US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are sliding into their longest withdrawal stretch since launch, signaling a shift in how institutions seek Bitcoin exposure through the ETF structure. Data compiled by Farside Investors show another $223 million net outflow on Thursday, pushing the nine-session decline to a record for funds that began trading in 2024. The streak has surpassed the previous eight-session low set in February 2025, though total withdrawals remain below the earlier peak of roughly $3.2 billion during that sell-off period.

The evolving flow pattern fits a broader picture of diverging demand across crypto ETF products. While traditional spot BTC exposure via ETFs continues to see selling pressure, newer strategies and class-focused funds have begun attracting fresh capital, underscoring a nuanced shift in investor preferences as the market contends with macro headwinds and evolving custody and liquidity dynamics.

Key takeaways

• Spot Bitcoin ETFs in the US posted a nine-day outflow streak, with a single-day drain of about $223 million on Thursday, according to Farside Investors.
• BlackRock’s IBIT remains the largest US spot BTC ETF by assets, but it led the pullback with roughly $2.04 billion in cumulative outflows between May 15 and Thursday.
• New entrants like Hyperliquid’s HYPE ETFs continued to attract inflows, surpassing the broader slowdown with cumulative net inflows above $100 million since May 12, per SoSoValue.
• Ethereum spot ETFs extended a separate weakness, sustaining 13 consecutive days of outflows totaling around $694 million, as investors rotate toward newer products.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs: the nine-day drain and what it signals

Among the primary drivers of the recent weakness in US spot Bitcoin ETFs is a persistent outflow trend that has stretched to nine consecutive sessions. The latest reading shows a $223 million net outflow on Thursday, marking the ninth consecutive session of declines and highlighting a continued retreat from the ETF-linked channel for BTC exposure since the start of the month.

Analysts have pointed to a combination of factors behind the retreat: a tempered institutional appetite for BTC via ETFs, ongoing macro uncertainty, and a flight toward different risk-managed or yield-bearing crypto products. The cumulative impact is evident—the total withdrawals from the US spot BTC ETF complex have approached roughly $2.84 billion across the nine-session run. That figure sits below the earlier sell-off trough of about $3.2 billion but nonetheless underscores a meaningful reallocation away from the traditional ETF vehicle for Bitcoin exposure.

Despite the pressure, the aggregate market remains attentive to where demand continues to emerge. The continued outflows in BTC ETFs contrast with pockets of growth in other crypto strategies, painting a market landscape where capital is re-deploying rather than exiting the crypto space altogether. The divergence also mirrors a broader theme: while canonical BTC exposure through ETFs has faced persistent redemptions, investors appear willing to allocate to newer, more specialized or diversified product types that claim to offer distinct risk/return profiles or liquidity nuances.

IBIT: the dominant fund in retreat, but still the largest holder

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) remains the flagship US spot BTC ETF by assets under management, but it has borne a sizable portion of the current outflows. Between May 15 and Thursday, IBIT saw about $2.04 billion in cumulative withdrawals, with a single-day exit of $527.8 million on May 27 marking its second-largest daily outflow on record—just shy of the $528.3 million monthly peak posted on Jan. 30, 2025.

On the holdings side, IBIT continues to carry a dominant share of the US spot BTC ETF ecosystem. Wallet data show that, as of the close of trading on a recent Wednesday, IBIT held approximately 792,000 BTC, representing around 62% of all US-listed spot BTC ETF holdings. The concentration underscores BlackRock’s centrality in the sector, even as outflows weigh on its ETF’s near-term performance.

The dynamic raises questions about concentration risk within the ETF space. While IBIT remains the most significant single-holder, its outsized position means that large, concentrated redemptions can have outsized impact on overall ETF liquidity and price discovery during periods of broad selling pressure. Investors and practitioners will be watching whether new entrants or rebalanced portfolios can absorb the flow and stabilize market pricing in the near term.

HYPE and XRP: inflows diverge from the BTC ETF trend

Against the backdrop of cooling demand for Bitcoin exposure via traditional spot ETFs, a different segment of the market has been attracting interest. Hyperliquid’s HYPE ETFs, a newer entrant in the US-listed spot crypto ETF landscape, have continued to draw capital, with cumulative net inflows surpassing $100 million since their May 12 inception. SoSoValue tracks the daily inflows and notes a steady accumulation of fresh money, signaling investor appetite for products that promise rapid liquidity, flexible exposure, or novel token constructs.

Beyond BTC, other altcoin-focused funds have also reported inflows. In particular, XRP spot ETFs logged steady gains over the same period, adding roughly $120 million in net new money between May 4 and Thursday. The shift toward XRP and similar products highlights a growing investor interest in crypto assets beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum when packaged into regulated ETF formats.

The broader implication is twofold: first, investors are diversifying away from a sole reliance on BTC ETFs for crypto exposure; second, issuers are expanding their product tapes to capture demand for alternative tokens and novel strategies. This evolving ecosystem could shape liquidity patterns in the ETF space for the months to come, especially as market participants weigh regulatory clarity, custody, and tax considerations across a wider array of tokens.

Ether ETFs under pressure as flows turn negative

US-listed spot Ether ETFs have not shared the same resilience a few months ago. They have experienced persistent selling pressure, logging 13 consecutive days of outflows between May 11 and Thursday. The cumulative losses on the Ether ETF side total roughly $694 million over the period examined.

The contrast between BTC ETF flows and Ether ETF flows contributes to a broader re-pricing of crypto exposure in regulated vehicles. While BTC-specific products have faced sustained withdrawals, some investors appear to be experimenting with altcoin-linked strategies or new wrappers that may offer different liquidity and risk profiles. This rotation matters for traders and index designers alike, as it could influence the composition and liquidity of crypto ETF baskets in the near term.

What this means for investors and the road ahead

The current flow environment suggests a market in transition rather than a straight decline in interest for crypto assets via regulated products. The strongest signal is not a blanket loss of faith in BTC or Ethereum, but rather a reallocation toward products that promise differentiated exposures, enhanced liquidity, or targeted token bets like XRP and new thematic ETFs such as HYPE.

For investors, the key takeaway is the importance of understanding product design, custody frameworks, and liquidity sources behind each ETF. The outsized role of IBIT in asset concentration means that its performance will have outsized influence on the overall US spot BTC ETF sector in the near term. At the same time, inflows into HYPE and XRP products indicate there is capital appetite for alternative crypto exposure that can coexist with, but diverge from, BTC-centric narratives.

Regulatory clarity and institutional risk management considerations remain critical factors shaping these flows. As authorities refine guidance around custody, valuation, and surveillance, ETF issuers may adjust product features to align with evolving risk tolerances. In the meantime, market participants will likely keep close track of daily inflows and outflows across each ETF line to gauge whether the current rotation constitutes a longer-term trend or a temporary reallocation as investors reassess risk in a volatile macro environment.

The coming weeks should reveal whether demand for BTC exposure via ETFs stabilizes or whether inflows for newer products like HYPE and XRP-based funds gain momentum at the expense of legacy BTC ETFs. Investors should monitor ongoing fund flow data, liquidity metrics, and the relative performance of these vehicles against broader crypto market moves and macro indicators to determine where capital might settle next.

As broader market dynamics unfold, watchers will also want to see if ETH-related exposure regains traction or remains a laggard relative to alternative token-focused ETFs. The picture that emerges will influence asset allocation conversations, risk management frameworks, and the pace at which regulated crypto funds can evolve to reflect market realities.

Next steps for participants include watching daily inflow metrics for HYPE and XRP funds, tracking changes in IBIT’s share of total spot BTC ETF assets, and assessing whether ETH ETF outflows abate in the absence of a larger shift toward Bitcoin or XRP products. With regulatory and liquidity factors still in flux, the path for US-listed crypto ETFs remains nuanced—offering both opportunities and caveats for investors seeking regulated, exchange-traded crypto exposure.

Alex Mashinsky, the former Celsius Network chief executive, has filed a motion in the Southern District of New York seeking to vacate his 144-month sentence for commodities and securities fraud. The pro se filing—submitted after Mashinsky announced on May 5 that he would proceed without counsel—asks the court to overturn the sentence imposed by Judge John Koeltl in May 2025. The move comes as part of ongoing post-conviction proceedings tied to Celsius’s 2022 bankruptcy and the broader collapse of the crypto lending sector amid the FTX crisis.

In the petition, Mashinsky contends that he received ineffective representation and that the record contains “fruit of the poisonous tree” material—evidence tainted by authorities’ alleged misconduct. He states that his counsels stopped communicating with him, prompting the pro se reply he filed directly with the court. The motion to vacate underscores the defendant’s effort to challenge both the quality of legal representation and the legitimacy of the underlying proceedings.

According to court documents summarized by Cointelegraph, Mashinsky also advances claims tied to the broader Crypto Valley upheaval, arguing that former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried sought to destroy Celsius and that this dynamic contributed to market manipulation surrounding Celsius’s CEL token on the FTX exchange. He submitted text messages with Celsius’s former chief revenue officer, Roni Cohen-Pavon, alleging a hostile takeover attempt at the platform and urging the court to reject any FTX-related trust arrangements. The filing notes Celsius filed for bankruptcy in 2022 as bears and insolvencies ravaged the crypto lending sector, a context that continued through the FTX collapse and related regulatory actions.

The Celsius case has been subject to parallel regulatory and criminal scrutiny. Mashinsky and Cohen-Pavon were indicted in July 2023 on charges including fraud and market manipulation; both subsequently pleaded guilty. Cohen-Pavon was sentenced to time served in September 2023 after prosecutors cited substantial assistance, including willingness to testify against Mashinsky. The court’s judgments against Celsius executives were issued against a backdrop in which several crypto firms faced bankruptcy and heightened regulatory enforcement as U.S. authorities escalated their actions against misrepresentation, manipulation, and other illicit market activities within crypto markets.

Among the ongoing financial penalties, Mashinsky was ordered to forfeit $48 million as part of a 2025 criminal settlement. He also agreed to a $10 million payment as part of a separate regulatory settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission tied to a largely suspended $4.72 billion monetary judgment. Cohen-Pavon, who was sentenced to time served, agreed to pay more than $1 million and a $40,000 fine in connection with his guilty plea. The outcomes illustrate the interplay between criminal penalties and civil or administrative remedies in high-profile crypto compliance cases.

Key takeaways

• Alex Mashinsky has filed a pro se motion in the SDNY to vacate his 144-month sentence for commodities and securities fraud, arguing ineffective counsel and tainted evidence.
• The filing cites alleged interference by authorities and invokes the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, asserting that the misconduct affected the case’s integrity.
• Mashedinsky’s submission reiterates claims linking FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried to efforts against Celsius and to market manipulation surrounding Celsius’s CEL token on the FTX exchange.
• Former Celsius executive Roni Cohen-Pavon is central to the related legal narrative, with text-message evidence described as indicating a hostile takeover attempt and the broader disputes that surrounded Celsius’s business prospects.
• Criminal and regulatory penalties continue to shape the Celsius matter: Mashinsky faces forfeiture and FTC-related judgments, while Cohen-Pavon faced a time-served sentence and nominal civil penalties.

Procedural posture and grounds for vacatur

The core of Mashinsky’s motion rests on two arguments: ineffective assistance of counsel and the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which contends that tainted evidence should not be used to sustain a conviction. The defendant elected to proceed without counsel after indicating his intention to litigate pro se, a move that US courts scrutinize carefully given the complexity of securities and commodities regulation, as well as the procedural intricacies of criminal sentencing.

While the court has not indicated a ruling on the vacatur motion, the filing itself underscores the ongoing legal contest surrounding Mashinsky’s conviction and sentence. The 12-year term, set in May 2025 by Judge Koeltl, remains a focal point of the case as Mashinsky seeks to challenge both the sentence and the underlying conduct that led to the conviction.

FTX disruption, internal Celsius dynamics, and regulatory context

The motion’s referenced material ties Mashinsky’s defense strategy to a broader narrative: the fall of Celsius amid the 2022 crypto downturn and the later collapse of FTX. The docket cites communications suggesting that Sam Bankman-Fried’s actions or intentions may have influenced Celsius’s market environment, including CEL token trading on the FTX platform. While these assertions are contested and central to Mashinsky’s position, they must be weighed against the court’s assessment of the facts and applicable law in a sentencing context.

Regulatory and enforcement considerations loom large in the Celsius saga. The indictments of Mashinsky and Cohen-Pavon in 2023, their guilty pleas, and the subsequent penalties illuminate how US authorities are pursuing cases of misrepresentation, manipulation, and other alleged improprieties in crypto-lending and related platforms. The outcomes contribute to a growing body of precedent on the liability of corporate leaders in crypto firms, the credibility of disclosures, and the steps agencies take to deter and remedy market abuses in crypto markets.

From a policy perspective, the matter intersects with broader enforcement themes—ranging from the DOJ’s crypto-related prosecutions to CFTC and SEC oversight of commodities and securities aspects of crypto tokens and offerings. The Celsius proceedings also sit against a global regulatory backdrop where frameworks such as MiCA in the European Union influence cross-border considerations, licensing regimes, and the alignment of crypto lending activities with consumer protection standards and anti-money-laundering (AML) requirements. The case thus offers material context for institutions assessing regulatory risk, governance standards, and the sufficiency of internal controls in asset-backed and algorithmic finance ventures.

Regulatory outcomes and corporate accountability

The financial penalties tied to the Celsius executives—Mashinsky’s $48 million forfeiture and the roughly $10 million related to FTC settlement terms in connection with a largely suspended $4.72 billion judgment—illustrate the multilayered enforcement approach in this space. Cohen-Pavon’s time-served sentence, along with more than $1 million in payments and a $40,000 fine, demonstrates that prosecutors and regulators have continued to pursue both criminal accountability and civil remedies for senior executives involved in crypto market manipulation or misrepresentation schemes.

These developments bear on how exchanges, lenders, and other crypto firms manage compliance risk, disclosures, and internal governance. Institutions operating in or alongside crypto markets should monitor ongoing judicial developments, as vacatur motions and related post-conviction relief efforts can shape the interpretation of corporate responsibility, the treatment of evidence, and the standards applied to future enforcement actions. The evolving landscape also informs licensing considerations, supervisory expectations, and collaboration between federal agencies in cross-border contexts, where enforceability and recognition of judgments may vary.

Closing perspective

The Mashinsky case remains an active legal matter with a pending vacatur petition that could influence sentencing outcomes and the enforcement posture for senior executives in the crypto sector. As regulators continue to sharpen their toolkit for addressing misrepresentations, manipulation, and governance failures, observers should watch for how the court weighs ineffective counsel claims, the admissibility and impact of contested evidence, and any subsequent motions that could reshape the balance between punishment and relief in high-profile crypto cases.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon on Friday yet again sharply criticized Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and warned that the latest version of the Clarity Act could ultimately fail if lawmakers do not address concerns from traditional banks over stablecoin regulation.

In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business, Dimon appeared frustrated by the direction of the debate around stablecoins and digital asset legislation. Asked whether he was satisfied with the current draft of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the crypto market structure bill that will formalize rules around how federal securities and commodities regulators oversee crypto, Dimon said he was not.

“No, because it allows them to effectively pay interest on deposits, stablecoins or something like that, without protection that they should have,” Dimon said. “The banks will not accept it that way. … I’m not worried about stablecoins but if it happened I’m telling you I will have nothing to do with it and it will eventually blow up.”

The comments come amid a growing divide between the banking industry and crypto firms as lawmakers prepare for a key markup process that will determine whether the Clarity Act can advance through Congress. Lawmakers are expected to continue negotiating provisions governing stablecoin issuers, consumer protections, reserve requirements and whether crypto companies should be permitted to offer yield-bearing products that resemble traditional bank accounts.

For the legislation to ultimately become law, it must clear the full Senate and House of Representatives, and be signed by President Donald Trump. The Senate Banking Committee advanced its version of the bill through a markup earlier this month, and the Senate Agriculture Committee advanced its own version earlier this year. At the moment, representatives from the two committees are merging the bills, a key step before the full Senate can take a look.

At the center of the dispute which dragged out the Banking Committee’s process is the question of stablecoin rewards. Armstrong and Coinbase have argued that traditional banks are pushing lawmakers to curb stablecoin rewards programs, which function similarly to high-yield interest accounts and could threaten banks’ deposit-based business models. Banking executives, meanwhile, contend that firms offering bank-like products should face comparable oversight and regulatory obligations.

The disagreement has become one of the primary reasons the legislation has stalled in Washington and failed to gain sufficient momentum earlier this year, despite broad bipartisan interest in creating a regulatory framework for digital assets.

Tensions between Armstrong and Wall Street executives have been building for months. During meetings at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, Dimon told Armstrong, “You are full of s—,” according to people familiar with the exchange who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan reportedly dismissed Armstrong’s arguments, telling him, “If you want to be a bank, just be a bank.” Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf declined to engage, while Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser spent less than a minute with him, according to that prior reporting.

Coinbase and JPMorgan did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

Alex Mashinsky, the former CEO of defunct cryptocurrency lending platform Celsius, has filed a motion in a New York court to vacate his 12-year sentence for fraud and market manipulation. 

In a Tuesday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mashinsky filed a motion to vacate his 144-month sentence, set by Judge John Koeltl in May 2025. The former Celsius CEO filed the paperwork without additional counsel, having announced on May 5 that he would be proceeding pro se in his case.

Although Mashinsky pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and securities fraud related to “manipulative and deceptive devices,” he filed a motion to vacate on the grounds that he had ineffective counsel and “fruit of [the] poisinous [sic] tree,” a legal doctrine referring to evidence tainted by authorities’ misconduct.

“I did not discharge my counsel at this time but they stopped communication with me so I had no choice but to file my reply directly with the court,” said Mashinsky.

Source: Courtlistener

In documents attached to his motion to vacate, Mashinsky said former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried intended to “destroy Celsius,” blaming him for much of the market manipulation of the network’s CEL tokens on the crypto exchange. He asked that the judge deny any FTX trust request, and provided text messages with Celsius’ former chief revenue officer Roni Cohen-Pavon, claiming he had attempted a “hostile takeover” of the platform. 

Celsius filed for bankruptcy in 2022 amid a market downturn that saw the collapse of many crypto exchanges, including FTX. US authorities indicted Mashinsky and Cohen-Pavon in July 2023 on charges related to fraud and market manipulation, with both men later pleading guilty.

Related: Acting AG Todd Blanche confirms ‘code is not a crime’ in DOJ pivot

Cohen-Pavon was sentenced to time served after pleading guilty in September 2023, with prosecutors citing his “substantial assistance” to the government, including being prepared to testify against Mashinsky. His sentencing followed the court officially closing the criminal cases against the Celsius executives.

Alex Mashinsky at the Bitcoin 2021 conference in Miami. Source: Cointelegraph

Financial penalties against Celsius execs

Although the court may still consider Mashinsky’s motion to vacate, the former CEO was already ordered to pay $48 million as part of a forfeiture in his criminal case settled in 2025. He also agreed to pay $10 million as part of a settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission in a mostly suspended $4.72 billion monetary judgment.

Cohen-Pavon, sentenced to time served, agreed to pay more than $1 million and a $40,000 fine.

Magazine: HYPE chases $100 target, ETH could dump below $1800: Market Moves

The Sui layer-1 blockchain experienced another disruption on Friday, causing a “network stall” that temporarily halted block production, before normal activity resumed, according to the Sui team.

Network activity “may be paused,” the Sui team said. The network disruption lasted for over three hours and 30 minutes at the time of publication, according to the Sui network’s uptime dashboard.

Sui’s mainnet validators experienced disruptions on both Thursday and Friday. Source: Sui

The last block before the disruption was produced at about 11:51 UTC on Friday, according to the Suiscan block explorer. Network activity on the Sui mainnet resumed at about 3:30 UTC. The Sui team said in an update:

“Both today’s and yesterday’s halts are due to the interaction of the 1.72 release, which introduced address balances and gas charging logic. Yesterday’s implemented fix was an interim measure designed to restore functionality to the network.”

The interim fix had a “low probability” of causing a network disruption, and the long-term software fix has now been implemented by a majority of Sui validators. 

Source: Sui

The incident follows several major disruptions and network outages, including Thursday’s outage, which caused a nearly six-hour outage due to a “crash bug in the gas charging logic,” according to the team. The crash was the second major network disruption in 2026.

Related: SUI spikes 50% amid staking moves, zero-fee stablecoins, privacy push

The Sui network went down in January due to a consensus bug

In January, the network went offline for over six hours, halting block production due to a consensus bug. Validators submitted conflicting transactions to the protocol’s checkpoint mechanism, and the network was unable to reach the necessary threshold for consensus, according to the post-mortem report.

Source: Sui

January’s disruption was not caused by network congestion, user funds were “never at risk,” and no “certified transactions” were rolled back, the Sui team said at the time.

“The issue was detected and contained by Sui’s checkpoint certification and quarantine mechanisms, which prevented any user-visible fork at the cost of halting progress,” according to the post-mortem report.

High-throughput smart contract blockchain networks feature several layers, including data availability, transaction execution and validator consensus, which introduce more potential points of failure.

However, network outages in crypto also impact centralized service providers, including exchanges, which have fewer coordination challenges than decentralized blockchain networks.

In May, crypto exchange Coinbase suffered a temporary service disruption due to an Amazon Web Services (AWS) outage, forcing it to switch markets to an “auction” mode before restoring full service.

Magazine: AI-driven hacks could kill DeFi — unless projects act now

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has said banks will oppose the Clarity Act unless lawmakers change provisions that he says give crypto firms bank-like powers without bank-level safeguards.

Fox Business reported that Dimon made the comments on Friday during an interview focused on pending legislation on crypto market structure. The JPMorgan chief said the bill, as written, would allow crypto companies to offer rewards tied to stablecoins or similar products without protections attached to traditional banking.

Dimon says banks reject the current crypto bill

According to Jamie Dimon, the Clarity Act does not go far enough on legal protections, anti-money laundering rules, and Bank Secrecy Act requirements. He said banks would not accept the legislation in its current form because it creates risks around products that resemble deposits.

The dispute has pitted banks and crypto companies against each other in one of Washington’s most closely watched digital asset debates. Banks argue that stablecoin rewards could pull customer money away from regulated deposits. Crypto firms, including Coinbase, have pushed back against restrictions that would limit customer incentives on dollar-linked tokens.

Dimon told Fox Business that firms offering products with deposit-like features should face rules comparable to banks. He said the government must handle stablecoin regulation carefully because poor design could create serious problems later.

Coinbase lobbying draws sharp attack

During the same interview, Jamie Dimon criticized Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong over the exchange’s political spending. Dimon claimed Armstrong has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in Washington to help move the legislation forward.

“No one is going to bow down to this guy,” Dimon said in the interview, before using an expletive to describe Armstrong. Fox Business noted that Dimon made similar comments about the Coinbase executive earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The fight comes as the Clarity Act faces pressure from several directions. Crypto industry groups want clear rules for digital assets, while banks want tighter limits on stablecoin-related rewards. The bill also faces scrutiny due to President Donald Trump’s crypto interests and the approaching 2026 midterm elections.

Stablecoins move closer to bank deposits

As previously reported by crypto.news, SoFi Technologies launched SoFiUSD, which the company described as the first stablecoin issued by a U.S. national bank. The launch came alongside an earnings beat that helped lift short-term optimism in SOFI shares.

SoFi has longer-term plans for tokenized deposits that could offer interest and FDIC insurance. Those plans show how stablecoin products and bank deposit products are beginning to overlap in practice.

For banks such as JPMorgan, that overlap sits at the center of the current fight. Dimon said he supports blockchain technology and sees stablecoins as useful for cross-border payments. However, he told Fox Business that stablecoin rules must include proper safeguards before Congress moves ahead.

JPMorgan keeps acquisition option open

Away from the crypto bill, Jamie Dimon also said JPMorgan could spend between $10 billion and $20 billion on an acquisition if the right opportunity appears. He made the comments on Wednesday during a fireside chat at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference.

According to Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan may have room to buy another company over the next two years. His comments came as the bank prepares to fight crypto legislation that, in his view, could change how financial firms compete for customer deposits.

SPACEX, a popular perpetual futures contract (perp) on the Hyperliquid leveraged crypto exchange that is loosely connected to the valuation of Elon Musk’s rocket company, lost nearly half its value within 7 minutes yesterday, then recovered almost all of that loss 10 minutes later.

Overnight, some crypto influencers tried to link the flash-crash to the Blue Origin New Glenn explosion that lit up Cape Canaveral later that night. The timing, however, did not align.

The SpaceX market on Hyperliquid is deployed by Ventuals, a pre-IPO perpetuals protocol. Perps are allegedly priced at one billionth of the valuation of the private company.

At 11:37 AM New York time and prior, the unofficial SpaceX contract traded near $2,286, implying a valuation of $2.3 trillion. By 11:44 AM, the perp had crashed to $1,299.10. By 11:54 AM it had snapped back to $2,225.30. 

The perp is denominated in USDH, Hyperliquid’s own stablecoin.

A similar SpaceX Ventuals perp listed on BingX denominated in USDT, the world’s most popular stablecoin, dropped harder. It was trading at $2,524.70 at 11:37 AM, then collapsed to $1,269.70 seven minutes later, before recovering to $2,208.40 by 11:54 AM.

Ventuals acknowledges its SPACEX flash-crash

Ventuals acknowledged the incident on X about an hour after the bottom. “The offchain data provider used as a component of the oracle price returned incorrect data, which caused the market’s oracle and mark price to move dramatically.” 

According to Ventuals’ documentation, the name of that provider is Notice, whose possibly corrected chart does not contain the flash-crash data that Ventuals used today.

Ventuals said it had taken steps to prevent recurrence across its pre-IPO perps and was evaluating compensation. Hours later, it vowed to pay for its mistake. “Quick update – affected users will be compensated within the next 48 hours.”

By Hyperliquid’s own data, 1,393 positions held by about 400 wallets were force-liquidated for $1.51 million in notional value.

The Blue Origin coincidence that wasn’t

The Hyperliquid-listed SPACEX perpetual contract bottomed at 11:44 AM New York time. In contrast, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket exploded around 9:00 PM New York time, during a hot-fire test. More than nine hours separated the two events.

Jeff Bezos posted on X late that night. “It’s too early to know the root cause but we’re already working to find it. Very rough day, but we’ll rebuild whatever needs rebuilding and get back to flying. It’s worth it.”

The two events share a date and a corporate-rival framing, but little else.