For years, Audemars Piguet (AP) timepieces were regarded as a mark of success for a certain kind of crypto bro. Over the weekend, the watchmaker announced that it’s collaborating with Swatch, an entry-level watchmaker.

The “Royal Pop” collab has, in the eyes of crypto investors who bought into AP’s ostensibly exclusive brand, destroyed its reputation as a wealth signal for crypto bros who’ve made it.

Indeed, Protos spoke with two watch resellers who say that complaints from AP owners are “raining in.”

The AP watch that inspired the upcoming Swatch design, AP’s Royal Oak, has long sold for north of $30,000. Models of Royal Oak with more rarity, such as the 15202ST, have even resold for six figures.

To the dismay of collectors who thought AP would protect its brand, both companies called the partnership a “disruptive collaboration that fuses joyful boldness.”

Translated into crypto jargon, it was a rug-pull.

Social status devastation

Crypto Twitter understood the framing immediately. “Imagine owning a Royal Oak and a dude in a Swatch comes up to you like hey man nice watch I got one too 10/10 for crypto influencers all over again lmao.”

Another commentator wrote what others were thinking: “The crypto bros can finally get their AP. Even the ones who roundtripped their entire port or are down 96.69%. Shoutout to Swatch.” 

An NFT veteran with more than 277,000 followers laughed, “Can’t wait to buy my black royal oak x swatch so I can act like a cool kid at my next crypto event.”

AP’s Swatch collab, announced over the weekend, drops on Saturday, May 16. In plastic. For approximately $500.

Chopping the Royal Oak down

High-end AP watches like Royal Oak earned the attention of newly enriched crypto influencers. Their watches had scarce supply, cultural cachet, a chart that only went up.

From 2019 to early 2022, AP prices charted like a crypto runner.

The Royal Oak 15202ST Jumbo averaged about $21,800 on the secondary market in 2016, per dealer data. By 2021, it averaged $69,000. By 2022, it peaked near $106,000.

The move tracked the crypto bull market in lockstep which peaked in November 2021, before losing two-thirds of its value within 12 months.

Even before this week’s disappointment, dealer data showed AP 15202ST watches changing hands at roughly one-third less than their 2022 peak.

Digital asset company Galaxy and Ethereum treasury platform Sharplink will launch a private fund that will invest Ether in decentralized finance (DeFi) strategies, signaling growing institutional interest in earning onchain yield from crypto holdings.

The proposed fund, called the Galaxy Sharplink Onchain Yield Fund, is expected to launch in the coming weeks with $125 million in initial commitments, the companies said Monday.

Sharplink plans to contribute $100 million from its staked Ether (ETH) treasury, while Galaxy will commit $25 million and serve as the fund’s manager.

The fund will allocate capital to DeFi liquidity protocols and other onchain yield opportunities, with the goal of generating additional returns while allowing Sharplink to maintain its long-term exposure to Ether.

Galaxy CEO Mike Novogratz said the structure reflects growing institutional demand for blockchain-based investment products that offer yield and risk management tools similar to those used in traditional finance.

The value of Sharplink’s Ether portfolio. Source: CoinGecko

Sharplink is one of the largest corporate holders of Ether, with more than 868,000 ETH on its balance sheet. At October market highs, those holdings were valued at nearly $4 billion.

Related: Crypto Biz: Wall Street wants more than just Bitcoin

Sharplink posts nearly $686 million Q1 loss as ETH price declines

Sharplink has continued to expand its Ethereum treasury strategy despite a sharp first-quarter loss driven by Ether’s price decline.

The company on Monday reported a net loss of $685.6 million, or $3.25 per diluted share, primarily due to non-cash accounting charges related to the drop in ETH prices during the quarter. Of that total, $506.7 million was attributed to unrealized losses on its Ether holdings.

Ether fell from a mid-January high of about $3,354 to $2,104 on March 31, according to CoinMarketCap data. It was last trading hands on Monday at about $2,339.

Revenue in the quarter rose to $12.1 million from $700,000 a year earlier, reflecting growth in the company’s operating business.

Since launching its Ether treasury strategy in June 2025, Sharplink has earned approximately 18,800 ETH in cumulative staking rewards. The company ended the first quarter with $16.9 million in cash.

Sharplink’s balance sheet as of March 31, 2026. Source: Sharplink

The results underscore the volatility associated with crypto treasury strategies, particularly for companies that accumulated large positions over the past year. Similar pressures have affected Bitcoin treasury companies, where earnings can swing sharply with underlying asset prices.

Related: Crypto treasury companies likely to consolidate in 2026: Crypto exec

Australia Targets Long-Term Crypto Gains Through New CGT Framework

Australia moved closer to changing its capital gains tax structure for cryptocurrencies and other assets. Bitcoin traded near $103,000 during the proposal discussions, while broader crypto markets remained stable. The government plans to replace the current 50% CGT discount with an inflation-indexed tax framework from 2027.

The proposed reform appeared ahead of Australia’s federal budget announcement scheduled for Tuesday night. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is expected to outline the full proposal during the fiscal budget presentation. The plan would directly affect cryptocurrencies, shares, and other long-term investment assets.

The government also plans to offer a transition period for newly acquired assets. Assets purchased after budget night would still receive the existing discount until mid-2027. However, the updated framework would later apply to gains earned on those holdings.

Crypto Market Faces Higher Compliance and Tax Costs

The proposal could increase compliance requirements for cryptocurrency holders across Australia. Traders and long-term holders would need to track inflation-adjusted cost bases more accurately. Consequently, tax reporting processes could become more complex for digital asset transactions.

The government framed the reform as part of a broader effort to modernize Australia’s tax system. Authorities also continue expanding digital asset regulations across trading and custody services. Last month, Australia approved new licensing rules for digital asset and tokenized custody platforms.

Critics argued that the tax overhaul could redirect capital away from productive investments. Some market participants warned that higher CGT rates may favor owner-occupied housing over businesses and commercial assets. Others stated that investment activity could continue if market returns remain attractive.

Australia Expands Crypto Regulation Alongside Tax Reforms

The proposed CGT overhaul arrived as Australia increased oversight of the digital asset industry. Regulators recently introduced licensing requirements for crypto platforms operating within the country. The government stated that the measures aim to improve accountability and market standards.

The updated tax structure would also align cryptocurrencies more closely with other taxable investment classes. Officials expect the inflation-linked model to calculate gains more accurately during periods of rising prices. However, many long-term crypto holders could still pay more tax compared with the current system.

Australia’s crypto sector now faces simultaneous regulatory and tax adjustments ahead of 2027. The proposed changes could reshape trading behavior and long-term holding strategies across the market. Parliament is expected to debate the measures after the federal budget announcement.

Bitcoin (BTC) could be set for an extended uptrend, with a pending bullish signal from a key valuation metric suggesting that BTC prices might go “much higher,” according to crypto analysts.

Key takeaways:

• Bitcoin’s MVRV golden cross signals a shift to bullishness, historically preceding prolonged price rallies.
• Bitcoin traders argue $60,000 was the bear market bottom, see “huge” BTC price breakout next.

Bitcoin MVRV momentum sends a “trend reversal signal”

Bitcoin’s Market Value to Realized Value (MVRV) ratio, an indicator that measures whether the asset is overvalued, is about to print a “golden cross,” an occurrence that has previously preceded massive price rallies, according to CryptoQuant analyst CW8900.

Related: Saylor signals another Bitcoin buy after hinting at selling in Q1 earnings call

“A golden cross between the $BTC MVRV Ratio and the 200D EMA line is imminent,” the analyst said in an X post on Sunday, adding: 

“This signal is a representative trend reversal signal and is a bullish indicator.”

Bitcoin MVRV momentum indicator. Source: CryptoQuant

The last time the indicator produced this bullish crossover was just after the 2022 cycle bottom, preceding a 90% BTC price rally to $31,000 from $16,300 in Q1 2023. Another cross in September 2023 was followed by a 400% bull run to the current all-time high of $126,000 reached in October 2025.

In an earlier analysis, CW8900 highlighted a golden cross when the 30-day simple moving average (SMA) of Bitcoin’s MVRV ratio crossed above its 90-day SMA in late April, saying:

“$BTC has completely turned to a bullish trend.”

Source: CW8900

Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s recent rally to $83,000 boosted the short-term holder (STH) cost basis level as newer buyers returned to profitability.

STH cost basis refers to the average purchase price of investors who have held Bitcoin for less than 155 days.

The chart below shows that the price could rise higher to touch the “heated” band of this metric, currently at $92,000. 

Despite profit-taking at current prices, the STH risk zone suggests BTC can go higher in the short term with the “heated” band at $92,000 and the overheated band at $104,000.

Bitcoin short-term cost basis bands. Source: Glassnode

Bitcoin analysts say BTC’s “huge breakout” is coming

As Cointelegraph reported, analysts say Bitcoin is at a make-or-break point as it retests the 200-day moving average at $82,500. 

A break above this level could end the multi-month downtrend, while a rejection could result in a fresh sell-off toward $50,000. 

Analyst Shib Spain argues that BTC’s break above a multi-month downtrend line on the weekly chart marked a structural shift from bearish dominance, reinforced by a bullish crossover from the MACD indicator. 

“Bitcoin’s huge breakout is coming. MACD bullish reversal forming,” the analyst said in a recent post on X, adding:

“The bull run is just getting started.”

BTC/USD daily weekly chart. Source: Shib Spain

Fellow analyst Moustache highlights the BTC market cap and its RSI bouncing off multi-year support lines on the monthly time frame, as shown in the chart below.

“Just like in 2022, I’ve called the bottom for $BTC again this cycle,” the analyst said in an X post on Monday, adding:

“Prices will go much, much higher. We’ve got something big to look forward to.”

Bitcoin market cap, USD. Source: X/Moustache

As Cointelegraph reported, several analysts predict a “supercycle” rally toward $180,000-$250,000 as early as this year, supported by institutional accumulation and a strengthening technical setup.

TLDR

• The Senate Banking Committee scheduled May 14 for the markup of the CLARITY Act.
• Lawmakers will debate amendments before voting on whether to advance the bill to the Senate floor.
• The House previously passed the CLARITY Act with a 294–134 bipartisan vote.
• The bill would define regulatory boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC.
• The Senate version expands the legislation to nine titles, including stablecoin oversight and bankruptcy protections.

The Senate Banking Committee will meet May 14 to mark up the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Lawmakers will debate amendments and decide whether to send the measure to the Senate floor. However, bank lobbyists and some Democrats now threaten to block the bill before it advances.

CLARITY Act Faces Senate Test After House Approval

The committee will hold the executive session at 10:30 a.m. in Room 538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Chairman Tim Scott confirmed the schedule last week and opened the meeting to public livestream. Lawmakers will consider amendments before voting on whether to advance the bill.

The House passed H.R. 3633 on July 17, 2025, with a 294–134 bipartisan vote. All 216 Republicans supported the measure, while 78 Democrats joined them. Since then, the Senate delayed two markup sessions and extended talks over stablecoin oversight.

The CLARITY Act would define regulatory boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC. The bill grants the CFTC authority over spot markets for digital commodities. Meanwhile, the SEC would retain control over investment contract assets and primary offerings.

Senators expanded the Senate draft to nine titles covering decentralized finance safeguards and illicit finance rules. The text also includes bankruptcy protections for crypto customers and the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. That provision would provide safe harbors for blockchain software developers.

Banking Lobby and Democratic Ethics Dispute Intensify

Major banks have increased lobbying efforts in recent weeks as the vote approaches. At the same time, Democrats demand ethics rules covering crypto holdings by public officials. Republicans argue that such provisions could derail the measure entirely.

Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno warned about tight legislative deadlines. They said failure to clear committee before the May 21 Memorial Day recess could delay action until 2030. The White House has set July 4 as its target for presidential approval.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins urged Congress on April 9 to advance the bill. He said both agencies stand ready to implement the framework once enacted. Atkins referenced “Project Crypto” as an internal readiness initiative.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed the legislation as a national security issue in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He warned that regulatory gaps push blockchain firms toward Singapore and Abu Dhabi. White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said negotiations over stablecoin yield have concluded.

Senator Lummis reiterated support after the Easter recess and wrote “Clarity” on X.

Speaking at the Bitcoin Conference, she stated, “We are gonna markup the CLARITY Act in May.” She added, “We are gonna get it to the finish line.”

Chairman Scott previously targeted September 2025 for a floor vote. He later moved the timeline to late 2025 and then to June or July 2026. The May 14 markup now represents the Senate’s first formal committee vote on the bill.

The collision of AI innovation and crypto lobbying is shaping how voters view both industries as the United States edges toward potential policy changes. A Politico/Public First survey signals growing public skepticism about crypto and cautious scrutiny of AI, even as lawmakers and advocacy groups accelerate efforts to influence Washington before the next election cycle.

Poll findings suggest policymakers face a tough audience: while the crypto sector has amassed substantial funding in political action committees, a broad swath of voters remain unconvinced about the sector’s benefits or risks associated with artificial intelligence. The dialogue around a formal regulatory framework, including considerations around the CLARITY Act, has become a focal point in how industry interests intersect with voter sentiment.

Key takeaways

• Public trust gaps persist: 47% of Americans prefer traditional banks to crypto platforms, while only 17% express a level of trust comparable to banks in crypto services.
• AI skepticism runs deep: 43% believe AI risks outweigh its benefits, with just 33% seeing the opposite.
• Low awareness of lobbies: awareness of major crypto and AI lobbying groups remains limited, with only 9% having heard of the AI Super PAC Leading the Future and 3% aware of the pro-crypto Fairshake PAC.
• Grassroots resistance to tech infrastructure: across seven states, local movements have delayed or blocked substantial data-center investments, with Maine considering a statewide ban.
• Partisan dynamics complicate advocacy: while crypto voices frame their cause as bipartisan, the policy reality shows deep ties to executive and regulatory arms of government, complicating the political calculus for both parties.

Voter sentiment: crypto trust and AI doubts shape the narrative

The Politico/Public First poll paints a nuanced picture of public opinion on crypto and AI. A plurality still regards traditional financial institutions as more trustworthy than crypto platforms, and only a minority views crypto as having comparable reliability to banks. The same survey indicates that opinion on AI is uneven, with a sizable portion of the electorate wary of potential risks even as others point to benefits.

Michael Beckel, director of money-in-politics reform at Issue One, summarized the mood to Cointelegraph: voters across ideological lines are expressing concerns about corporate influence and how campaign money shapes policy outcomes. He noted that some candidates are attempting to capitalize on this frustration, a signal that the political calculus around tech lobbying is shifting.

For crypto, the numbers look especially wary. Republicans show slightly higher affinity toward crypto than Democrats, but the gap remains broad. The survey highlights a key tension: voters’ skepticism toward lucrative lobbying efforts may override partisan lines when it comes to accepting industry-friendly messaging.

Lobbying, awareness, and the politics of influence

The broader political discourse around AI and crypto is being shaped not just by policy proposals but by who finances the campaigns and how that money is framed to voters. Rick Claypool, research director at Public Citizen, emphasized a long-standing norm: voters generally oppose heavy corporate money shaping politics. He noted that post-Citizens United, the expectation has been that big brands do not straightforwardly fund campaigns, or they do so through opaque channels that obscure the funding origins.

In the 2024 cycle, industry actors—ranging from major exchanges to prominent venture firms—were active in campaign finance. Yet, the messaging directed at voters did not center on crypto per se. Advertisements and mailers often aligned with candidates’ broader positions, sometimes framing the contest as a defense against regulation or a push for deregulatory priorities rather than a crypto-first debate. The takeaway is clear: even when an industry pushes for policy, it must translate complex technical issues into relatable political narratives that the electorate can parse.

Ohio Rep. Jim Renacci summed up a practical concern for lawmakers: if a candidate is heavily backed by crypto money, the local electorate may react negatively due to limited understanding of the technology. The sentiment underscores a risk for representatives who rely on industry fundraising in a climate where voters are increasingly wary of corporate influence in politics.

Grassroots pushback and the regulatory map

The political environment around AI and crypto is further complicated by a growing grassroots movement that targets the physical footprint of technological infrastructure. Data Center Watch has documented a wave of local actions—across California, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, and Virginia—where new data-center projects were delayed or blocked. A recent report notes that these efforts have stalled more than $64 billion in planned data-center investment and that Maine is weighing a statewide ban as a potential policy precedent.

Claypool framed this as a potentially fertile ground for campaign messaging, particularly for Democrats seeking to capitalize on grassroots energy against what many see as energy-hungry, resource-intensive tech infrastructure. He argues that opposition to data centers can be a mobilizing issue, one that may help candidates align with voters who perceive tech expansion as a local environmental or community concern rather than a purely national policy matter.

Meanwhile, the crypto industry has tried to position itself as a bipartisan issue, arguing that policy clarity and reasonable regulation would benefit consumers and investors alike. Coinbase’s leadership and other notable venture backers have publicly framed crypto as a cross-partisan concern in Washington. Yet, on the ground, enforcement priorities and regulatory posture often track more with party leadership and executive agencies than with partisan labels. The intertwining of crypto advocacy with the Trump political orbit adds another layer of complexity. As Trump’s relevance in the broader political landscape fluctuates, ties to the industry carry new political risk for candidates who rely on that support.

A recent Illinois Democratic primary illustrated the potential political consequences of money in crypto circles. Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton cited opponent Raja Krishnamoorthi as being backed by “MAGA-backed crypto bros,” highlighting how the perception of money in politics can become a campaign issue. Stratton’s victory underscored that the electorate can scrutinize the sources of campaign contributions as much as the policy positions themselves.

Looking ahead: what matters for voters, investors, and builders

As midterm dynamics and regulatory debates unfold, observers should watch how legislative momentum around the CLARITY Act evolves and whether it gains broader bipartisan support. The public’s growing skepticism about crypto and AI could influence lawmakers to pursue tighter disclosures, clearer enforcement guidelines, and more transparent lobbying practices, even as proponents argue for a clear framework that benefits investors and users.

For market participants, the key takeaway is not a sudden shift in policy, but a gradual recalibration of risk around policy risk. Investors and builders should monitor two threads: first, the trajectory of regulatory clarity and how it aligns with consumer protections and innovation; second, the ability of the crypto and AI industries to articulate tangible benefits to the public in a way that resonates beyond the fundraising apparatus.

In the coming months, the interplay between voter sentiment, grassroots activism, and political endorsements will shape how Washington treats crypto and AI. If voters increasingly view industry money as a potential conflict of interest, candidates may distance themselves from big-ticket funding, potentially narrowing the policy window for industry-backed initiatives. Conversely, if policymakers offer credible, accessible frameworks that address consumer protection and innovation, the sector may find a more stable path forward.

Readers should keep an eye on regulators’ statements, legislative committee hearings, and any new public-facing campaigns from major lobbies and consumer groups. The political weather surrounding crypto and AI is shifting, and the path to policy clarity may hinge on how convincingly proponents connect technical progress with everyday benefits for the American public.

Consensus, the annual cryptocurrency conference hosted by CoinDesk, threw its post-conference closing party at E11even, the same club where several years ago World Liberty Financial founder Zach Witkoff was arrested with cocaine.

This Miami club, described as a “strip club” by Jess Zhang, the founder and chief executive of Blockus, was criticized as a poor choice for an industry that was supposed “to be moving towards institutional maturity.”

Zhang further noted that this type of event “diminishes women to sexual objects and enforces a stale, exclusionary culture.”

Additionally, Amanda Wick, formerly a federal prosecutor, told Bloomberg that “as a gender equality advocate, the event was horrifying.”

E11even has a long history with cryptocurrency; E11even Partners decided to partner with FTX US before its collapse.

This partnership would have made FTX US “the sole converter of cryptocurrency transactions for acquiring residences” in this development by the same group as the aforementioned nightclub.

Read more: Crypto Miami apparently has a deodorant problem

At least one cryptocurrency executive rushed to defend the event: Michael Khekoian, the senior business development manager at Consensys who also does product safety at Metamask, posted, “I never knew the women working there are forced sex slaves.”

He continued, “its as if there was no actual conference or networking outside of a closing party.”

Eventually, this escalated to Khekoian threatening to sue Zhang.

Osmosis is debating a merger with Cosmos Hub via a 1.998 OSMO‑for‑0.0355 ATOM swap funded by DEX revenue, raising existential questions for OSMO, ATOM and the broader IBC DeFi stack.

Osmosis (OSMO) jumped 185% in 24 hours on May 11, reigniting debate across X about the failed COSMOSIS merger proposal that would have integrated the decentralized exchange directly into the Cosmos Hub. The sharp price movement comes less than a month after Cosmos Hub governance narrowly rejected the acquisition plan in April 2026, with speculation now centering on whether a revised proposal could succeed.

The original proposal, posted March 11, would have allowed holders to convert all circulating OSMO tokens into ATOM at a fixed rate of 1.998 OSMO for 0.0355 ATOM over a six-month window. Under that structure, approximately 665.1 million OSMO would have been eligible for conversion, with any unclaimed ATOM returning to the Cosmos Hub community pool after the deadline. The plan aimed to consolidate Osmosis liquidity, governance, and security onto a single chain, effectively making the DEX a native component of the Hub rather than an independent app-chain.

Failed Vote Sparks Renewed Speculation

After the governance vote failed by a narrow margin in mid-April, Osmosis stated it would continue operating as “an independent, profitable blockchain” and develop its next-phase roadmap. Yet recent posts from the official Osmosis account and Cosmos-focused community members suggest discussions around a revised integration path have resumed, driving heavy trading activity across OSMO markets.

The OSMO-to-ATOM conversion narrative has been trending heavily among Cosmos ecosystem participants, with some forum posts exploring whether a modified proposal could address concerns that led to the original vote’s failure. An updated version referenced in early April removed new ATOM minting from the plan, instead proposing to fund the conversion over time using Osmosis’s own DEX revenue. That revision aimed to mitigate dilution risk for ATOM holders, a key point of contention during the initial governance debate.

Consolidation Versus Sovereignty

The COSMOSIS proposal represents one of the most aggressive consolidation moves in Cosmos history, testing whether ecosystem-wide mergers can boost liquidity and valuations or undermine the sovereignty that defines the network’s app-chain model. If a revised proposal passes both Osmosis and Cosmos Hub governance, it would set a precedent that could pressure other independent chains to consider similar integrations.

Market observers note the debate mirrors broader tensions across multi-chain architectures, where projects must balance the benefits of shared security and liquidity against the risks of governance centralization. Concentrating the ecosystem’s primary DEX and hub chain under a single governance framework creates potential single-point-of-failure risks, as contentious votes could simultaneously affect trading infrastructure and network security.

Following the April rejection, some Cosmos community members floated the idea of a hostile takeover offer, arguing that nothing prevents Hub governance from drafting a proposal and presenting it directly to OSMO holders for their own vote. Whether renewed speculation translates into formal governance action remains unclear, but the 185% price surge signals that markets are pricing in a meaningful probability of eventual integration.