Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

BTC Slips Amid Iran Flareup

Published

on

Microsoft stock plunges 11% as Bitcoin traders seek refuge amid broader tech selloff

Bitcoin price today opened at $74,335, down 1.6% over 24 hours, Yahoo Finance reported, as the asset absorbed the weekend’s Iran escalation significantly better than oil, which surged over 5%, and European equities, which fell over 1%.

Summary

  • Brent crude surged over 5% and S&P 500 futures fell 0.5%, while Bitcoin dropped only 1.6%, the smallest BTC drawdown relative to oil of the entire Hormuz crisis.
  • Ethereum traded near $2,310, holding well above its post-Islamabad lows near $70,600, supported by nearly $1 billion in ETF inflows recorded last week.
  • The Crypto Fear and Greed Index rose to 29, its highest reading since late January, even as Iran’s IRGC threatened retaliation for the Touska seizure.

Bitcoin (BTC) price today is being closely watched for what it reveals about the structural change in how crypto absorbs Iran war headlines. CoinDesk noted Monday that BTC has “proved more resilient than oil and equities to the latest Iran-related flare-up.” Brent surged over 5%. S&P 500 futures dropped 0.5%. Dow Jones futures fell roughly 450 points. Bitcoin slipped 1.6% to $74,335.

Ethereum traded near $2,310, down less than 1% over 24 hours, holding the level it reclaimed after the April 8 ceasefire announcement. When Iran first closed the Strait of Hormuz at the end of February, Bitcoin dropped into the low $60,000s alongside every other risk asset. The same event replaying now, nearly 50 days into the conflict, produces a fraction of that drawdown.

Advertisement

Last week, Bitcoin spot ETFs attracted nearly $597 million in inflows over two days on ceasefire hopes, according to SoSoValue data. That demand did not evaporate when the ceasefire began unraveling Saturday. Strategy added 34,164 bitcoin for $2.54 billion, its third-largest single purchase on record. The combination of sustained ETF buying and corporate accumulation means Iran headline selling is absorbed before it reaches significant depth in spot markets.

The pattern is visible across the conflict timeline. The February Hormuz closure sent BTC down roughly $15,000. Comparable escalations now produce moves of $3,000 to $4,000. Each successive Iran shock produces a smaller drawdown, reflecting the institutional demand floor that has built continuously through ETF inflows since January 2024.

What the ETF Floor Means for Ethereum

Ethereum at $2,310 is holding above the $2,200 level it reclaimed on the April 8 ceasefire announcement, though it sits below the $2,440 peak briefly reached Friday when Hormuz was declared open. The $130 gap between Friday’s high and Monday’s price represents the ceasefire premium that has since unwound.

Advertisement

The ceasefire breach pattern across six weeks shows that crypto markets price each escalation fast but rarely surrender all prior gains, because traders are simultaneously pricing eventual resolution. Bitcoin’s key support sits between $73,000 and $74,000, where ETF inflows accelerated last week and where institutional buyers are expected to defend spot prices if selling resumes.

The Wednesday Expiry as the Hard Deadline

The April 22 ceasefire expiry is now two days away with no Iranian delegation confirmed for the Pakistan talks. A ceasefire extension or last-minute deal would likely replicate the April 8 template: oil falling 13% and BTC surging to $72,700 within hours of the original announcement.

A full collapse of negotiations with resumed strikes would test whether the institutional demand floor holds below $70,000, the level analysts identified as pre-conflict structural support. Bitcoin’s behavior at that level, whether it holds or breaks, will tell markets whether the floor is genuine or a product of ceasefire-specific sentiment that does not survive a return to open hostilities.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

ZachXBT presses MemeCore over $6B valuation and token supply concentration

Published

on

ZachXBT presses MemeCore over $6B valuation and token supply concentration

On-chain sleuth ZachXBT has raised fresh questions over MemeCore’s M token, urging the project to justify its multibillion-dollar valuation and clarify claims that insiders control more than 90% of the supply.

Summary

  • ZachXBT questions MemeCore’s valuation and asks for proof supporting its multibillion-dollar market cap.
  • Blockchain data shows a large share of M token supply held by a few wallets, including a Binance deposit address.
  • Scrutiny follows the recent RAVE token collapse, with investigators flagging similar price patterns across several tokens.

According to posts on X, on-chain investigator ZachXBT has publicly pressed MemeCore to explain how its M token reached a multibillion-dollar valuation while a large share of supply appears concentrated among a few holders.

“Please provide a single data point to support your $6B mkt cap at a top 20 token and why insiders hold >90% of supply,” ZachXBT wrote on Monday, responding to the project’s claims of building a layer–1 blockchain for the “Meme 2.0 economy.”

Advertisement

The remarks arrive at a time when the token has surged in price, drawing attention to how its market value is being calculated across platforms. CoinMarketCap placed the token at No. 21 with a valuation of $4.33 billion, while CoinGecko ranked it No. 20 at roughly $5.97 billion, pointing to a gap in reported figures across trackers.

Blockchain data has added another layer to the discussion around distribution. Data from Bubblemaps shows that the Binance deposit address is the largest holder, controlling about 41.3% of the supply.

The second-largest wallet, identified as “0x8b8,” holds 50 million M tokens worth around $178 million, accounting for 21.77% of the total supply.

Advertisement

Bubblemaps analyst 0xToolman said the pattern “looks like team holdings,” suggesting that a portion of the supply may not yet be circulating in the open market. No on-chain evidence has been shared so far to confirm the claim that insiders control more than 90% of the token supply, though ZachXBT said he would continue examining the data.

RAVE collapse adds context to fresh scrutiny

The latest questions around MemeCore follow a sharp fallout tied to another token that recently drew attention from the same investigator.

“Other projects with highly questionable price action recently include: SIREN, MYX, COAI, M, PIPPIN, RIVER,” ZachXBT wrote in a separate post over the weekend, adding that he plans to review these tokens to identify potential manipulation.

Rave DAO’s token became a focal point after it surged from $0.25 to nearly $28 within days before losing more than 80% of its value. ZachXBT alleged that the move carried signs of a coordinated pump-and-dump, pointing to concentrated holdings and unusual exchange flows.

Advertisement

RaveDAO has rejected the accusation, maintaining that it was not involved in the price spike or the subsequent crash. Binance and Bitget have both said they are reviewing the situation.

Market data shows the RAVE token has fallen 92% over the past week and was trading above $0.69 as of 12:46 p.m. UTC on Monday, according to CoinMarketCap.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Proposed AI Dividend Would be Funded by Taxes on AI and Paid to US Citizens

Published

on

Proposed AI Dividend Would be Funded by Taxes on AI and Paid to US Citizens

A New York state assemblymember and congressional candidate has proposed an artificial intelligence dividend program for US citizens to address potential job losses stemming from advances in AI technology.

In an X post on Sunday, New York lawmaker Alex Bores outlined a plan to prepare the US and its citizens for the “potential large-scale displacement of human labor by artificial intelligence.”

“Today, I’m proud to announce the AI Dividend, my plan to prepare for the AI economy with direct payments to Americans funded by tax reform that simultaneously incentivizes hiring humans instead of AI,” he said.

Bores’ move comes amid growing concerns that AI could eventually drive mass unemployment. According to a recent Goldman Sachs report, AI adoption has resulted in the loss of about 16,000 jobs per month over the past year.

Advertisement
Alex Bores’ proposed AI dividend program. Source: Alex Bores

The proposed program would be funded through avenues such as a tax on AI use, equity stakes in leading AI companies, and tax reforms to the “treatment of labor and capital.”

Bores is currently touting the policy as part of his run for a seat in Congress, and its progress in getting off the ground may be dependent on the success of his campaign. 

Alongside paying dividends to US citizens, the funds would also go toward investments in “workforce transition, training and education” and establishing oversight and safety infrastructure.

Related: One year under Paul Atkins, SEC’s crypto stance shows break with past

“At its core, the AI Dividend is simple: if AI dramatically increases productivity and concentrates wealth, the American people have a stake in those gains,” the dividend plan read. 

Advertisement

“The AI Dividend is a direct payment program that kicks in when and if AI meaningfully displaces American workers. It is not a punishment for innovation — it is an insurance policy.”

High-profile US tech giants such as Amazon, Meta, Intel and Microsoft have either already laid off thousands of workers or have reportedly planned to, due to efficiencies created by AI.  

However, global investment banking firm Morgan Stanley released a report on April 14 on AI job displacement, noting that the impact on the labor market has been “modest so far.”

Morgan Stanley argued that there has been limited evidence of widespread job losses and that, historically, new waves of technology can help expand employment over time, even as they displace some roles. It did, however, acknowledge that AI could defy this historical precedent.

Magazine: Will the CLARITY Act be good — or bad — for DeFi?

Advertisement