• Perpetual futures allow positions to stay open indefinitely, letting risk build over time.
• Losses increasingly stem from prolonged exposure, not sudden price moves.
• Contract design now plays a bigger role in risk than traditional entry and exit timing.

In 2025, many retail traders realized that futures risk no longer followed a familiar lifecycle.

Positions were no longer defined by clear start and end points, and losses were increasingly shaped by how long exposure was carried rather than by individual market moves.

As non-expiring futures became the default contract type, traders began encountering risk that developed through persistence instead of resolution.

This shift introduced a structural contradiction. Traditional futures contracts expire, forcing positions to be closed or rolled at predetermined intervals.

That process limits how long exposure can accumulate without intervention.

Perpetual futures remove this constraint. By design, they allow positions to remain open indefinitely, provided margin requirements are met.

While this simplifies participation, it also allows risk to build continuously, often without clear signals on price charts.

Educational coverage from Leverage.Trading focused on the structural mechanics of perpetual futures, detailing how the removal of contract expiry allows exposure to persist and why risk can deteriorate over time even when price movement remains subdued.

Risk that accumulates through duration, not volatility

Similar structural patterns have been observed in institutional research on derivatives markets.

For example, the BIS has reported that rising notional exposure and gross market values in derivatives markets reflect how risk can accumulate as positions persist over time, even without dramatic price movements.

As traders adjusted to this structure, several defining properties of non-expiring futures became more widely understood.

These properties did not describe market outcomes, but the conditions under which exposure is allowed to persist:

• Futures contracts without expiry do not force risk to reset
• Exposure remains active until manually reduced or automatically closed
• Structural costs and pressures continue to accrue over time
• Position vulnerability increases through duration, not only volatility
  

Understanding these properties changed how futures risk was assessed.

Instead of evaluating trades solely on entry quality or short-term price expectations, traders increasingly examined whether a position could withstand ongoing structural pressure over extended periods. 

From contract expiry to continuous exposure

This distinction mirrors the contrast between traditional futures markets, such as those operated by the CME Group, and perpetual contract models that dominate crypto derivatives, where contract duration is theoretically unlimited.

The educational explanations focused on how perpetual futures remain aligned with spot prices through continuous adjustment mechanisms, how funding and exposure interact across time, and why prolonged duration can erode position stability even in relatively calm markets.

By considering contract design alongside exposure and time, traders were better equipped to judge whether a futures position was structurally sound before entering it. 

Regulatory bodies such as the ESMA have also warned that prolonged leveraged exposure can magnify losses even when price fluctuations appear modest, reinforcing the importance of understanding contract mechanics rather than relying solely on price signals.

Why futures risk became a time problem

As futures markets expanded and participation broadened, isolated price outcomes became an unreliable way to interpret risk.

Education that clarified how non-expiring contracts carry exposure forward became necessary for understanding why positions often deteriorate gradually rather than failing abruptly.

This emphasis on contract structure reflects a broader shift toward risk-first explanations, a role increasingly associated with Leverage.Trading’s coverage of futures and leveraged markets.

Recognizing that futures risk now accumulates through continuity rather than expiration marked a meaningful change in retail trading behavior.

Explanations that clarify how contract design, exposure, and time interact help traders understand not just how futures positions are opened, but how and why they degrade without a defined endpoint.

Prediction markets are everywhere. But rising participation doesn’t necessarily transform into profits for regular users.

Prediction market aggregator Stand announced today, Feb. 13, that it’s launching a tool to let users automatically take the opposite position of trades across popular platforms — namely from traders that tend to lose. Edward Ridgely, founder of Stand, said in a press release shared with The Defiant that conventional copy‑trading breaks down in prediction markets.

“Many operate multiple wallets and can easily front-run anyone copying their moves. The more interesting edge is in systematically counter-trading the consistent losers,” Ridgely explained.

The new feature on Stand allows counter-bets against systematically bad bettors, and also helps users avoid common pitfalls, such as blindly following traders who perform well in one market but lose their edge in others.

Destined to Lose

It’s worth noting, however, that there’s currently no rigorous research quantifying how profitable either copy‑trading or counter‑trading bots are for users in prediction markets.

What the data does show so far, however, is a clear concentration of profits among a small cohort of systematic participants, leaving the majority of retail traders on the wrong side of outcomes.

About 70 % of traders on Polymarket lose money, according to a December 2025 study by Felix Reichenbach of Technische Universität Berlin and Martin Walther of the German International University.

The researchers analyzed more than 124 million trades and found that only around 30% of accounts ended the period with net gains, meaning 70% of participants were on the losing side.

That gap in profitability has shaped trader behavior. Multiple automated copy‑trading bots like PolyFlash or PolydexLab allow users to mirror the positions of top wallets in real time, usually for subscription fees.

This arms-race-like dynamic has made simple copy-trading almost ineffective, given that the most successful accounts can just front‑run the crowd by reacting to profitable trades faster on-chain.

Prediction Market Mania

Prediction markets exploded in popularity in 2025, kicking off mainstream usage with the U.S. 2024 presidential election. The largest platforms, Polymarket and Kalshi, have pushed into mainstream markets with an accelerating number of high-profile media and sports partnerships with the likes of the NHL, UFC, MLS, as well as Dow Jones, X, and CNBC.

Sports, politics, culture and crypto markets are now attracting hundreds of millions of dollars, underscoring how much capital these platforms are drawing.

Open interest across platforms surged past $1.1 billion earlier this month, while trading volumes also broke new highs, as The Defiant reported earlier.

Stand’s own monthly DEX volumes via its prediction market terminal have been on the rise since it launched in October, reaching $16.44 million in January.

TLDR

• Amazon and Microsoft have entered bear market territory, both down over 20% from recent highs due to concerns about heavy AI spending without matching cloud revenue growth.
• The Magnificent Seven ETF has dropped nearly 11% from its October peak as investors rotate away from big tech stocks.
• Apple fell 5% on Thursday after reports emerged that its planned AI upgrade to Siri may face delays.
• Alphabet is down 6.4% over the past month, while Meta has given up all post-earnings gains and Tesla is down 7.3% year-to-date.
• UBS downgraded the U.S. technology sector to Neutral, citing concerns about AI capital expenditure outpacing current revenue generation.

The Magnificent Seven technology stocks are experiencing a downturn driven by investor concerns about artificial intelligence spending. The Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF closed Thursday in correction territory, down nearly 11% from its late October high.

Amazon and Microsoft have been hit hardest among the group. Both companies have now entered bear market territory, meaning they are down more than 20% from their recent highs. Investors have penalized the two tech giants for ramping up AI infrastructure investments without delivering proportional cloud computing revenue growth.

The selloff has spread beyond the initial leaders. Alphabet, which received praise for its Gemini AI platform and cloud unit growth, has declined 6.4% over the past month. Meta Platforms erased all gains from its recent earnings report, which had highlighted AI-driven revenue growth.

Apple Faces Delay Concerns

Apple experienced its worst single-day performance since April 2025, falling 5% on Thursday. Reports indicated that the company’s planned AI upgrade to its digital assistant Siri may be delayed. The news raised questions about whether new AI features will drive the next iPhone upgrade cycle.

The company also faces headwinds from rising memory chip prices. These cost pressures come as investors wait for clearer signs of AI adoption in Apple’s product lineup.

Broader Market Rotation Underway

UBS recently downgraded the U.S. technology sector to Neutral from its previous rating. Mark Haefele, chief investment officer for global wealth management at UBS, recommended investors diversify across sectors and geographies. He noted that AI value creation is occurring beyond the information technology sector.

Mark Hawtin of Liontrust Asset Management highlighted the rising capital expenditure across the Magnificent Seven companies. He pointed to Amazon as an example, noting that much of the company’s expected cash flow this year could be absorbed by increased capital spending on AI infrastructure.

Other Magnificent Seven Members

Nvidia has traded in a range for several months without breaking out. The chip maker continues to face questions about sustaining its AI-driven growth trajectory. Tesla remains an outlier in the group, moving based on investor sentiment around CEO Elon Musk’s robotaxi and robot deployment plans rather than AI trends.

Tesla is down 7.3% year-to-date. Meta Platforms sits just above the threshold that would place it in bear market territory alongside Amazon and Microsoft.

The collective decline reflects a shift in investor sentiment toward the market’s most concentrated positions. The Magnificent Seven stocks have driven a large portion of market gains over the past two years. Weakness in these companies now weighs on broader market indexes.

Investors are not reacting to weak earnings reports. The concern centers on future growth prospects, specifically how quickly artificial intelligence investments will convert into profits. Companies across the group are spending heavily on AI infrastructure while current revenue from the technology remains limited compared to the capital outlays.

Wall Street analysts maintain that Microsoft has the most upside potential among the group. The average price target for Microsoft stock stands at $593.38 per share, implying 47.7% upside from current levels.

TLDR

• Tesla stock dropped 2.7% Thursday, ending a four-day winning streak, and fell another 0.7% in Friday premarket trading to $414.07
• Historical data shows Tesla stock rises 56% of the time on Friday the 13th versus 52% on regular days, with slightly lower volatility
• Shares remain down 3.3% since reporting better-than-expected Q4 earnings on January 20, despite beating analyst estimates
• Tesla plans to expand its AI-trained robo-taxi service to nine cities in the first half of 2026, currently operating in Austin and testing in San Francisco
• The company expects capital expenditures to exceed $20 billion in 2026, more than double 2025 levels, as it pivots toward AI, robotics, and autonomous vehicles

Tesla stock closed down 2.7% Thursday at $417.50, breaking a four-day winning streak. The EV maker’s shares fell another 0.7% in Friday premarket trading to $414.07.

Tesla, Inc., TSLA

The decline came without Tesla-specific news. Market-wide weakness hit tech stocks particularly hard. The Nasdaq Composite dropped 2% Thursday as AI disruption fears spread across sectors.

Tesla shares have now fallen 3.3% since the company reported fourth-quarter earnings on January 20. The results beat analyst expectations for both revenue and profitability. Yet investors haven’t rewarded the stock with sustained gains.

The muted reaction suggests shareholders want more than good quarterly numbers. They’re waiting for concrete progress on Tesla’s AI initiatives before pushing the stock higher.

Robo-Taxi Expansion Plans

CEO Elon Musk outlined plans to expand Tesla’s AI-trained robo-taxi service to nine cities during the first half of 2026. The service currently operates in Austin, Texas, with testing underway in San Francisco.

The company aims to begin CyberCab production in April. Musk stated he expects Tesla to eventually produce more CyberCabs than all other vehicles combined.

Tesla is also winding down production of the Model S sedan and Model X SUV in coming months. That production space will shift to manufacturing Optimus, the company’s autonomous robot. Musk’s goal is to produce 1 million Optimus units annually.

Fourth-quarter deliveries fell 16% year-over-year to 495,570 vehicles. The drop raised concerns since Tesla remains primarily an automobile company.

Capital Spending Surge

Capital expenditures are expected to top $20 billion in 2026. That’s more than double the 2025 level. The funds will support battery technology development, CyberCab production, the Robotaxi system, and AI projects.

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving Supervised platform will shift to a fully subscription-based model this quarter. The move could generate recurring revenue streams if adoption proves strong.

Despite recent weakness, Tesla stock is up 24% over the past 12 months. Shares gained 1.4% for the week heading into Friday trading.

Friday the 13th has historically been kind to Tesla stock. The company has experienced 27 Friday the 13ths since going public in 2010. Shares rose on 15 of those days, a 56% win rate. Average price movement on Friday the 13th is 2.3%, slightly below the typical 2.5% daily movement.

The stock trades at a forward P/E ratio near 205. Critics argue valuations remain stretched given unproven products like Optimus and CyberCab face uncertain demand. Competition in the EV space continues to intensify as traditional automakers expand electric offerings.

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving subscriptions face a crowded market where consumers already juggle multiple subscription services. Success depends on whether the technology delivers enough value to justify another monthly payment.

• The Avalanche (AVAX) token traded around $8.84 as sell-off pressure kept prices lower.
• Bulls have failed to reclaim the $10 mark and fresh declines may push AVAX to lows of $6.30.
• Sentiment across crypto is largely bearish.

Avalanche (AVAX) is facing mounting resistance just below the $9 mark, where persistent bearish pressure has stifled recent recovery attempts.

The altcoin’s bearish outlook aligns with broader cryptocurrency market vulnerability, and having recoiled off the resistance level, technicals suggest fresh losses are likely.

Avalanche price recap

AVAX has navigated a turbulent path over the past month, with prices falling since hitting highs near $15 on January 14, 2026.

The decline, currently putting the token 39% off its 30-day peak, has come amid significant macroeconomic headwinds and sector-wide profit-taking.

Bears have largely taken control despite Avalanche C-Chain’s recent network milestones, including throughput.

According to Ava Labs’ Martin Eckardt, the chain could hit over 4 million gas per second by next week.

Avalanche C-Chain is adding more throughput by the day. Goal is to hit 3.5m gas per second by the end of today and 4m by the end of next week. If everything goes smoothly we will keep pushing, since all the new supply is getting used immediately pic.twitter.com/NvKSn8nqfA

— Martin Eckardt 🔺 (@martin_eckardt) February 12, 2026

The dip to under $8.30 on February 5, 2026, intensified the sell-off pressure, and bulls find it difficult to break higher.

In the last 24 hours, the token fluctuated between a low of $8.64 and a high of $8.96, with trading volume dipping 7% to 254 million.

The past week’s performance tells a similar story of stalled momentum.

AVAX has seen two green days out of seven, with volatility under 1%, as bears defend the $9 threshold amid extreme fear readings on the Crypto Fear & Greed Index.

Avalanche price prediction: Technical picture

From a technical standpoint, AVAX has broken below a key weekly falling wedge pattern, with $9 acting as an immediate supply zone.

Further short-term bearish bias is from the weekly RSI at 30, with a move to oversold conditions hinting at a potential dip before another bounce on a volume uptick.

A notable leg down will rely on key support clusters at $8.50–$8.25, a zone reinforced by recent lows. If prices breach this defense line, bearish targets include lows of $7.50 and $.6.30.

On the other hand, upside catalysts will include a reclaim of $9.38 and a retest of the short-term max pain projection at the $13.90 resistance.

If indecisiveness resolves in favour of bulls, with the weekly MACD forming a bullish crossover, the next target will be the dynamic resistance mark coinciding with the 50-week moving average (at $19.42 as of writing).

The 200-day moving average is offering resistance at $23.69.

Avalanche’s lack of upside momentum mirrors Bitcoin’s struggle below $70,000. Crypto analysts see the overall market sentiment as still largely bearish, with forecasts for a potential dip to $50k for BTC.

Downside momentum will cascade across altcoins.

As the chart of the Nasdaq 100 index (US Tech 100 mini on FXOpen) shows, bearish sentiment currently dominates the equity market. Yesterday, the technology index fell by around 2%.

Why Is the Nasdaq 100 Declining?

According to media reports, developments linked to the expansion of AI are weighing on the market:

→ Major technology firms are sharply increasing capital expenditure on infrastructure, yet there is little clarity on when these investments will begin to generate returns. For instance, Google issued bonds this week, including 100-year debt.

→ The impact of AI on traditional business models, particularly companies operating in the software sector.

Technical Analysis of the Nasdaq 100 Chart

When analysing Nasdaq 100 price action (US Tech 100 mini on FXOpen) on 2 February, we:

→ identified a resistance zone (highlighted in orange) and marked the key 25,900 resistance level;
→ noted that bears had taken the initiative and suggested they would need to maintain control around the 25,500 area — where the ascending channel had previously been broken.

Since then, bulls managed to break above this zone, but only briefly, testing the 25,900 level. As indicated by the arrow, the move was short-lived and prices soon fell back below, signalling the bulls’ inability to sustain upward momentum.

A sequence of lower highs has allowed a descending trend line (R) to be drawn. If the consolidation that began last evening reflects a temporary balance between supply and demand, a median line can be plotted, with a lower channel boundary beneath it.

Under a continued downward trend scenario, this configuration points to the potential for the Nasdaq 100 to set a fresh low for the year. Whether this outlook materialises will largely depend on US inflation data. The CPI report is due for release today at 16:30 (GMT+3). Traders should be prepared for heightened volatility.

Trade global index CFDs with zero commission and tight spreads (additional fees may apply). Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading index CFDs with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

The DeFi Education Fund (DEF) has urged the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority to adopt a narrow, functional definition of “control” as it finalizes new rules for crypto asset activities.

The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group argued that regulatory obligations should hinge on whether an entity has unilateral authority over user funds or transactions, not merely whether it developed or contributed to a decentralized protocol, in a response to an FCA consultation paper shared exclusively with CoinDesk.

“Control should be the determinative factor” of regulatory scope, DEF said, warning that software developers could otherwise be swept into intermediary-style obligations despite lacking custody or transactional authority.

The submission focuses on an area of the consultation which considers how decentralized finance (DeFi) arrangements should be treated under the U.K.’s emerging crypto regime. DEF supports the FCA’s control-based approach in principle but says it must be tied to concrete operational powers, such as the ability to initiate or block transactions, modify protocol parameters or exclude users.

DEF is an organization focused on informing policymakers and regulators about the benefits of DeFi and has been one of the prominent lobby groups on the road to crypto regulatory frameworks being established in Washington in recent years.

The group also challenged the FCA’s framing of DeFi-specific risks, arguing that cybersecurity vulnerabilities are not unique to blockchain systems and that public blockchains offer transparency advantages in combating illicit finance.

Applying prudential, reporting and platform access requirements designed for centralized trading platforms to non-custodial, automated protocols would be “ill-suited,” DEF said.

The FCA is seeking to bring a broad range of crypto activities within its regulatory perimeter as the U.K. moves toward a comprehensive digital asset framework.

Read More: UK regulators start major consultation on crypto listings, DeFi, and staking

XRP price has struggled to recover in recent days, raising concerns about a potential repeat of the 2021-2022 bear market.

While weakness persists, a recent development involving Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse could shift sentiment.

Sponsored

XRP May Not Imitate The Past

Brad Garlinghouse has joined the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Innovation Advisory Committee. This appointment marks a significant milestone for Ripple and the broader XRP ecosystem. The same regulatory environment that challenged Ripple for nearly five years is now seeking industry input.

For XRP supporters, this signals growing regulatory normalization. Engagement with the CFTC may enhance Ripple’s credibility in US policy discussions. Constructive dialogue could ease uncertainty and reduce the long-term legal overhang that previously weighed on the XRP price.

Recently realized profit-and-loss data show a spike in sales. Some observers compare this activity to early signals seen before the 2022 bear market. However, in 2022, sustained distribution lasted nearly four months. Current selling lacks that duration and intensity, reducing the probability of a prolonged downturn for XRP.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

Sponsored

Selling Exists, But It’s Not a Concern

Exchange balance data suggests selling pressure remains measured. Roughly 100 million XRP moved to exchanges over the past 10 days, valued at $130 million. While notable, the scale does not indicate widespread panic.

Advertisement

In November 2025, 130 million XRP was sold within 72 hours. That episode reflected sharper urgency among holders. Compared to that event, current flows appear controlled and less aggressive.

Sponsored

Moderate selling combined with positive regulatory developments could stabilize sentiment. If distribution does not accelerate, XRP may absorb supply without severe downside extension. Market participants are watching closely for confirmation through on-chain metrics.

XRP Has Room To Recover

The liquidation heatmap shows limited immediate obstacles to recovery. XRP faces its next major resistance between $1.78 and $1.80. This zone represents a potential profit-taking area rather than an immediate structural ceiling.

Absence of dense liquidation clusters below current levels reduces short-term risk of cascading sell-offs. If momentum improves, XRP has room to advance before encountering significant overhead supply. That technical flexibility supports a cautiously constructive outlook.

Advertisement

Sponsored

XRP Price Needs To Bounce Back

XRP trades at $1.35 and is slipping below the $1.36 support level. The next key support lies near $1.27, aligning with the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement. Despite recent weakness, broader factors suggest a balanced risk profile.

Garlinghouse’s CFTC appointment may improve investor confidence. If XRP reclaims $1.51, a recovery rally could unfold. Sustained strength above that threshold may drive price toward the supply zone above $1.76.

However, a breakdown below $1.27 would shift momentum decisively. Panic selling could intensify if support fails. A drop toward $1.11 would invalidate the bullish thesis and extend the current corrective phase.