Connect with us

Crypto World

Bitcoin Undervalued vs Gold: Analyst Signals Rally Ahead

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is widely cited as undervalued when measured against traditional stores of value like gold and the broad money supply, according to Samson Mow, the chief executive of Bitcoin technology firm Jan3. In a Saturday post on X, Mow argued that BTC sits roughly 24% to 66% below its trend relative to gold’s market cap or the level of global liquidity, while gold itself appears overextended. The claim adds a contrarian note to ongoing debates about whether crypto markets have found a bottom or are simply pausing before another leg lower or higher.

At the same time, macro price benchmarks paint a mixed picture. Gold futures for April delivery closed at $5,247.90, while tokenized gold offering PAX Gold USD was trading around $5,404.14 as of the time of writing. Against that backdrop, Mow pointed to Bitcoin’s Z-score—a metric that gauges how closely BTC’s current price tracks its long-run average relative to a benchmark, in this case the BTC-to-gold ratio. A Z-score of 0 means the price aligns with the historical average; negative values signal the asset trading below that average.

The Z-score for the BTC-to-gold ratio was around -1.24 at press time, suggesting BTC remains below its historical mean but not by the extreme margins seen in past episodes. Data from TradingView shows that the indicator has swung widely in the past, including moments when the ratio dipped far beneath the norm. In November 2022, for instance, the BTC-to-gold Z-score briefly plunged below -3, a period coinciding with the FTX collapse and a subsequent rally in BTC of more than 150% over the following 12 months.

This history of decisive rebounds after deep dislocations is echoed by earlier cycles. During the Covid crisis in March 2020, the Z-score dipped below -2 and BTC bottomed near $3,717, only to surge more than 300% in the ensuing year, culminating in a then-astronomical peak in November 2021 of around $69,000. Those patterns have led some analysts to draw parallels with today, while others caution that the macro and regulatory landscape has evolved, potentially altering how these signals play out in real time.

Advertisement

While Mow highlights potential upside based on valuation gaps and historical Z-score triggers, others in the market remain wary. A cross-section of analysts has projected further downside for BTC as investor sentiment wavers in the face of geopolitical tension and persistent macro uncertainty. Some believe the market could test lower levels, with discussions framing a possible move toward new lows for the current cycle. Yet even within this more cautious camp, the same data points used by Mow—value signals and on-chain momentum—are often cited as important clues for the next meaningful directional shift.

For context, the broader crypto narrative has included crosscurrents—from tailwinds such as institutional interest and macro liquidity to headwinds like regulatory risk and episodic liquidity squeezes. The focal point for many observers remains Bitcoin’s role as a potential hedge or as a risk-on asset depending on the moment, as well as how it weathers macro shocks and liquidity cycles. The weekend’s developments in the Middle East added another layer of geopolitical risk, underscoring that crypto markets, like traditional markets, are not insulated from global events.

As the debate about BTC’s trajectory evolves, the market is reminded of past cycles where valuation gaps and extreme sentiment extremes have preceded sharp reversals. The question remains whether the current price near the mid-to-high $60,000s will reflect a duration that negates those earlier patterns or whether a more persistent risk-off mood will push Bitcoin toward the lower end of the spectrum before new catalysts emerge.

In sum, while the price action continues to oscillate near current levels, the ongoing discussion about BTC’s fair value relative to gold and the money supply—augmented by Z-score analysis—provides a framework for assessing potential turning points. The next few weeks could test the resilience of the current range, particularly if the BTC-to-gold ratio reverts toward its historic mean or if macro developments reassert their dominance over market sentiment.

Advertisement

The Z-score framework has shown that when BTC-to-gold moves extend beyond historical norms, corrections or rallies often follow in subsequent months. The current reading around -1.24 keeps the door open to a test of higher ground if support holds and risk appetite returns.

Bitcoin to crash to $50,000?

The contrarian view presented here sits against a broader chorus of analysts who warn that more downside could be on the horizon, driven by ongoing investor caution and geopolitical tensions. Several observers have flagged the possibility of BTC tracing a path toward the $50,000 mark, arguing that price action could mirror or exceed prior bear-market patterns as macro data and regulatory signals unfold. By contrast, those who emphasize valuation and historical precedents point to the same indicators that historically preceded significant rallies following sharp declines, suggesting that a bottom could be forming even as volatility remains elevated.

The ongoing debate about BTC’s bottoming process is not just about price—it touches on liquidity dynamics, risk sentiment, and the durability of crypto-specific catalysts such as on-chain activity, mining economics, and institutional participation. As BTC hovers in a range, traders will likely scrutinize key technical levels, the pace of liquidity inflows, and how macro shocks translate into risk-on or risk-off moves across crypto markets.

Ultimately, the discussion centers on how investors interpret valuation signals in the context of a still-fragile macro environment and evolving regulatory expectations. While some forecasts call for a dramatic re-rating, others argue that a sustainable recovery could emerge as confidence builds and fundamentals align with price action. The next leg of this narrative will be shaped by the balance between speculative momentum and real-world utility that continues to define the crypto market’s longer-term trajectory.

Why it matters

Valuation-driven arguments like Mow’s underscore a broader point: crypto markets are not merely driven by narratives or hype but by measurable relationships to broader financial assets. If Bitcoin’s price starts to close the gap with gold and money supply on a sustained basis, it would alter the risk-reward calculus for both retail and institutional participants, potentially reshaping portfolio allocations and hedging strategies.

Advertisement

Moreover, the BTC-to-gold comparison frames how crypto assets are perceived in the context of traditional stores of value. A shift back toward historical norms in this ratio could signal renewed appetite for crypto as a non-sovereign store of value or a diversification vehicle, even as gold remains a familiar anchor for risk management. These dynamics matter not only for traders but also for developers, miners, and fund managers evaluating how crypto markets fit into broader exposure targets.

From a market structure perspective, such signals also influence liquidity flows, cross-asset correlations, and the pace at which crypto products—like ETFs and exchange-based investment vehicles—can attract new money. In an environment where macro volatility is a persistent feature, signals that imply potential volatility compression or expansion will be watched closely by participants seeking to calibrate risk and reward.

What to watch next

  • Monitor BTC price action relative to the -2 and -3 Z-score thresholds for BTC-to-gold, noting whether the ratio reverts toward the mean or diverges further.
  • Track the BTC-to-gold ratio on TradingView for signs of momentum shifts that align with macro liquidity trends or risk-on/off sentiment shifts.
  • Watch macro indicators and regulatory updates that affect crypto liquidity and investor confidence, especially in regions with active policy debates.
  • Observe major price drivers such as exchange capital flows, mining economics, and the pace of adoption in institutional and retail channels.

Sources & verification

  • Samson Mow, X post discussing Bitcoin valuation relative to gold and global money supply (link provided in original coverage).
  • TradingView data for the BTC-to-gold ratio (BTCXAU) used to illustrate the Z-score dynamics.
  • Historical references to the FTX collapse and subsequent BTC rally from Cointelegraph coverage.
  • Cointelegraph reporting on the Covid-era price dynamics and BTC’s subsequent rally to multi-year highs.
  • Link to tokenized Gold price (PAX Gold USD) cited in the market context of gold price benchmarks.

Bitcoin valuation signals and potential reversal

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) sits at a crossroads flagged by valuation comparisons and a momentum metric that has historically preceded meaningful moves. Samson Mow’s main contention is that BTC is notably undervalued relative to gold’s market cap and the broader money supply—an assessment grounded in quantitative gaps rather than pure sentiment. Specifically, he points to a calibration where Bitcoin’s current level is roughly 24% to 66% below its trend line when juxtaposed with gold’s market capitalization or the extent of global liquidity. By contrast, gold, a traditional hedge, is described as overextended in this framing.

The argument leans heavily on the BTC-to-gold Z-score, a gauge of how far the price of BTC deviates from its long-run average when measured against gold. At the moment, the Z-score hovers around -1.24, indicating BTC is below its historical mean but not in territory that has inexorably presaged a parabolic rally. In the past, however, the same metric has signaled powerful reversals: during November 2022, the ratio’s Z-score dipped beneath -3, a backdrop that preceded a roughly 150% advance in BTC over the following year as traders digested the FTX collapse and the broader liquidity environment.

Historical analogies are a recurring feature of crypto markets, and the Covid-19 period is often cited in tandem with the Z-score narrative. In March 2020, the metric slipped below -2 and BTC carved a bottom near $3,717 before staging a multi-hundred percent recovery in the subsequent 12 months, culminating in the 2021 rally that took prices to the vicinity of $69,000. Those episodes illustrate how valuation gaps paired with macro stress can coincide with outsized upside if demand returns and risk appetite stabilizes.

Advertisement

Yet the current cycle carries its own wrinkles. Some analysts project further downside as investors absorb macro uncertainty and geopolitical tensions, with price targets that contemplate a move toward the $50,000 area. Others maintain that the combination of a reversion toward historical norms in BTC’s valuation relative to gold and a renewed willingness to allocate capital to crypto assets could spark a fresh leg higher. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, shaped by how swiftly liquidity conditions normalize, how regulation evolves, and how much on-chain activity confirms sustained network utility.

The price backdrop remains fluid, with BTC trading in the mid- to high-$60,000s and a broader market environment that still rewards resilience and clear catalysts. If the underlying relationships continue to align with past cycles—valuation gaps closing, risk sentiment shifting, and liquidity improving—the potential for a renewed price impulse cannot be discounted. Conversely, if macro headwinds intensify or regulatory constraints tighten, the path could tilt toward range-bound behavior or further corrections. Investors should remain vigilant for shifts in the balance of fear and opportunity that have historically driven crypto volatility.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Bitcoin logs third-worst Q1, Ethereum falls 32%

Published

on

Bitcoin quarterly returns: CoinGlass

Bitcoin posted a -23.21% return in Q1 2026 and marked the third-worst first-quarter performance since 2013 according to CoinGlass data.

Summary

  • Bitcoin fell 23% in Q1 2026, its third-worst first quarter on record.
  • Ethereum dropped 32%, also marking its third-worst Q1 performance.
  • Back-to-back quarterly losses follow the October 2025 market peak.

The loss falls far below Bitcoin’s (BTC) historical Q1 average of 45.90% and sits well below the median return of -2.26%.

Only two prior first quarters posted worse performance: Q1 2018 at -49.7% and Q1 2014 at -37.42%.

Advertisement

Ethereum fared worse with -32.17% in Q1 2026, also the third-worst since 2016, trailing its historical Q1 average of 66.45% and median return of 4.37%.

Bitcoin historical Q1 pattern shows mixed performance across years

Bitcoin’s quarterly returns since 2013 show no consistent first-quarter pattern. Strong Q1 gains in 2013 (+539.96%), 2021 (+103.17%), 2023 (+71.77%), and 2024 (+68.68%) contrast sharply with losses in 2014 (-37.42%), 2015 (-24.14%), 2018 (-49.7%), 2022 (-1.46%), 2025 (-11.82%), and 2026 (-23.21%).

The historical Q1 average of 45.90% gets pulled higher by extreme outliers like 2013’s +539.96% and 2021’s +103.17%.

Advertisement
Bitcoin quarterly returns: CoinGlass
Bitcoin quarterly returns: CoinGlass

The median Q1 return of -2.26% provides a more accurate picture, showing first quarters tend toward slight losses more often than gains.

Q4 historically posts the strongest performance with a 77.07% average and 47.73% median. Q2 averages 27.11% with a 7.57% median, while Q3 averages 6.05% with a 0.96% median.

Recent years show increasing volatility. 2024 posted strong gains across Q1 (+68.68%), Q3 (+0.96%), and Q4 (+47.73%) while Q2 dropped -11.92%. 2025 saw Q2 (+29.74%) and Q3 (+6.31%) gains offset by Q1 (-11.82%) and Q4 (-23.07%) losses.

2026 Q1 decline follows October liquidation event

The Q1 2026 loss follows Bitcoin’s October 2025 all-time high and the October 10 liquidation event that triggered $19 billion in market-wide liquidations.

Advertisement

Bitcoin fell from $126,080 to current levels around $66,000, a 48% decline from the peak.

Q1 2026’s -23.21% return exceeds Q4 2025’s -23.07% loss, creating back-to-back losing quarters.

The last time Bitcoin posted consecutive quarterly declines occurred in 2022, which saw losses across all four quarters: -1.46%, -56.2%, -2.57%, and -14.75%.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Stablecoins Challenge Traditional Banks as Yield Gap Widens and Regulatory Debate Intensifies

Published

on

Nexo Partners with Bakkt for US Crypto Exchange and Yield Programs

TLDR:

  • Stablecoins like USDC and PYUSD now offer yields above 4%, far outpacing bank savings rates near 0.01%.
  • The CLARITY Act missed its March 1, 2026 deadline amid heavy banking industry resistance in the Senate.
  • Tokenized T-bills settle instantly and globally, cutting out SWIFT fees and traditional multi-day windows.
  • JPMorgan analysts flagged CLARITY Act passage as a potential trigger for major crypto inflows in late 2026.

 

Stablecoins are reshaping how retail and institutional investors think about deposit alternatives. Digital dollar assets like USDC and PYUSD now offer yields above 4%, delivered through exchanges, wallets, and decentralized protocols.

Meanwhile, traditional savings accounts at major banks remain near 0.01%. The growing gap has sparked fierce debate in Washington, with the CLARITY Act stalling past its March 1, 2026 White House deadline amid continued banking industry resistance.

Yield Competition Puts Banks Under Pressure

Banks have long profited by collecting deposits at low rates and lending them out at 5–7%. That spread model is now facing a direct challenge from stablecoin issuers.

Treasury-bill reserves backing these digital assets generate 4–5% returns, which platforms pass along to holders through revenue-sharing programs.

Advertisement

Crypto analyst Adam Livingston argued on X that the banking sector is losing this battle by choice. He wrote that stablecoins offer “zero branches, zero tellers, and zero KYC theater for every transaction” while reserves sit in actual T-bills that return yield directly to users.

The cost structure difference between banks and stablecoin issuers is hard to ignore. Legacy systems, compliance teams, and physical infrastructure drive overhead costs for traditional banks. Stablecoin platforms, by contrast, operate with far leaner models and pass savings to users.

Regulatory Battles Reflect Industry Tensions

The GENIUS Act attempted to prevent stablecoin issuers from paying direct interest to holders. However, the market adapted quickly.

Exchanges and smart contracts now route Treasury returns to users without issuers paying interest directly.

Advertisement

The CLARITY Act, which would have established broader crypto market structure rules, missed its March 1 deadline. Banking lobbyists remain active in Senate Banking Committee discussions.

Critics say the industry is pushing for regulatory barriers rather than competing on product quality.

Livingston was pointed in his criticism, writing that banks “pressured the OCC into a 376-page rulemaking precisely to close loopholes” that allowed customers to earn market-rate yields. He suggested the banking lobby prefers legislative protection over innovation.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency rulemaking referenced in that critique targeted programs like Coinbase’s revenue-sharing model. Whether regulators will sustain that approach remains an open question as the debate continues in Congress.

Advertisement

Market Shifts Signal Long-Term Structural Change

Tokenized real-world assets are already settling on-chain at faster speeds and lower costs than traditional systems.

Products like tokenized T-bills allow investors to hold interest-bearing instruments globally without SWIFT fees or multi-day settlement windows. This represents a fundamental change in how capital moves.

JPMorgan’s internal analysts, according to Livingston, have quietly acknowledged that CLARITY Act passage could trigger significant crypto inflows in the second half of 2026.

Meanwhile, both retail and institutional money continues moving toward yield-bearing digital assets. The trend is gaining momentum regardless of legislative outcomes.

Advertisement

The Silicon Valley Bank collapse in 2023 added a new dimension to the stablecoin conversation. Fully reserved stablecoins carry a different risk profile than fractional-reserve bank deposits, and that distinction is drawing attention from investors who lived through recent bank failures.

The deposit flight narrative is no longer theoretical — it is showing up in capital flow data across the financial sector.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Handling $50M in ARC Perpetual Volume

Published

on

Handling $50M in ARC Perpetual Volume


Lighter reported that its upgraded liquidity pool system successfully limited ADL losses to a pre-determined threshold.

On February 26, Lighter, a decentralized crypto exchange, announced that its upgraded liquidity pool system successfully resisted a $50 million ARC perpetual long squeeze attempt.

This occurred after approximately 600 traders reversed a whale’s position, resulting in an $8.2 million loss, and the episode tested Lighter’s newly launched LLP Strategies, capping the downside risk for liquidity providers at just $75,000.

Advertisement

LLP Strategies Face First Stress Event

In a February 17 post on X, Lighter announced changes to its LLP infrastructure, splitting liquidity into separate strategies for different market types, including RWAs. Risk, liquidations, and auto-deleveraging are now handled at the strategy level rather than across the entire pool.

That structure faced what the platform called its “first battle test” on February 26. According to Lighter, a trader had built a large long position in ARC perpetuals over several days, with around 600 other traders and market makers taking the short side and pushing total open interest to $50 million.

ARC perp trading was assigned to Strategy #7, a high-risk strategy with about $75,000 in allocated USDC. Lighter said this meant only that portion of LLP deposits could be exposed if auto-deleveraging occurred.

As ARC’s price fell around 6 p.m. ET on February 26, the large long position was first liquidated on the order book for roughly $2 million. Lighter said LLP was initially in profit on the position, but further downside depleted Strategy #7, triggering another ADL at 0.071123. In the end, the whale lost about $8.2 million, LLP lost its capped $75,000 allocation, and short traders who held their positions were profitable.

Advertisement

ARC Price Collapse

The unwind left visible scars on the ARC price chart, with data from CoinGecko showing the token experienced a flash crash in the early hours of February 27, sliding from around $0.031 to $0.025 before recovering to $0.0348.

You may also like:

At the time of writing, ARC, which powers the Ryzome agentic AI “app store,” was down over 9% in 24 hours and nearly 59% across seven days. The token has also lost more than 63% of its value in the past two weeks, as well as falling 42% over 30 days. It currently sits 95% below its January 2025 all-time high of $0.62, having shed nearly 88% off its price in the past year.

This turbulence matches up with observations from crypto commentator Simon Dedic, who noted that ARC’s value had dipped overnight by about 80% on volumes approaching $400 million, which was nearly ten times its fully diluted valuation.

Dedic pointed out that before dumping, the token had been “massively outperforming” despite a weak market, even suggesting it had been “heavily manipulated.”

Advertisement

The concerns raised by Dedic echo a broader industry debate about market integrity. Just last month, Base co-founder Jesse Pollak rejected the idea of behind-the-scenes manipulation, stating his team won’t coordinate or deploy capital to influence prices because markets “deserve to be free, open, and fair.”

SPECIAL OFFER (Exclusive)

Binance Free $600 (CryptoPotato Exclusive): Use this link to register a new account and receive $600 exclusive welcome offer on Binance (full details).

LIMITED OFFER for CryptoPotato readers at Bybit: Use this link to register and open a $500 FREE position on any coin!

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

What the U.S. Treasury’s $745 Million TIPS Buyback Actually Means for the National Debt

Published

on

Nexo Partners with Bakkt for US Crypto Exchange and Yield Programs

TLDR:

  • The U.S. Treasury confirmed a $745 million TIPS buyback on February 25, 2026, as part of routine debt management.
  • The $2.7 billion weekly repurchase operation accounts for less than 0.008% of the total $35 trillion national debt.
  • Treasury buybacks have been used since 2002 to improve bond market liquidity and manage maturity structure efficiently.
  • The repurchase reshuffles existing debt obligations but does not cancel principal or alter the broader fiscal debt outlook.

U.S. Treasury buyback operations came into focus on February 25, 2026, as the government confirmed a $745 million repurchase of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS).

The transaction was part of a broader $2.7 billion repurchase program executed that same week. The bonds involved fall within a 2027–2036 maturity range.

While the action reflects active portfolio management, analysts note it does not reduce the national debt. The total U.S. debt currently exceeds $35 trillion.

Treasury Buyback Functions as a Routine Portfolio Management Tool

The U.S. Treasury buyback program has been in active use since 2002. Over recent years, the program has been expanded to meet growing bond market demands.

The primary goal is to enhance liquidity in older, less actively traded bond issues. These operations also help smooth refinancing cycles and manage interest rate exposure.

Advertisement

Paul White Gold Eagle noted on X that the $2.7 billion weekly operation represents less than 0.008% of total outstanding debt.

The $745 million TIPS repurchase amounts to roughly 0.00002% of the total federal debt load. These figures make clear that the buyback operates within a narrow financial scope. It does not translate into any measurable reduction in overall debt.

Advertisement

Treasury officials describe the buyback as a tool to improve functioning in bond markets. The operation also aims to maintain stability within secondary markets for government securities.

By targeting bonds in the 2027–2036 maturity range, the Treasury manages its future refinancing schedule. This approach is designed to reduce rollover risk over the medium term.

The buyback ultimately reshuffles existing obligations within the Treasury’s broader issuance strategy. It does not cancel debt or reduce the principal amount owed to bondholders.

Rather, it adjusts the composition of outstanding securities in circulation. This distinction matters when assessing the true fiscal result of such operations.

Advertisement

Structural Debt Concerns Stay Unchanged After the Repurchase

The broader debt picture remains a pressing concern for fiscal observers and analysts. The national debt now surpasses $35 trillion and continues on an upward path.

A $745 million repurchase barely registers against that scale of obligation. The gap between buyback size and total debt volume remains enormous.

Without long-term spending reform or meaningful revenue adjustments, the debt trajectory stays the same. Portfolio adjustments are not a substitute for genuine fiscal consolidation measures.

Treasury repurchase operations serve operational and technical goals, not fiscal reduction ones. Debt reduction requires legislative action and structural policy changes.

Advertisement

As Paul White Gold Eagle stated, this action “is not debt cancellation.” It remains a standard liquidity and portfolio management tool.

The buyback does improve technical efficiency within bond markets during periods of tighter financial conditions. However, it leaves the macro debt outlook fundamentally unchanged.

Market observers continue watching Treasury operations closely for signals of any broader fiscal strategy. For now, the $745 million repurchase remains a routine technical adjustment within existing programs.

It reflects the Treasury’s ongoing effort to manage the maturity structure of current obligations. The national debt trajectory, however, continues on its present course without alteration.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Kalshi Founder Outlines Next Steps for ‘Iran Leader Ousted By’ Market

Published

on

Iran, Polymarket, Kalshi

Tarek Mansour, the co-founder of prediction market Kalshi, provided an update, following the platform’s decision to void some positions that were opened after the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was confirmed.

“We don’t list markets directly tied to death. When there are markets where potential outcomes involve death, we design the rules to prevent people from profiting from death. That is what we did here,” Mansour said in a post on X.

Iranian state media reported the death early Sunday, after an attack launched by Israel and the United States a day earlier.

Kalshi is reimbursing all fees from the “Ali Khamenei out as Supreme Leader” market, and will pay traders with positions open before Khamenei died according to the “last-traded price before his death,” Mansour said. 

Advertisement

Additionally, users who opened positions after the death of Khamenei were reimbursed the difference between the higher price paid for entry and the last traded price.

Iran, Polymarket, Kalshi
Source: Tarek Mansour

A Kalshi spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the platform’s policy on not allowing “death markets” is clear and long-standing.

The platform reiterated the policy on Saturday, and Mansour said that the death carveout stipulations were clearly stated in the rules for the market. However, the decision sparked backlash from users online, who accused the platform of curtailing user profits.

Iran, Polymarket, Kalshi
The prediction market for the ouster of the Iranian Supreme Leader. Source: Kalshi

Related: Kalshi bans US politician over alleged insider trading violation

Suspicions of insider trading activity on prediction market platforms rise amid geopolitical tensions

In February, six traders on rival prediction market Polymarket netted about $1 million betting that the US would initiate a strike on Iran before the end of the month.

All six wallets were created in February, mostly bet on markets related to a strike on Iran, and some of the positions were filled hours before the first explosions were heard over the Iranian capital of Tehran, according to Bloomberg.

Advertisement

The trading patterns raised suspicion of insider trading activity among onchain investigators and analysts.

In January, US President Donald Trump announced that the individual who leaked information tied to the raid and capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been arrested by US law enforcement.

The comments fueled speculation from onchain analysis platform Lookonchain that the leaker Trump was referencing may have been linked to winning bets on Polymarket placed shortly before the US raid in Caracas.

Magazine: Astrology could make you a better crypto trader: It has been foretold

Advertisement