Crypto World
Bitcoin Whales Lost $337M Daily in Q1 2026, Signaling Market Strain
Bitcoin traders with mid- to large-sized holdings continued to lock in losses at a startling pace in Q1 2026, according to on-chain analytics from Glassnode. Data shows that wallets holding 100–10,000 BTC realized losses averaging about $337 million per day—the strongest quarterly signal of capitulation since 2022. The developing pattern combines with persistent losses among long-term holders to raise questions about how far the market may slide before a potential bottom forms.
Key takeaways
- In Q1 2026, sharks (100–1,000 BTC) realized losses around $188.5 million per day, while whales (1,000–10,000 BTC) realized roughly $147.5 million per day, totaling about $336 million daily on average and roughly $30.91 billion in realized losses for the year so far.
- These figures place Q1 2026 among the most severe periods for on-chain realized losses among large BTC holders, behind only Q2 2022’s peak daily loss rate of about $396 million.
- Long-term holders (coins held for more than six months) are also selling at a loss, with losses running near $200 million per day on a 30-day average since late 2025, signaling broader capitulation beyond the largest wallets.
- Analysts note that the current pressure mirrors some of the macro and systemic stress seen in 2022, involving inflation concerns, liquidity outflows, and investor risk-off dynamics tied to macro events and sector-wide volatility.
- Looking ahead, some market observers point to a potential bottom in the $40,000–$50,000 range, but acknowledge substantial uncertainty as macro risks persist and on-chain dynamics evolve.
Capitulation among BTC whales and sharks
Glassnode’s realized loss metric tracks the dollar value of losses locked in when BTC is sold below its purchase price. In Q1 2026, the two key cohorts—sharks (addresses holding 100–1,000 BTC) and whales (1,000–10,000 BTC)—showed pronounced downside pressure. Sharks realized losses at an average of about $188.5 million per day, while whales contributed roughly $147.5 million daily. Combined, large holders have locked in around $30.91 billion in realized losses for 2026 thus far.
These levels mark one of the harshest on-record periods for large holders and come as BTC faces a confluence of macro headwinds. In Q2 2022, Bitcoin experienced more than a 50% price drop, followed by further declines as liquidity drained during the Terra collapse, Celsius disruptions, and the broader market turmoil surrounding the collapse of major crypto ventures. The current quarter’s pace suggests a renewed wave of capitulation among mid- to large-sized investors are bracing for additional downside as macro risks intensify.
Beyond the immediate price action, the on-chain data underscore a reluctance among significant holders to endure ongoing macro stress without reinforcing downside protection. The net result is pressure on supply dynamics and potential liquidity constraints that could complicate a swift recovery if risk-off sentiment persists.
Long-term holders under pressure
Another facet of the broader drawdown in BTC comes from Long-Term Holders (LTHs). Glassnode’s Long-Term Holder Realized Loss chart indicates that losses among LTHs remain elevated, averaging approximately $200 million per day on a 30-day basis since November 2025. In the view of Glassnode analysts, a cooldown toward daily losses well below $25 million would be a meaningful signal of exhaustion in selling pressure and a prerequisite for the base formation that historically precedes a sustainable bull market transition.
“A meaningful cooldown toward levels below $25M per day would represent a more compelling signal of exhaustion in selling pressure. A prerequisite for the base formation that historically precedes a sustainable bull market transition.”
Macro headwinds and the road ahead
The Q1 2026 snapshot arrives amid a broader mix of risk factors that have historically intersected with BTC drawdowns. Analysts cite inflation dynamics tied to energy and geopolitical developments, as well as innovation-driven market turbulence—ranging from concerns around quantum-resilience to the AI-driven risk trade—as pressures that can amplify drawdowns in risk assets, including Bitcoin. These factors echo the kind of rapid-downside catalysts seen during 2022’s crypto bear market, complicating calls for a rapid turnaround.
Some market observers have floated a potential bottom in the vicinity of $40,000–$50,000, framing it as a plausible reversal zone if supply-demand dynamics align with a cooling in realized losses and a stabilizing macro backdrop. Yet others caution that until on-chain metrics show sustained improvement and macro uncertainty lightens, a definitive bottom remains elusive.
This analysis reflects advanced on-chain research and is not investment advice. Investors should monitor how realized losses trend in the coming quarters and how on-chain activity aligns with price action before drawing conclusions about a durable bottom.
As the market weighs these signals, the next steps for BTC investors may hinge on whether the current capitulation can ease and whether price formation can establish a technical base that precedes any meaningful recovery.
Anthropic confirmed it will block Claude subscription access for third-party AI agent tools, including OpenClaw, effective April 5 at 12 pm PT.
The policy shift forces thousands of developers who built autonomous workflows on flat-rate Claude plans to either pay API token rates or migrate to competing models.
Why Anthropic Cut OpenClaw From Claude Subscriptions
Boris Cherny, Anthropic’s Head of Claude Code, announced the restriction, indicating that subscriptions were never designed for the heavy usage patterns generated by third-party agentic tools.
“Capacity is a resource we manage thoughtfully, and we are prioritizing our customers using our products and API,” he said.
The economic mismatch had been growing for months. Agentic loops in OpenClaw can consume millions of tokens in a single session.
A single afternoon of automated debugging could burn through enough tokens to cost upwards of $1,000 at standard API rates, Skypage making $200 flat-rate subscriptions deeply unprofitable for Anthropic.
Anthropic offered subscribers a one-time credit equal to their monthly plan cost, discounted usage bundles, and full refunds for those who cancel.
Developer Backlash and Migration Signals
The response has been quick, with some users already canceling their subscriptions. The general sentiment is that the decision is an admission that Anthropic cannot compete with open-source agents.
“No thanks. Subscription canceled. New models have already been configured,” wrote one user.
Developer Alex Finn called it a “massive mistake” and predicted local models would match Opus 4.6 performance within six months.
He outlined a hybrid setup using Claude Opus as orchestrator with Gemma 4 and Qwen 3.5 for execution, costing roughly $200 monthly.
Others criticize Anthropic for gaslighting users, arguing that the company initially blamed usage patterns before admitting it was prioritizing its own products.
Users want published token budgets for each subscription tier and advance notice of future policy changes.
A Dual Strategy Takes Shape
The timing reveals a broader Anthropic play as the company expands its Microsoft 365 connector to all Claude plans, including Free.
The integration connects Claude with Outlook, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams, Microsoft positioning it directly against Microsoft Copilot’s $30-per-user monthly pricing.
OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger recently joined OpenAI, VentureBeat, adding competitive tension to the decision.
Anthropic has been building Claude Cowork as an alternative to third-party agent tools, and this restriction steers users toward that product.
Whether the cost of lost developer trust outweighs the infrastructure savings remains the open question heading into Q2 2026.
The post AI Fallout Begins as Claude Creators Cut Off Their Most Powerful Users appeared first on BeInCrypto.
If the closing bell has long been a business model, then 24/7 trading is an attempt to break it. As the NYSE, Nasdaq, CME and Cboe race to introduce round-the-clock trading, the question is who stands to gain and who could lose.
The answer is quite simple, Mati Greenspan, CEO and founder of Quantum Economics, told CoinDesk: “The biggest losers in 24/7 stock trading won’t be traders: they’ll benefit massively. It’ll be the middlemen who’ve long made money when traders can’t trade.”
Greenspan, also a market analyst, alleged that when markets reopen after what he called a big event, “a handful of firms decide the first tradable price. Oftentimes, they will explicitly use a price that triggers stop losses for their clients, closing them out at a loss and making a profit for the broker who is essentially trading against the client.”
When Greenspan was asked whether brokers coordinate around pricing during market closures, he was blunt in his claim: “Yes, manipulation outright.”
“They basically get to control prices, often with hours to strategize,” he said. “Often hunting stops losses. When big news happens on weekends, the house tends to take liberties with pricing at the opening bell.”
His comments come as several major U.S. exchanges are looking to offer around-the-clock trading services. The NYSE said it is seeking SEC approval for 24/7 trading. Nasdaq announced similar plans in December. CME plans to roll out 24-hour crypto futures in 2026, pending approval, and Cboe recently expanded U.S. index options to 24/5 trading.
‘Plausible deniability’
While Greenspan’s comments could be seen as accusatory, it’s not hard to see why such practices could be prominent in the after-hours market. When the usual trading hours come to a close, at 4 p.m. ET, the thin liquidity can make prices easier to influence.
“After the 4 p.m. closing bell, you simply don’t have the same liquidity,” said Joe Dente, a floor broker at the New York Stock Exchange. “People have gone home and the liquidity is not there, so you’re going to see larger spreads.”
Wider spreads and thinner order books, he said, create an environment where price movements can be exaggerated compared with the regular session.
Academic research also supports the view that extended trading sessions are structurally different from core market hours. A widely cited joint UC Berkeley–University of Rochester study found that after-hours price discovery is “much less efficient,” citing lower volume and thinner liquidity that limit the speed at which information is incorporated into prices.
When asked whether manipulation already occurs during those periods, Dente said it is “possible,” but he also pointed out that “the event of 24-hour trading is going to leave things open to manipulation,” referring to conditions already seen in after-hours markets
Greenspan, meanwhile, noted that these alleged manipulation practices are “not exactly above board, so they [brokers who might be taking part in such actions] tend to maintain plausible deniability.”
This is where the line between actual manipulation and proof that such practises occur starts to blur.
A widely cited SSRN study on opening price manipulation shows how brokers can influence prices during the pre-open auction by submitting and canceling large orders, temporarily pushing stocks away from their fundamental value before broader liquidity returns.
The research found that such manipulation can create distorted opening prices that are later corrected once the full market begins trading, leaving investors who bought at the inflated price with losses. Because these distortions occur before normal trading volume returns, the resulting price moves can appear indistinguishable from ordinary market volatility.
Still another broker, familiar with overnight trading practices and who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said thin overnight liquidity can occasionally make it easier for coordinated strategies to influence prices in less widely traded stocks.
And this is not just anecdotal evidence.
In late 2025, the SEC settled charges over a multi-year spoofing scheme involving deceptive orders used to move prices in thinly traded securities. Regulators also fined Velox Clearing $1.3 million for failing to detect “layering” and “spoofing” in volatile stocks.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in its 2026 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report, cited firms for “failing to maintain reasonably designed supervisory systems and controls, including with respect to the identification and reporting of potentially manipulative activity conducted in after-hours trading.”
A win for retail?
Whether it’s hard to point out how widespread these accusations are, one thing is for sure: if trading goes 24/7, traders will be the ultimate winners, particularly retail traders.
In today’s electronic markets, traders who respond fastest to market news have a structural advantage.
“There’s always an edge for whoever has the fastest computers and the best program writers,” said Dente, noting that algorithms can react to news and orders “in a nanosecond.” For individual investors, he added, keeping up with that speed is difficult. “How does the human person keep up with that?”
And reacting to these events becomes even harder for smaller investors when the market is closed, leaving those retail or smaller traders at a massive disadvantage.
Pranav Ramesh, head of quantitative research for options at Nasdaq and co-founder of Leadpoet, said thin markets can amplify those risks.
“Broker coordination may often show up as industry-wide alignment around routing and execution practices, especially where a large share of retail flow ends up with a small number of wholesalers,” he said. “Outside regular hours, scrutiny can be harder because the market is thinner and there are fewer straightforward reference points for investors to benchmark execution quality,” Ramesh said in his personal capacity.
Sources familiar with broker routing and liquidity practices told CoinDesk that price-setting power in thin sessions is real, particularly when major news breaks while markets are closed. According to those sources, coordination around routing, spreads and execution practices during extended gaps has historically been easier precisely because retail traders cannot participate.
This is precisely what around-the-clock trading will solve for traders, according to Greenspan, who said 24/7 markets would blunt fintech firms’ advantage by removing the weekend vacuum entirely.
The recent Middle East conflict has been a perfect example of how this can open up more trading opportunities when markets remain closed. Decentralized exchange, Hyperliquid, which trades on blockchain 24/7, has seen growing interest from traders betting on traditional financial assets, including oil and gold, during the weekend, when traditional exchanges are closed.
It has become so popular that weekly derivatives trading volume on the platform topped $50 billion, while it generated $1.6 million in revenue over 24 hours, outpacing the entire Bitcoin blockchain’s revenue. The platform has also recently added an S&P 500 perpetual contract.
Needless to say, major exchanges will also likely benefit from trading fees if they open for 24/7 trading.
Whether round-the-clock trading ultimately weakens brokers’ influence on price setting remains to be seen. What is clear is that exchanges and investors stand to gain from markets that never close.
“Traders can react in real time without being at the mercy of the middlemen — the brokers,” said Greenspan.
Read more: Bitcoin’s weekend selloff may be over with CME’s 24/7 crypto trading move
A Nevada judge has reportedly extended a ban preventing Kalshi from offering event-based contracts in the state, ruling that the products constitute unlicensed gambling under state law.
Judge Jason Woodbury said at a hearing in Carson City on Friday that he will grant a preliminary injunction requested by the Nevada Gaming Control Board, barring the company from allowing residents to trade on outcomes such as sports, elections and entertainment events without a gaming license, according to Reuters.
The decision extends a temporary restraining order issued on March 20, which will remain in effect through April 17 while the court finalizes longer-term restrictions.
Kalshi, based in New York, has argued that its contracts are financial derivatives, specifically “swaps,” that fall under the exclusive oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Related: Appeals court denies Kalshi request to block Nevada enforcement action
Judge says Kalshi contracts mirror sports betting
Woodbury rejected Kalshi’s argument, claiming that there is a direct comparison between traditional sports betting and Kalshi’s platform, according to Reuters. He said that placing a wager through a licensed sportsbook and buying a contract tied to a game outcome are functionally the same, per the report.
“No matter how you slice it, that conduct is indistinguishable,” the judge reportedly said, adding that such activity qualifies as gaming under Nevada law and cannot be offered without proper licensing.
The case marks the first time a state has secured a court-enforced ban currently in effect against the company.
Last month, Utah lawmakers also passed a bill targeting Kalshi and Polymarket that classifies proposition-style bets on in-game events as gambling, aiming to block such offerings in the state.
Related: Kalshi CEO fires back against Arizona criminal charges as ‘total overstep’
CFTC vows court fight over prediction market oversight
The CFTC has asserted authority over prediction markets, with Chairman Michael Selig warning that the agency is prepared to defend its jurisdiction in court against any challenges from states or other regulators.
Speaking at an industry conference last month, Selig said prediction markets can act as “truth machines,” arguing that when participants put money behind their views, these markets can produce more transparent and reliable signals about future events than traditional opinion polling.
Magazine: Bitcoin may take 7 years to upgrade to post-quantum — BIP-360 co-author
Crypto World
Hyperliquid Burns 49,000+ HYPE Tokens in a Single Day, Confirming Net Deflationary Status
TLDR:
- HyperCore burned 49,360.33 HYPE at ~$35.09 on April 2, pushing the protocol into net deflationary territory.
- Even with 26,665 HYPE distributed to stakers and validators, net circulation still dropped by 17,075 tokens.
- Hyperliquid’s annual deflation rate stands at ~6.15M HYPE, contrasting sharply with Solana’s 25.19M SOL inflation.
- The HIP-3 flywheel ties protocol revenue directly to buybacks, creating self-sustaining and organic supply reduction.
Hyperliquid recorded a net removal of 17,075 HYPE tokens from circulation on April 2, 2026. HyperCore repurchased and permanently burned 49,360.33 HYPE at an average price of approximately $35.09.
Alongside this, HyperEVM gas fees contributed an additional 146.43 HYPE to the burn total. Even after distributing 26,665 HYPE as staking and validator rewards, the protocol remained firmly in net deflationary territory for the day.
Buyback Mechanism Drives Daily Deflationary Pressure
The April 2 activity placed Hyperliquid’s annualized deflation rate at roughly 6.15 million HYPE per year. On a monthly basis, that translates to approximately 512,262 HYPE removed from circulation.
These figures reflect a consistent pattern emerging from HyperCore’s revenue-backed buyback program. The numbers stand in sharp contrast to Solana, which inflates by around 25.19 million SOL annually through staking and validator rewards.
HyperCore’s buyback model operates on a price-sensitive basis, which makes it naturally self-adjusting. When HYPE prices rise, fewer tokens are repurchased with the same revenue.
Conversely, when prices fall, the same revenue buys and burns more tokens. This mechanism creates a built-in buffer against extreme supply pressure at different points in the market cycle.
The burn also accounts for a worst-case assumption regarding team token unlocks. Hyperliquid Labs is allocated 173,000 HYPE per month in vesting, equal to about 5,766 HYPE per day.
Even if this entire allocation were sold into the market, the protocol would still achieve net deflation under the current numbers. That assumption was already factored into the 17,075 HYPE net removal figure.
This structure sets Hyperliquid apart from many protocols that rely on token emissions to incentivize participation.
Here, buybacks are funded by actual trading revenue from HyperCore, not newly minted supply. That distinction matters when evaluating the long-term sustainability of the deflationary model.
HIP-3 Adoption Strengthens the Protocol’s Revenue Flywheel
Greater adoption of HIP-3 is central to sustaining and potentially accelerating this deflationary trend. As more users trade through the protocol, activity increases and so does revenue.
Higher revenue, in turn, supports larger buybacks and more burns. The cycle reinforces itself without depending on external capital injections.
This flywheel effect ties protocol growth directly to supply reduction. Each new participant adds to the trading volume that funds the next round of buybacks.
Over time, this creates persistent and organic buy pressure on HYPE. The pressure comes from protocol economics, not from speculative demand or marketing cycles.
Trading activity on HyperCore feeds directly into the buyback pool used for burns. The April 2 figures show that this model is already producing measurable results at current price levels.
As HIP-3 usage grows, the mechanism is designed to scale accordingly. The connection between adoption and deflation is direct and quantifiable.
Validators and stakers received 26,665 HYPE in rewards during the same period. That distribution ensures continued network participation while the broader supply still contracts.
The balance between rewarding contributors and reducing circulating supply appears to be working as intended on April 2.
Ethereum stayed near $2,050 on April 4 as traders weighed price resistance, ETF outflows, and fresh staking activity from the Ethereum Foundation.
Summary
- Ethereum stayed near $2,050 as foundation staking approached 70,000 ETH and resistance held near $2,150.
- US spot Ethereum ETFs ended the week negative, with more than $42 million withdrawn overall.
- Analysts said ETH must clear $2,100-$2,150, while losing $2,000 could trigger long liquidations across markets.
On-chain data showed that the Ethereum Foundation staked about 69,500 ETH in less than two months. At current prices, that amount stood above $140 million. The group had earlier said it planned to use staking to support research, development, and broader ecosystem work through yield.
The latest move involved 45,034 ETH sent on Friday in batches of 2,047 ETH to the Eth2 Beacon Chain deposit contract. Arkham data also showed the Ethereum Foundation holding more than 102,000 ETH, while its treasury across 14 addresses was valued at about $270 million.
While the foundation kept adding staked ETH, US spot Ethereum ETFs continued to record net withdrawals for most of the recent period. The funds saw eight straight sessions of outflows before posting a small net inflow of about $5 million on March 30.
Another positive day followed on March 31 with $31.17 million in net inflows. Still, the trend turned negative again after later sessions posted $7.1 million and $71.17 million in outflows. That left the week in the red, with more than $42 million leaving the products.
Analysts watch key ETH price levels
Analyst Crypto Patel said Ethereum had stayed between $1,500 and $4,100 for nearly five years. He compared the current structure with the 2018 to 2020 range and said a breakout could lead to a much larger move if history repeats.
That view added to wider market debate, but short-term traders remained focused on nearer resistance and support levels. ETH traded at $2,050.69, with a 24-hour trading volume above $6 billion, a daily gain of 0.12%, and a seven-day increase of 2.59%.
In addition, analyst Ted Pillows said Ethereum needs to break above the “$2,100-$2,150” area to restart stronger upside momentum. He noted that ETH moved close to $2,400 a few weeks ago but failed to hold that advance and slipped back below the key zone.
He also warned that a drop below the “$2,000” support level could trigger a long liquidation event.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Crypto World
Metaplanet Outperforms MicroStrategy in Q1 Bitcoin Acquisition Using Options-Based Treasury Strategy
TLDR:
- Metaplanet added 5,075 BTC to permanent holdings in Q1 through a structured options income rotation system.
- The firm generated $18.63 million in options income, reducing its net Bitcoin cost to roughly $76,227 per coin.
- MicroStrategy acquired 89,599 BTC at $80,929 average, while Metaplanet’s net cost came in nearly $4,700 lower.
- Metaplanet separates Bitcoin into two buckets — income generation and long-term holdings — never mixing the two.
Metaplanet, the Japanese hotel company turned Bitcoin treasury firm, has drawn attention after shifting to quarterly Bitcoin purchase announcements.
The company added 5,075 BTC to its permanent holdings in Q1 2025. Its average purchase price came in near $79,898.
Meanwhile, a detailed breakdown from a prominent analyst suggests the firm may have outperformed MicroStrategy, widely regarded as the benchmark for corporate Bitcoin acquisition.
Metaplanet’s Two-Bucket Bitcoin System Explained
Metaplanet reportedly operates two distinct Bitcoin buckets. One is dedicated to income generation, and the other holds long-term Bitcoin positions.
According to analyst Ragnar, the two buckets remain strictly separate. Long-term holdings are never exposed to options contracts under this structure.
The income generation bucket works through a rotation of cash-secured puts and covered calls. When the team holds cash, they sell put options below the current Bitcoin price.
If Bitcoin stays above the strike price minus the premium, the puts expire and the premium is collected. This process repeats weekly, compounding returns over the quarter.
If Bitcoin falls below that threshold, Metaplanet gets assigned and acquires Bitcoin below market price. At that point, the team pivots to selling covered calls against those holdings.
The calls either expire, generating more premium, or get assigned, returning the position to cash and restarting the cycle.
At the quarter’s close, the team transfers the accumulated Bitcoin into the permanent holdings bucket. This transfer marks the official addition to their long-term treasury, which is what gets announced publicly each quarter.
Q1 Numbers Show Metaplanet Acquired Bitcoin Cheaper Than MicroStrategy
The Q1 figures offer a clearer picture of performance. Metaplanet generated $18.63 million in income from its options activity during the quarter.
Dividing that by the 5,075 BTC added to permanent holdings gives roughly $3,671 of income per Bitcoin acquired.
Ragnar’s post breaks this down further. Subtracting the income generated from the average purchase price of $79,898 brings the effective net cost to approximately $76,227 per Bitcoin.
That figure excludes direct capital deployment and accounts only for options-based income offsetting acquisition costs.
By comparison, MicroStrategy purchased 89,599 BTC in Q1 at an average price of $80,929. That puts Metaplanet’s net cost roughly $4,700 lower per Bitcoin when income generation is factored in. Even without that adjustment, Metaplanet still came in around $1,000 cheaper per coin.
Ragnar noted that Metaplanet achieved this result while its preferred share structure still awaits approval. The analyst added that he remains more bullish on the company following this analysis, though he clarified the post represents personal speculation pending confirmation from the Metaplanet team.
Block plans to revive the Bitcoin “faucet” model on April 6 through a new site, btc.day, as Jack Dorsey pushes another public effort tied to Bitcoin access and education.
Summary
- Block will relaunch the Bitcoin faucet on April 6 through a new countdown site, btc.day.
- The company has not disclosed claim rules, eligibility, or total Bitcoin set for distribution yet.
- Dorsey’s rollout revives Gavin Andresen’s 2010 faucet model, which once gave users five Bitcoin.
The site already shows a countdown timer, an orange faucet symbol, and the phrases “The Faucet is Back” and “Buy, Secure, Spend.”
Dorsey announced the move on Friday through an update tied to Bitcoin at Block. The company said the faucet will return through btc.day, though it has not yet shared the full rules for how users will claim free Bitcoin.
The website does not currently ask users to complete any task. It only shows a timer and basic branding linked to the old faucet idea. Block has also not said how much BTC it plans to distribute.
The faucet model dates back to 2010, when software developer Gavin Andresen used it to introduce people to Bitcoin. His original site gave users five BTC after they completed a captcha and entered a wallet address.
At that time, Bitcoin was new and had little public reach. Early builders used simple tools like faucets to help people test wallets, send coins, and learn how the network worked. The model later became part of Bitcoin’s early history.
In addition, the new rollout appears to borrow from that original approach. By bringing back the faucet concept, Block is linking a modern campaign to one of Bitcoin’s best-known early distribution methods.
The company has not confirmed whether the new version will use captchas, wallet checks, or any other participation step. It also has not said whether the giveaway will be open globally or limited to specific users or regions.
Community watches for more details
Crypto users have started discussing the relaunch across social platforms. Some described the move as a way to keep Bitcoin more accessible, while others pointed to the larger number of wallet users today compared with 2010.
The market is now waiting for details on the size, timing, and structure of the giveaway. Block held 8,883 BTC as of its accumulation record dating back to October 2020, but neither Dorsey nor the company has said how much of that Bitcoin, if any, will be used for the faucet.
Key takeaways:
-
Bitcoin hitting $72,000 would liquidate $2.5 billion in shorts, potentially crushing bears who are overleveraged.
-
Iran’s war and high oil prices currently pressure BTC, but a ceasefire or ETF inflows could spark a rapid recovery.
$2.5 billion in shorts at risk if BTC hits $72,000
Bitcoin (BTC) has consistently failed to hit new highs since attempting to reclaim the $75,000 level since March 17.
Bearish Bitcoin futures bets have been piling up as the war in Iran pushed oil prices to their highest levels since June 2022. However, two events could propel Bitcoin to $72,000 in the coming weeks and help cement a sustainable bull run.
According to Coinglass estimates, a total of $2.5 billion in short positions on Bitcoin futures will be liquidated if Bitcoin rises just 7.5% to $72,000 from the current $67,100 level.
BTC bears benefit from miners’ sales, weak S&P 500
Bears have been adding shorts since March 25, when Iran reportedly refused to negotiate a ceasefire. Additional selling pressure emerged as MARA Holdings (MARA US) announced it sold 15,133 BTC on March 26. The publicly listed Bitcoin miner shifted its focus to AI computing and chose to reduce its Bitcoin holdings to pay down debt.
After peaking near 7,000 points on Jan. 28, the S&P 500 dropped 10% by March 30. Investors fear recession risks because central banks have less room to cut interest rates due to inflation.
Oil prices have jumped over 70% since the war in Iran started in late February, which hikes logistics costs and cuts into consumer spending.
Traders are pricing in 89% odds that the Fed will keep interest rates steady through September, with 5% odds of a hike to 4%.
In early March, bond futures showed the opposite, with 79% odds of rate cuts. Returns on fixed-income investments will likely stay attractive for longer.
Meanwhile, confidence among Bitcoin bears has increased, as reflected by the negative funding rate in perpetual futures contracts.
In neutral market conditions, longs usually pay to keep positions open, causing this indicator to range between 5% and 10% to compensate for capital costs.
Negative funding rates signal a lack of demand for bullish leveraged bets and potential overconfidence from the bears.
Ceasefire or economic weakness may boost Bitcoin
While it is impossible to predict the outcome of the war involving Iran, a ceasefire agreement could spark bullish sentiment and catch bears by surprise.
Bitcoin jumped from $69,150 to $74,900 during the five days ending March 16 after US-listed Bitcoin exchange-traded funds saw $1.5 billion in net inflows over two weeks. If ETF inflows resume, Bitcoin could also reclaim the $72,000 level.
Related: Bitcoin ETFs ‘will be larger’ than gold ETFs–Analyst
US President Donald Trump has asked Congress to boost defense spending to $1.5 trillion, according to a 2027 budget proposal released Friday. These plans include a 10% cut in other areas to offset military expenses.
Trump reportedly said at a private White House event on Wednesday: “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” according to CNBC.
If the US economy loses steam, or if private credit redemptions continue to pressure the market, investors will likely look for alternative hedges.
Consequently, Bitcoin’s appeal would grow as the it presently trades 47% below its all-time high. Thus, a bull run to $72,000 might happen regardless of how long the war in Iran lasts.
This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research before making any decisions. Cointelegraph makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, including forward-looking statements, and will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.
Global X Management Company has launched the Global X Ethereum Covered Call ETF (EHCC), a new fund that writes call options on Ether-related ETPs to generate weekly income distributions, marking the firm’s first crypto ETF beyond Bitcoin.
The fund carries a 0.75% expense ratio, is actively managed, and invests at least 80% of net assets in U.S.-listed Ether ETPs, including spot and futures products, without directly holding the digital asset.
EHCC brings Global X’s total digital asset ETF count to four. It launched with CUSIP 37966B802, an inception date of March 16, 2026, and The Bank of New York Mellon as custodian. The firm manages $78.1 billion in AUM as part of Mirae Asset Financial Group’s $803 billion global platform.
Key Takeaways:
- Ticker: EHCC – Global X Ethereum Covered Call ETF, launched April 2, 2026.
- Expense Ratio: 0.75%, actively managed, no minimum investment.
- Strategy: Writes call options on Ether ETPs; distributes option premiums to investors weekly.
- Tradeoff: Upside above the strike price is capped; downside exposure remains.
- Competitor: Amplify’s EHY has been running the same structure since October 9, 2025, also at 0.75%.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Buy Right Now
What EHCC Actually Does – and Why Ether’s Volatility Is the Product
The core mechanic is straightforward: EHCC holds Ether-linked ETPs and sells call options against that exposure. The option premiums collected are distributed weekly.
In exchange, the fund surrenders gains above the strike price in a rally – a direct cap on upside that income-focused investors are explicitly accepting as the deal.
Pedro Palandrani, Head of Product Research & Development at Global X, framed the thesis plainly: “Although we believe ether has significant growth potential, it’s also a highly volatile asset, which we believe makes it well suited for a covered call strategy that aims to generate weekly income while maintaining exposure to potential price appreciation.”
That volatility isn’t a bug here – it’s what inflates the option premiums that fund the distributions.
Ethereum’s price dynamics make it a credible covered call substrate. ETH has historically moved 60-80% annualized volatility in active periods, which translates directly into fatter premiums when writing calls.
Amplify’s competing EHY, launched October 9, 2025, targets 50-80% annualized option premiums using the same weekly cadence and the same 0.75% fee. EHCC enters a market that already has a benchmark.
The SEC’s May 2024 approval of spot Ether ETFs is what made this structure viable – EHCC needs liquid, regulated Ether ETPs to write options against. Without that underlying infrastructure, the fund doesn’t exist. Bitcoin ETF market trends showed that once regulated wrappers gain traction, derivative income strategies follow fast. That playbook is now running on ETH.
The risk is asymmetric in one specific way: EHCC retains full downside exposure to Ether while capping the upside. In a sustained ETH bull run, holders underperform a straight spot position. In a choppy or declining market, the premium income provides a buffer – but not a floor. That’s the trade.
Discover: The Best Crypto Presales Live Right Now
The Ethereum Income ETF Space Is Getting Crowded – Fast
Global X isn’t first to this specific trade. Amplify’s EHY has six months of operational history, giving it a performance track record EHCC currently lacks.
Amplify also has ETTY – an Ethereum 3% monthly option income ETF – already in the market, signaling a multi-product Ether income strategy that Global X is now moving to match.
The institutional backdrop supports the build-out. Ethereum’s growing role in institutional tokenization is pulling traditional asset managers toward ETH-denominated products.
Regulated income vehicles lower the barrier for allocators who want ETH exposure without the custody risk or the volatility of a direct position. EHCC slots directly into that demand.
Watch EHCC’s first weekly distributions and net inflow trajectory against EHY as the real test. If Global X’s distribution brand and $78.1 billion AUM distribution network pulls traditional ETF investors into the Ether income category, this launch matters beyond the product itself, it normalizes weekly crypto yield as a standard ETF feature.
If flows stay thin, it confirms EHY has the first-mover lock and EHCC is a late follow-on. Q2 2026 will answer that.
Explore: The best pre-launch token sales with asymmetric upside potential
The post Global X Launches Ethereum Covered Call ETF Targeting Weekly Income appeared first on Cryptonews.
Prediction markets are pushing into Asia’s largest economies, even as local gambling laws place strict limits on betting activities.
Asia represents a combination of scale, active retail participation and limited local alternatives, making it too large to ignore despite regulatory risks.
That’s a similar pattern seen in crypto, where technology moved faster than regulation and licensing frameworks, prompting exchanges to enter markets before clear rules were in place.
Like many startups, the industry’s heavyweights adopted the “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” approach to scale.
Polymarket, one of the fastest-growing platforms, is already recording over $1 billion in weekly volume. It has introduced Chinese-language support, while newer entrants like PredicXion are focusing on local events to drive adoption.
But beneath the surface, the region is fragmented and legally complicated, where access, language and regulation don’t always align with the industry’s global ambitions.
Prediction markets hit local barriers in Asia
Three Asian countries — China, Japan and India — ranked among the world’s five largest economies by gross domestic product in 2024, according to the World Bank.
India and China do not have specific frameworks addressing blockchain-based prediction markets, but both maintain restrictive environments around crypto. India imposes heavy taxation, while China enforces an outright ban on activities such as trading and mining.
South Korea also ranks among the world’s largest economies at 12th and is often cited as one of the most active retail crypto markets. The South Korean won is a consistent top-two currency by global fiat trading volume, according to Kaiko.
Related: How AI agents can reshape arbitrage in prediction markets
“Prediction markets could be a very big opportunity in the Korean market,” Heechang Kang, co-founder at research company Four Pillars, told Cointelegraph. “But I think many prediction markets are having difficulty capturing audiences because their predictions are mostly focused on Western themes.”
Japan faces similar localization challenges, where language and a lack of region-specific events limit broader adoption.
That gap has created an opening for Asia-based platforms. Prediction markets originating from the region, such as PredicXion, are attempting to localize content by focusing on region-specific events.
However, its founder and CEO Andy Cheung said local gambling regulations in key markets remain a “significant concern.”
“In these jurisdictions, authorities often classify activities involving wagering on uncertain outcomes as gambling, which is heavily restricted or outright prohibited outside of tightly controlled state-run lotteries or exceptions,” Cheung told Cointelegraph.
The argument that prediction markets and gambling are different
In China, online gambling is strictly prohibited, and access to platforms such as Polymarket is largely restricted. Some users bypass controls using VPNs to get around the country’s internet censorship, commonly known as the Great Firewall, but that does not eliminate risk.
“Many in the industry are aware of the strict legal environment in these regions, and aggressive user acquisition there does carry risks, not just for operators, but potentially for users themselves under local laws that can treat participation as illegal gambling,” Cheung said.
Regulators in South Korea and Japan have yet to directly address blockchain-based prediction markets as well, and most platforms remain accessible. Both countries, however, maintain strict limits on gambling.
In South Korea, most forms of gambling are prohibited for locals outside a narrow set of state-run exceptions, and the law extends to participation on overseas platforms. Authorities have actively pursued illegal online betting operators and, in some cases, users themselves.
Japan takes a similarly restrictive approach, where gambling is generally illegal outside regulated channels such as lotteries, horse racing and other public betting systems.
Related: Why yen stablecoins are key to Japan’s crypto ambitions
That leaves prediction markets in a gray zone, where access is possible but legal classification remains unresolved.
“Some argue that prediction markets are no different from gambling. I would dispute that,” Jaewon Kim, a researcher at Four Pillars who authored the company’s prediction markets report, told Cointelegraph.
He said the distinction lies in the type of output they produce. Gambling is largely a closed loop where users bet against the house, with outcomes that have little relevance beyond the game itself. Meanwhile, prediction markets aggregate expectations about real-world events.
“During the 2024 US presidential election, prediction markets gained significant traction and, in some cases, were more accurate than polls or expert forecasts,” Kim claimed. “That ability to reflect collective expectations is what sets them apart and gives them informational value beyond simple wagering.”
Legal classification will determine prediction markets’ future in Asia
Several prediction platforms are moving into Asia with the same playbook that defined earlier phases of crypto growth, targeting demand first and leaving regulatory clarity for later. The region offers a rare mix of scale, retail participation and underdeveloped local alternatives.
That tension is already visible on the ground. Platforms can reach users through language support and workarounds like VPNs, but none of those solve the underlying issue of classification. Major Asian markets also have some of the most restrictive legal environments for anything that resembles gambling.
Local players are beginning to test that boundary by tailoring products to regional audiences, though Cheung said platforms like PredicXion are trying to avoid “heavily restricted markets.” Most regions have yet to determine whether prediction markets fall under gambling.
The industry’s argument that prediction markets are distinct adds another layer of uncertainty. If they are treated as information markets that aggregate real-world expectations, they may eventually find a regulatory pathway similar to financial instruments.
If not, they risk being absorbed into existing gambling frameworks that leave little room for expansion.
Man charged after rammy breaks out at bus station in Fife
AMC Networks: Stabilizing Revenue Has Me Bullish Again (Rating Upgrade)
AI Fallout Begins as Claude Creators Cut Off Their Most Powerful Users
-
NewsBeat2 days agoSteven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
-
Business2 days agoNo Jackpot Winner and $194 Million Prize Rolls Over
-
Fashion20 hours agoWeekend Open Thread: Spanx – Corporette.com
-
Entertainment5 days ago
Fans slam 'heartbreaking' Barbie Dream Fest convention debacle with 'cardboard cutout' experience
-
Crypto World3 days agoGold Price Prediction: Worst Month in 17 Years fo Save Haven Rock
-
Tech6 days agoThe Pixel 10a doesn’t have a camera bump, and it’s great
-
Crypto World4 days ago
Dems press CFTC, ethics board on prediction-market insider trades
-
Entertainment7 days agoLana Del Rey Celebrates Her Husband’s 51st Birthday In New Post
-
Tech5 days agoAvatar Legends: The Fighting Game comes out in July and it looks pretty slick
-
Tech4 days agoEE TV is using AI to help you find something to watch
-
Sports4 days agoTallest college basketball player ever, standing at 7-foot-9, entering transfer portal
-
Business2 days agoLogin and Checkout Issues Spark Merchant Frustration
-
Fashion6 days agoAmazon Sundays: Soft Spring Layers
-
Tech6 days agoElon Musk’s last co-founder reportedly leaves xAI
-
Fashion5 days agoThe Best Spring Trends of 2026
-
Tech4 days agoHow to back up your iPhone & iPad to your Mac before something goes wrong
-
Politics5 days agoShould Trump Be Scared Strait?
-
Tech5 days agoApple will hide your email address from apps and websites, but not cops
-
Crypto World5 days agoU.S. rule change may open trillions in 401(k) funds to crypto
-
Tech4 days agoFlipsnack and the shift toward motion-first business content with living visuals
You must be logged in to post a comment Login