before a larger move or the onset of a fresh leg higher.

MoonPay is betting institutions want broader access to onchain financial products beyond simple crypto purchases.

The crypto payments firm said Thursday it started MoonPay Trade, a platform designed to connect banks, fintechs and enterprises to tokenized assets, decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols and stablecoin liquidity across more than 200 blockchains through a single integration.

The service is underpinned by Decent.xyz, the cross-chain routing startup MoonPay has acquired for a “high eight-figure” sum, a person familiar with the matter said.

The expansion comes as tokenization is gaining momentum across finance, attracting global banks and asset managers. Tokenized real-world assets — blockchain-based versions of stocks, bonds and funds — now exceed $33 billion in market value, tripling in a year, RWA.xyz data shows. Boston Consulting Group projected the market could grow to $18.9 trillion by 2033.

Large asset managers including BlackRock, Franklin Templeton and JPMorgan have already introduced tokenized funds on public blockchains, while stablecoins increasingly serve as settlement rails for payments and trading activity.

MoonPay Trade will serve as the execution arm for MoonPay Institutional, the company’s business focused on regulated financial firms and led by former acting CFTC Chair Caroline Pham.

“Every major financial institution is building a tokenized asset strategy,” Pham said in a statement, adding that the platform gives institutions access to onchain markets “with full compliance.”

MoonPay Trade supports tokenized fund subscriptions, collateral transfers and integrations with DeFi lending protocols such as Morpho, Aave and Maple Finance. Those protocols allow users to earn yield or borrow against digital assets directly on blockchain rails.

The firm has been on an acquisition spree as it expands from crypto payments into broader financial infrastructure.

Earlier this month, the company acquired Solana trading infrastructure provider DFlow, which processed more than $12 billion in trading volume in the first quarter. This year, it also bought security startup Sodot, following last year’s acquisitions of payments processors Meso and Helio.

A few days after more abrupt departures of several high-profile Ethereum Foundation researchers and contributors, the silence from the EF has only deepened the uncertainty gripping the Ethereum community.

What began earlier this week as shock over more exits of core figures has now evolved into something more existential, according to some community members: a public reckoning over whether Ethereum’s most influential institution still understands the ecosystem it was built to steward.

The Foundation has yet to offer a detailed explanation for the departures or address the growing criticism of its leadership and strategic direction, which many have pointed out over the last few weeks. In that vacuum, community members, investors and former insiders have begun crafting their own narratives about what has gone wrong at the EF and what it may mean for Ethereum’s future.

On Thursday, former Ethereum Foundation researcher Dankrad Feist published one of the clearest articulations yet of a growing view among critics: that Ethereum’s governance and institutional structure are fundamentally misaligned with the economic interests of the network itself.

“The way to save Ethereum,” Feist wrote on X, “is for the community to create an organization that’s economically aligned with Ethereum and accountable to it.”

Feist argued that, despite its cultural influence, the EF does not have as much economic leverage over the ecosystem. The foundation now controls “less than 0.1% of all ETH,” he wrote, and receives no direct flow of staking or fee revenue from the network.

“If we want to get Ethereum back to winning,” he said, the ecosystem needs a new institution with permanent funding, explicit accountability and leadership focused on growth. Among his proposals: a $1 billion treasury, funded in part through staking revenues, overseen by a board incentivized to see ETH appreciate in value.

‘Original sin’

Crypto journalist Laura Shin, host of the Unchained podcast, framed the issue even more bluntly.

“I think Ethereum’s original sin was not considering tokenomics with every move it made from Dencun on,” Shin wrote on X, referring to the March 2024 upgrade that dramatically reduced transaction fees on Ethereum layer-2 networks.

The “ultrasound money” thesis, the idea that ETH would become increasingly scarce through fee burns, had once become central to Ethereum’s investment narrative. But critics argue that Ethereum’s scaling roadmap, particularly its embrace of rollups and lower base-layer fees, weakened that dynamic without offering a compelling replacement narrative to token holders.

“Most people,” Shin wrote, “don’t want to believe in something that isn’t also putting up points on the scoreboard.”

Her comments reflected a broader frustration emerging from some corners of the Ethereum community: that the EF has become overly focused on ideology while neglecting competition, business development and ETH price performance.

“When the main offering becomes ideology/communism and money/tokenomics/capitalism are overlooked,” she wrote, “the peasants are going to revolt.”

Others pointed to the EF’s recent internal controversies, including the “mandate” that some contributors were reportedly asked to sign, according to Shin, as well as lingering questions about recent leadership appointments and decision-making processes within the Foundation.

In the absence of direct communication from the EF, speculation has increasingly centered on what role new executive leadership may have played in the departures and whether the exits reflect a deeper cultural shift underway within Ethereum’s most important institution.

“I personally don’t think it’s good for Ethereum if its most competitive people depart,” Shin wrote. “Ethereum’s unwillingness to stop the brain drain will only benefit its competitors, or spawn new ones.”

Read more: ‘What’s happening at the EF?’ Ethereum community looking for answers after high-profile departures

Billionaire investor Mark Cuban said he has sold most of his bitcoin BTC$77,640.65 holdings after losing confidence in the cryptocurrency’s role as a hedge against weakening fiat currencies and geopolitical instability.

Cuban, who’s net worth is about $10 billion, said bitcoin’s price behavior during the recent Iran conflict challenged one of the core reasons he owned the asset during an episode of sports podcast “Portfolio Players,” where he mainly discussed professional sports and his ownership of the Dallas Mavericks.

“When all this shit hit the fan with the Iran war, bitcoin was always the best alternative to fiat currency losing its value and I always thought it was a better version of gold than gold. Well, gold just blew up… bitcoin dropped. And every time the dollar dropped, bitcoin should’ve gone up … and it just didn’t do that,” Cuban said.

The comments mark a notable shift for Cuban, who for years had publicly defended bitcoin as a superior version of gold because of its fixed supply and decentralized structure.

In a 2021 interview with “The Delphi Podcast,” Cuban said his crypto portfolio consisted of roughly “60% bitcoin, 30% Ethereum and 10% the rest.” At the time, he argued bitcoin’s scarcity made it a stronger store of value than gold and said he had “never sold it.”

Cuban also compared blockchain technology and smart contracts to the early internet era, at the time, particularly praising Ethereum (ETH) for enabling decentralized finance applications and NFTs.

His latest remarks suggest that enthusiasm has cooled, at least towards bitcoin.

“Not the hedge I expected it to be, and that was really disappointing, and so I’d say I’m more disappointed in bitcoin, not as disappointed in Ethereum and the rest … garbage,” Cuban said.

The criticism comes as investors continue debating bitcoin’s role in global markets. Supporters often describe the asset as “digital gold” that can protect wealth during inflation, geopolitical instability or weakness in traditional currencies. Yet bitcoin has frequently traded more like a high-risk technology asset, rising and falling alongside broader investor appetite for risk.

Gold prices recently climbed amid heightened geopolitical tensions and concerns around the U.S.-Iran conflict, while bitcoin struggled to maintain momentum despite a weaker dollar.

Cuban’s comments also reflect a broader divide within crypto markets. While some investors remain focused on bitcoin as a macro hedge, others increasingly see value in blockchain networks such as Ethereum that support trading, payments and tokenized financial applications rather than functioning primarily as stores of value.