Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan Rejects Jane Street Blame for Bitcoin Dip

Published

on

Bitcoin Loses Long-Term Support, Tanking to $73K as Short-Term Holders Capitulate


Matt Hougan dismissed claims that Jane Street is orchestrating Bitcoin’s recent decline, calling the downturn “a classic crypto winter.”

Matt Hougan, chief investment officer at Bitwise, has pushed back on claims that trading firm Jane Street is behind Bitcoin’s recent slide, writing on X on February 26 that the downturn is “a classic crypto winter,” not a coordinated attack.

His comments come as lawsuits and viral threads revive old fears about market manipulation just as Bitcoin is trading over 46% below its all-time high.

Advertisement

Conspiracy Claims Collide With ETF Mechanics

Speculation intensified after reports emerged that Terraform Labs’ bankruptcy administrator had sued Jane Street in a Manhattan federal court, accusing the firm of using insider information before the May 2022 Terra-Luna collapse.

According to the complaint, Jane Street withdrew 85 million TerraUSD from Curve’s 3pool minutes after Terraform removed 150 million UST, a sequence the suit claims accelerated the $40 billion collapse. Jane Street has denied the allegations, calling the case a “desperate attempt” to recover losses and blaming Terraform’s management for the failure.

At the same time, some crypto analysts, including Bull Theory, alleged that Jane Street runs a “10 AM” sell algorithm to push Bitcoin lower and profit from derivatives.

Bull Theory also pointed to an interim order from India’s Securities and Exchange Board accusing Jane Street entities of expiry-day index manipulation between January 2023 and March 2025, alleging thousands of crores in unlawful gains. The case is ongoing, and the firm has appealed.

Advertisement

However, Hougan dismissed the narrative as misplaced. “The conspiracy theories are wild,” he wrote, arguing that Bitcoin is down because investors unwound long positions, reduced leverage, and rotated capital elsewhere.

You may also like:

The Bitwise CIO also amplified colleague André Dragosch’s analysis of intraday Bitcoin performance since the ETF launch in January 2024. Dragosch’s data countered the viral 10 AM slam narrative by showing pronounced weakness around midnight ET, pointing to non-U.S. trading hours as the actual vulnerability period.

Macro strategist Alex Krüger also echoed Hougan’s skepticism, calling the Jane Street theory “yet another viral and flawed conspiracy theory.” He noted that basis traders and authorized participants (APs) simply close gaps between ETFs, futures, and spot markets.

“Too many doomer narratives and conspiracy theories looking for villains circulating right now,” Krüger posted. “Historically, that’s the kind of sentiment you see at bottoms.”

Structural Questions Linger Beyond the Blame

The controversy has also revived debate about ETF plumbing. ProCap CIO Jeff Park wrote on February 25 that concerns are less about a single firm and more about how APs operate under regulatory exemptions that allow in-kind creations and redemptions.

Advertisement

In theory, APs can hedge ETF exposure with futures instead of buying spot Bitcoin directly, which critics argue could dull spot demand.

None of the lawsuits or regulatory filings so far establish coordinated misconduct in Bitcoin markets. Still, the overlap between large quantitative firms, derivatives strategies, and ETF mechanics has fueled suspicion during a downturn.

For Hougan, the explanation is simpler. Bitcoin’s four-year cycle, leverage resets, and shifting investor priorities are enough to explain the pullback.

“This is a classic crypto winter and there will be a classic crypto spring,” he wrote. “People want someone to blame — I get it — but the reality is far more boring than that.”

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).
Advertisement

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

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

CFTC Staff Set Crypto Collateral Standards for Market Participants

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sharpened its stance on using crypto as collateral in derivatives markets, releasing updated guidance that clarifies how crypto assets can be deployed within a pilot program launched last year. A Friday notice from the agency’s Market Participants Division and Division of Clearing and Risk responds to FAQs that emerged from December staff letters and lays out the operational and risk parameters for futures commission merchants (FCMs) participating in the pilot.

In its notice, the CFTC reminded FCMs that to participate they must file a formal notice with the Market Participants Division, including the date on which they will begin accepting crypto assets from customers as margin collateral. The guidance aims to harmonize crypto collateral practices with a broader regulatory framework being developed in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as the two agencies outline a more unified approach to crypto oversight.

Key takeaways

  • Capital charges for crypto collateral align with SEC oversight: 20% for Bitcoin and Ether positions, and 2% for stablecoins used as collateral.
  • Initial three-month window restricts eligible collateral to Bitcoin, Ether, or stablecoins, with weekly reporting requirements and a prompt notice for significant cybersecurity or system issues.
  • After three months, other crypto assets may be accepted as collateral, subject to ongoing risk and reporting standards.
  • Residual interest in customer segregated accounts may be funded only with proprietary payment stablecoins; other tokens cannot be used for that purpose.

Operational guardrails and the three-month sprint

The notice makes clear that the pilot is designed with risk controls in mind. Futures commission merchants who wish to participate must submit a formal participation notice that includes the anticipated start date for accepting crypto as margin collateral. The three-month initial phase places strict limits on the types of crypto eligible for collateral, restricting it to Bitcoin, Ether, and stablecoins. During this period, FCMs are also required to file weekly reports detailing the total crypto holdings across customer account types and to promptly report any material cybersecurity or system issues.

The three-month horizon serves a dual purpose. It allows the CFTC to observe how crypto collateral behaves in real-time market conditions under a controlled regime, while enabling market participants to build processes around risk management, custody, valuation, and operational controls. After the initial period, the rulebook opens the door to additional digital assets, expanding the universe of potential collateral as regulators gain confidence in the framework.

What changes for market participants and tokenized markets

Beyond the three-month mark, the pilot could permit a broader spectrum of crypto assets to be used as collateral, provided they meet the CFTC’s risk, custody, and governance standards. The notice also clarifies several nuanced points about where crypto and stablecoins can—and cannot—serve as collateral. Notably, crypto and stablecoins cannot be used as collateral for uncleared swaps. However, swap dealers may deploy tokenized versions of eligible assets for collateral if they satisfy regulatory requirements and preserve the same rights those assets confer in their traditional form.

Advertisement

Derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) have their own set of allowances. They may accept crypto and stablecoins as initial margin for cleared transactions, again contingent on meeting CFTC standards related to minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks. Finally, as to residual interest in customer accounts, the guidance specifies that only proprietary payment stablecoins may be deposited for that purpose, excluding other cryptocurrencies from this particular use case.

In framing these rules, the CFTC underscored its intent to align its approach with the SEC’s ongoing crypto framework. The agency’s notice notes that capital charges for crypto collateral will be consistent with SEC practices, signaling a coordinated path rather than a patchwork of standalone rules. The collaboration between the agencies is part of a broader effort to create a stable, transparent regulatory environment that can accommodate the 24/7 nature of crypto markets while enforcing prudent risk controls.

Participants will be watching closely how this evolves in practice. The pilot’s design—beginning with widely traded assets like BTC, ETH, and stablecoins—reflects a cautious, first-step approach to integrating digital assets into traditional margin concepts. It also signals how regulators intend to balance the benefits of crypto-native features, such as rapid settlement and continuous trading, with the need to manage financial risk and ensure market integrity.

For traders, funds managers, and infrastructure providers, the framework offers clarity on how crypto collateral might be used in the near term. It also highlights the kinds of operational capabilities that firms must develop: robust custody solutions, reliable valuation methodologies for volatile assets, strong cybersecurity postures, and precise reporting protocols to monitor crypto holdings in customer accounts.

Advertisement

Industry participants will also be watching for details on how tokenized assets and stablecoins will fare under the evolving rules. Tokenization can, in theory, unlock more flexible collateral options, but it requires careful attention to governance, settlement finality, and legal rights. The CFTC’s emphasis on risk controls, alongside explicit limitations on residual interest and uncleared swaps, suggests a measured approach to expanding collateral acceptance while preserving market safety nets.

Overall, the guidance reinforces a midterm view: a calibrated expansion of crypto collateral capabilities that can gradually broaden the collateral toolkit for U.S. derivatives markets, anchored by risk-management discipline and regulatory alignment with the SEC.

Investors and market participants should monitor how this pilot progresses in the coming months, including any updates to asset eligibility, reporting requirements, or capital-charge methodologies. The three-month checkpoint will likely spur conversations about whether additional assets should qualify, how valuation and custody standards will be harmonized, and what that means for liquidity and funding costs in crypto-backed trading strategies.

As regulators continue to shape the playbook, the core question remains: can a robust, well-regulated framework unlock crypto collateral’s potential while preserving financial stability? The CFTC’s latest notice positions the industry at a pivotal juncture, where clarity and risk controls could unlock broader adoption in the years ahead.

Advertisement

For now, market participants should prepare for continued regulatory alignment with the SEC, stay alert to any shifts in asset eligibility, and ensure their internal controls and reporting capabilities meet the forthcoming standards if they plan to participate in the pilot.

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

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Nevada Judge Blocks Kalshi From Operating in State

Published

on

Nevada Judge Blocks Kalshi From Operating in State

A Nevada judge has temporarily blocked Kalshi from operating in the state, finding that state authorities are reasonably likely to prevail in a legal fight over whether the company’s event contracts violate Nevada gambling laws.

Carson City District Court Judge Jason Woodbury issued a temporary restraining order on Friday, siding with a Nevada Gaming Control Board motion to block Kalshi from operating in the state for 14 days.

“Prediction markets, to ​the extent they facilitate unlicensed gambling, are illegal in Nevada, and we have a statutory duty to protect the public,” Nevada Gaming Control Board Chair Mike Dreitzer said in a statement to Reuters.

Kalshi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

The court’s decision comes after a federal appeals court on Thursday denied an emergency request by Kalshi to stay a federal court proceeding, allowing Nevada’s regulators to take action.

Nevada bars sports, election and entertainment event contracts

In his order, Judge Woodbury wrote that Kalshi was banned from offering sports, election and entertainment-related event contracts in Nevada.

He added that, in the record of the early stages of the case, such contracts are considered a “sports pool” under Nevada law, which Kalshi was not licensed to operate.

Source: Daniel Wallach

The Nevada Gaming Control Board sued Kalshi last month, asserting the company needed to be licensed by the state in order to offer its sports event contracts.

Kalshi argued that its contracts are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an agency that has backed prediction markets that are fighting in multiple state courts over accusations of offering illegal gambling.

Advertisement

“The question of federal preemption in this regard is nuanced and rapidly evolving,” Judge Woodbury wrote in his motion, rejecting Kalshi’s argument. “At the moment, the balance of convincing legal authority weighs against federal preemption in this context.”

Related: Kalshi CEO fires back against Arizona criminal charges as ‘total overstep’

Judge Woodbury scheduled a hearing on April 3 to consider a motion for preliminary injunction against Kalshi.

Kalshi is being sued, or has launched its own legal action, against multiple states that have accused the prediction market of operating without a state license.

Advertisement

A Massachusetts state judge banned Kalshi from offering sports event contracts earlier this year, which was lifted after Kalshi appealed the decision.

On Tuesday, Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi, with the state’s Attorney General Kris Mayes alleging Kalshi is “running an illegal gambling operation,” which Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour called a “total overstep.”

Magazine: When privacy and AML laws conflict — Crypto projects’ impossible choice