StarkWare and Sui launched new privacy features this week that allow users to conceal transaction data without fully sacrificing auditability or regulatory oversight.

StarkWare said Tuesday that it launched STRK20, a privacy framework for ERC-20 tokens on Starknet that allows users to shield balances and transaction data while providing mechanisms for disclosure under certain circumstances.

Eli Ben-Sasson, co-founder and CEO of StarkWare, told Cointelegraph that “compliance-ready” does not mean STRK20 itself determines legal compliance or guarantees regulatory approval. He said the framework is built around a risk-based model in which privacy is conditional rather than absolute, with screening applied at entry into the shielded pool and viewing-key-based disclosure available under lawful request.

Separately, Sui launched a public beta for confidential transfers, a feature that conceals transaction amounts while allowing authorized parties to access information when required for auditing or compliance purposes.

The launches reflect a broader shift in crypto privacy away from complete anonymity and toward models favored by institutions that incorporate audit and disclosure mechanisms.

Sui launches confidential transfers. Source: Sui

Compliance shift in privacy systems

In recent weeks, privacy-focused projects have been forced to address questions around both oversight and reliability.

Zama, a blockchain privacy project, said on June 2 that it would accelerate its compliance roadmap. The announcement came after a court-ordered freeze of about $12.5 million in USDC held in its confidential USDC wrapper, which was later lifted following resolution of the underlying legal request.

The project subsequently highlighted its disclosure mechanisms and approach to regulatory coordination for encrypted transactions.

Related: Canton, ZKsync clash over how blockchains enforce rules

The broader push also comes amid renewed scrutiny of one of the crypto industry’s most prominent privacy projects after Zcash disclosed a bug that raised concerns that counterfeit tokens could have been created undetected.

Zcash developers said the vulnerability was addressed through an emergency network upgrade completed in early June, with no confirmed evidence of exploitation, though the nature of shielded pools makes it difficult to fully reconstruct transaction history after vulnerabilities are disclosed.

Market Moves: Why is Ethereum Foundation selling? BTC futures warning signs

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Bitcoin’s BTC$61,318.62 recent weakness is being driven by softer capital flows rather than concerns over quantum computing or other risks, according to Wall Street broker Bernstein.

Growing concerns that future quantum computers could eventually break the cryptography underpinning Bitcoin have become a recurring topic in crypto markets, especially after recent research from Google suggested the computational resources needed to crack key blockchain security systems may be far lower than previously thought.

Bitcoin treasury companies and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have attracted about $12 billion of inflows this year, down sharply from $60 billion in 2025, the broker said. ETFs have seen roughly $2.6 billion of net outflows from a $75 billion asset base, with most new demand coming from corporate buyers led by Strategy (MSTR).

Bernstein analysts attributed the slowdown largely to retail investors chasing AI-related opportunities, noting that the strongest-performing areas of crypto this year have been tied to tokenized equities and commodities.

“Bitcoin still may offer some diversification from the unusual singular AI driven momentum markets we have experienced this year,” analysts led by Gautam Chhugani wrote in the Monday report.

Still, the analysts views the modest scale of ETF outflows as encouraging, arguing that bitcoin ownership is becoming less dependent on momentum-driven retail flows.

Bitcoin has endured a difficult stretch in recent months, falling from roughly $82,000 in early May to around $63,000 today, a decline of more than 20%. The cryptocurrency briefly dropped below $60,000 last week, its lowest level since October 2024, and remains about 50% below its October 2025 record high near $126,000.

Persistent ETF outflows, weakening investor risk appetite and a shift in capital toward AI-related stocks and high-profile equity offerings have been cited as key drivers of the downturn.

Unlike previous cycles dominated by retail traders, today’s market includes ETFs, corporate treasuries, wealth-management platforms, pension funds and sovereign investors, creating a more diversified and resilient ownership base, the analysts argued.

While bitcoin has lacked the excitement of AI trades this year, Bernstein argued that “being boring” does not weaken its long-term store-of-value thesis and may ultimately reflect a healthier market structure.

Spot bitcoin ETF flows explain roughly 45% of weekly BTC price moves and remain the best gauge of investor adoption, Citi said in a report last week.

The world’s largest cryptocurrency was trading around $62,600 at publication time.

Read more: Bitcoin’s dearth of fresh investors matters more than Strategy’s sale, Citi says

The European Union’s approach to crypto regulation is shifting toward a broader digital asset framework, with calls to include real-world assets and tokenization rather than directing regulatory energy solely at decentralized finance (DeFi) through a second MiCA reboot. The European Commission’s MiCA review is in motion, having launched a public consultation in May and inviting feedback through Aug. 31.

“I do not believe that [MiCA] is outdated now. That’s my personal opinion, but it does not matter. That’s why we have this consultation,” said Peter Kerstens, a MiCA architect at the European Commission, during a fireside chat at WAIB Summit Monaco 2026. He emphasized that the input gathered during the consultation will help shape the bloc’s next regulatory steps.

As a reminder, MiCA is undergoing its review ahead of a potential second iteration. The public consultation comes as the bloc grapples with a shifting landscape for crypto firms and products. Separately, MiCA is approaching a critical deadline: the end of its transitional period on July 1, after which crypto asset service providers must hold a MiCA license to serve EU clients or halt operations there.

Key takeaways

• EU’s MiCA reform is reframing focus toward a broad digital asset framework, including real-world assets and tokenization, not just DeFi.
• The Commission’s public consultation on MiCA runs through Aug. 31, shaping the next regulatory steps while MiCA’s transitional period ends on July 1.
• DeFi is acknowledged as a risk area in the consultation, but one MiCA architect argues that regulating decentralized networks presents fundamental challenges because laws target entities, not networks.
• New research from the European Central Bank questions whether some governance models are truly decentralized, potentially impacting how DAOs fit within MiCA’s scope.

A broader regulatory horizon beyond DeFi

Kerstens framed the MiCA review as an opportunity to recalibrate the EU’s approach to digital assets, moving beyond a narrow DeFi focus. The Commission has signaled that the consultation will help determine whether MiCA should be complemented—or even supplanted—by a wider framework capable of addressing tokenization of real-world assets and other innovations in the asset class. The current consultation documents outline a range of “emerging risk areas,” including DeFi, but they do not obligate a redesign of MiCA in its current form. The overarching aim, Krstens suggested, is to maintain clear, pan-EU rules that cover the diverse realities of crypto markets while avoiding unnecessary fragmentation across member states.

The debate underscores a broader regulatory objective: ensuring investor protection, market integrity, and financial stability as the EU digital asset ecosystem evolves. While MiCA was designed to provide a comprehensive framework for crypto assets, the evolving landscape—with tokenized securities, real-world assets, and cross-border use cases—presents a case for a more expansive regime that can harmonize novel tokens with existing financial infrastructure.

DeFi scrutiny without a fixed MiCA target

Despite including DeFi as an area of potential risk in the current consultation, Kerstens argued that regulating DeFi bodies would be difficult under existing legal doctrines. Laws are generally crafted to regulate people and organizations, not the technical architectures that enable networks to operate. He described DeFi as a “movement” lacking centralized representation, which complicates the creation of traditional regulatory levers aimed at “entities.”

“I don’t see what the problem is. And if there is no problem, why should it be regulated?”

The tension here reflects a broader regulatory challenge: how to address operational and systemic risks associated with decentralized protocols that do not neatly fit into a framework designed for centralized service providers. While DeFi’s risk profile—ranging from capital efficiency to governance and transparency—remains on regulators’ radar, the path to regulation may require novel legal concepts that can address networks as opposed to conventional intermediaries.

DAOs under the regulatory microscope

Meanwhile, the ECB has explored the question of whether governance models used by some decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) can truly be considered decentralized enough to fall outside MiCA. A March working paper highlighted that in prominent protocols, governance tokens are highly concentrated: in top projects such as Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap, the top 100 holders controlled more than 80% of the governance token supply in snapshots from late 2022 and mid-2023. The authors argued these dynamics raise questions about the degree of decentralization and whether such structures should be treated as “fully decentralized” services outside MiCA’s scope.

These findings contribute to a broader debate about which organizational forms deserve lighter regulatory treatment and which should be encompassed by comprehensive asset regulation. The ECB’s analysis does not settle the issue, but it adds a data-driven perspective to the discussion about how to categorize DAOs under EU rules.

For readers tracking regulatory progress, the ECB’s examination complements the Commission’s MiCA review by highlighting practical realities in token governance and the potential misalignment between governance architecture and regulatory expectations. The ongoing consultation will reflect those tensions as policymakers weigh how to integrate DAOs and other decentralized structures into a coherent EU framework.

What comes next for EU crypto regulation?

With July 1 looming for MiCA’s transitional period and Aug. 31 set as the consultation deadline, the EU faces a pivotal moment in harmonizing its approach to crypto markets. The dialogue between regulators and industry participants will shape whether MiCA evolves into a more expansive framework or remains a specialized regime with targeted updates. The central question remains: can the EU craft rules that protect consumers and investors while accommodating rapid innovation in tokenization and real-world asset integration?

Readers should watch for the Commission’s subsequent policy steps after the consultation closes, including potential legislative proposals and alignment with cross-border financial rules. As the EU navigates the balance between protection and innovation, the outcome will likely influence how other jurisdictions approach DeFi, DAOs, and tokenized assets in the years ahead.

The European Commission’s MiCA review and related ECB insights together outline a regulatory arc that could redefine Europe’s crypto rulebook—one that weighs broad asset-tokenization playbooks against the practical realities of decentralized technology.

More than 200 crypto companies and organizations are pressing the US Senate to pass the CLARITY Act, warning that protracted delays could cause the measure to miss a key legislative window. A letter circulated Monday by Stand With Crypto urged Senate leadership to advance the bill to the floor without delay, arguing that the Senate Banking Committee’s recent bipartisan vote built momentum for durable market-structure legislation.

The CLARITY Act would set out the regulatory framework for crypto in the United States by detailing how the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should oversee digital assets. Negotiations have stretched over several months as lawmakers and industry participants debated provisions—an impasse that has repeatedly stalled movement on the bill despite late-year opportunities.

In the letter, the coalition—led by Stand With Crypto along with The Digital Chamber, the Blockchain Association, and the Crypto Council for Innovation—asserted that passage would protect American jobs, sustain investment, and anchor the United States as a global leader in digital-asset innovation. The authors framed digital asset markets as a global and rapidly evolving component of financial infrastructure, stressing that policy choices will determine whether the United States remains at the forefront of innovation or cedes ground to offshore jurisdictions with less transparency and accountability.

“Digital asset markets are global, growing, and central to the future of financial infrastructure,” the letter stated. “The question before Congress is whether that future will be built in the United States — under U.S. law, U.S. oversight, and American values — or continue moving to offshore jurisdictions with less transparency, weaker consumer protections, and limited accountability.”

The call to action follows a broader dispute over two contentious policy levers: banning platforms from offering stablecoin yields, a view favored by some banking groups, and extending protections for developers of non-custodial, decentralized crypto platforms, a position championed by many in the crypto industry. Negotiations have thus far attempted to balance consumer protection, regulatory clarity, and innovation incentives, with unsettled disagreements delaying consensus on the legislation’s final form.

The letter’s signatories stressed that the bill, if enacted, would anchor market activities and employment within the United States while supporting a framework for oversight aligned with American values and standards. The coalition’s stance aligns with a longer-standing objective to provide clear jurisdictional guidance for market participants amid a shifting global regulatory landscape. As noted in coverage tied to the policy debate, the CLARITY Act remains central to ongoing questions about how the U.S. should regulate digital assets in relation to existing securities and commodities laws.

Related: Crypto’s CLARITY Act faces partisan fight over ethics on Senate floor

Key takeaways

• Over 200 crypto companies and organizations urged the Senate to advance the CLARITY Act, arguing that delay risks losing a critical legislative window.
• The act would define how the SEC and CFTC regulate digital assets, seeking to clarify regulatory oversight amid ongoing industry debates.
• The bill has stalled multiple times this year, with no confirmed floor schedule ahead of the midterm elections, despite bipartisan work in the Senate Banking Committee.
• Stakeholder positions diverge on two core policy questions: banning stablecoin-yield platforms and extending protections for DeFi developers, creating ongoing negotiations on the bill’s scope and safeguards.
• Analysts and industry participants warn that passage before the August recess is essential to avoid narrowing windows for legislative action; odds have shifted as time runs short.

Legislative momentum and timing

The CLARITY Act has enjoyed bipartisan attention in the Senate, particularly after the Banking Committee’s vote last month. Still, lawmakers have not scheduled floor time for the measure ahead of the November midterm elections, raising questions about whether the bill can clear the chamber within the current cycle. Analysts have underscored that any further delay risks constricting the window for passage, especially given the political calendar and competing priorities.

Galaxy Digital acknowledged the time-sensitive nature of the process, noting a downgrade in the odds of passage within 2026. In a separate assessment, the firm reported that the likelihood stood at 60%—down from 75%—with the expectation that the bill would need to pass before the August recess to avoid a protracted delay that could render it moot in practice. This assessment reflects the strategic constraint that negotiations must be resolved and reconciled before lawmakers depart for the recess period.

Policy content, ethics, and illicit finance considerations

Two central policy dimensions have shaped the ongoing discussions. First, banking groups have pressured for provisions that would bar certain crypto activities—specifically, platforms offering stablecoin yields—from circumventing traditional banking and regulatory safeguards. Second, the crypto industry has pressed for protections that would shield developers and operators of decentralized platforms from overbroad or misapplied enforcement actions. These areas have become focal points in the fight to secure broad bipartisan support and the 60 votes needed to advance the bill on the Senate floor without obstruction.

Legislators, including Senator Cynthia Lummis, have acknowledged the importance of addressing ethics and illicit-finance concerns as essential to maintaining floor support. Negotiators have flagged the need for amendments to these areas if the act is to cross the finish line. While the arc of negotiations remains unsettled, proponents argue that a carefully crafted framework could provide clearer jurisdictional boundaries, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and support continued innovation within a robust compliance regime.

As discussions proceed, observers note that the bill’s fate also hinges on how it interacts with broader regulatory approaches abroad, particularly in the European Union’s MiCA framework, and how U.S. policy aligns with global anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism standards. The regulatory architecture proposed by CLARITY would add a defined path for enforcement and compliance that could influence how exchanges, wallets, and DeFi protocols operate domestically and with international partners.

Regulatory architecture, enforcement, and market impact

The CLARITY Act seeks to delineate the roles of the SEC and CFTC in regulating the crypto sector, potentially ending some of the ambiguity that has characterized U.S. market oversight. A clearer delineation could influence licensing requirements for exchanges, custodians, and other digital-asset service providers, as well as the treatment of token classifications for securities or commodities purposes. For market participants, this could translate into more predictable compliance obligations, clearer reporting standards, and a more stable path for innovation within a recognized regulatory envelope.

Industry stakeholders have framed passage as a signal that the United States intends to anchor digital-asset activity within American governance and consumer-protection standards. They argue that successful enactment would maintain domestic competitiveness, attract investment, and reduce the risk of capital fleeing to less transparent jurisdictions with weaker regulatory oversight. However, the path to consensus remains uncertain, and any final version would need to balance innovation incentives with robust protections and governance norms.

Analysts and compliance teams should monitor how the act’s final terms address stablecoins, custody, and the treatment of non-custodial DeFi infrastructure. The policy debate, while focusing on enforcement and oversight, also raises questions about cross-border data sharing, information-sharing agreements for illicit finance, and the overall jurisdictional clarity that institutions require to structure their U.S. operations and international partnerships accurately. The evolving framework will have direct implications for licensing regimes, AML/KYC expectations, and ongoing regulatory oversight for crypto firms, banks engaging in crypto activities, and institutional investors considering exposure to digital assets.

As coverage from industry outlets and policy analysts notes, the CLARITY Act remains a central reference point in debates over U.S. crypto regulation, with momentum existing but not guaranteed to translate into final passage this session. The negotiations continue to hinge on ethics, illicit-finance provisions, and the balance between investor protection and innovation-friendly regulation.

For stakeholders seeking a broader context, recent discussions emphasize aligning U.S. policy with international standards and ensuring that regulatory clarity does not stifle innovation or create undue burdens on compliant, compliant-first market participants. The outcome will shape how the United States regulates digital assets relative to competing regimes, and it will influence the strategic planning of exchanges, custodians, developers, and institutional investors alike.

Analysts are watching for concrete milestones: a schedule for floor debate, any committee reconcile proposals, and publicly released amendments addressing ethics and illicit-finance concerns. The path to a potential conference on the bill will determine whether the U.S. can deliver a clear, functioning framework for digital-asset markets before the legislative window closes. As Cointelegraph noted in its coverage of the CLARITY Act, the path to a durable regulatory framework remains a complex interplay of policy objectives, partisan dynamics, and practical considerations for market participants.

Closing perspective: while the industry remains hopeful that Congress will act, the practical trajectory of the CLARITY Act will depend on whether its negotiators can resolve core points of contention and translate bipartisan support into a coherent, enforceable framework before the August recess.

Blockchain-based lending protocol Morpho said it raised $175 million in a funding round co-led by Paradigm, a16z crypto and Ribbit Capital, as investors bet that credit markets will increasingly move onchain.

The round also included Apollo Funds, Circle Ventures, VanEck and Ledger Cathay, according to a post on the Morpho blog.

Morpho operates an open credit network that allows institutions and fintech firms to build lending products on blockchain rails. The protocol has more than $11 billion in deposits and is used by institutional clients including Bitwise, Galaxy and Anchorage Digital, as well as crypto exchanges Coinbase, Kraken and Binance.

The raise highlights the interest in blockchain-based financial infrastructure from banks, asset managers and other traditional financial firms exploring tokenized assets and onchain settlement systems.

Unlike many crypto projects that seek to replace traditional finance, Morpho is positioning itself as an infrastructure provider working with existing institutions. The company said its network can help unify fragmented lending markets and support programmable credit products at scale.

Morpho said it will use the funds to develop its institutional lending infrastructure to build programmable credit products.

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz responded to criticism of his title with a long poem explaining his role in crypto and the XRP Ledger’s development.

The verse covered cryptography, payment rails, custody, decentralized exchanges, automated market makers, tokenization, derivatives, bridges and stablecoins. It also referred to Schwartz’s work explaining blockchain systems over more than 15 years.

David Schwartz responds to criticism with XRP Ledger verse

The exchange began after an X user appeared to downplay the meaning of Schwartz’s CTO emeritus title. Schwartz answered with a structured rhyme that presented his technical background and long involvement with Ripple and XRPL.

“I am the very model of a CTO emeritus,” David Schwartz wrote. He described himself as a ledger creator and referred to hashes, Merkle trees and transaction data before moving into broader financial infrastructure.

I am the very model of a CTO emeritus,
Creator of a ledger that’s remarkably impervious.
I know the cryptographic tricks from hashes onto Merkle trees,
And quote transaction figures all with a practiced ease.

I’m very well acquainted, too, with payment rails and custody,
I…

— David ‘JoelKatz’ Schwartz (@JoelKatz) June 8, 2026

Advertisement

The poem also addressed payment rails, custody and liquidity. Schwartz said he could explain decentralized exchanges and automated market makers to technical and non-technical audiences.

His response used humor, but the content focused on his experience rather than a new XRP Ledger announcement. Schwartz did not introduce a product, amendment or release date in the post.

Ripple veteran outlines 15 years of crypto work

Schwartz helped develop the XRP Ledger with Jed McCaleb and Arthur Britto beginning in 2011. The network launched in June 2012 as a payment-focused alternative to Bitcoin’s mining-based system.

He later joined OpenCoin, which became Ripple, as chief cryptographer. David Schwartz became Ripple’s chief technology officer in 2018 and moved away from daily leadership duties at the end of 2025.

Ripple now identifies him as CTO emeritus and a co-creator of XRPL. He also remains involved in public discussions about XRP, stablecoins, tokenization, network design and blockchain security.

“I’ve spent decades explaining crypto’s finer points,” Schwartz wrote. The line referred to his continuing public role after leaving the company’s day-to-day technology position.

XRP Ledger development continues after leadership change

David Schwartz’s post arrived as XRPL developers prepared version 3.2.0 of the network’s core server software. As previously reported by crypto.news, the planned release will rename rippled to xrpld and requires infrastructure operators to update some systems.

The release has been linked to performance work, code cleanup and fixes for number handling and rounding. June 15 remains a target rather than a confirmed release date from XRPL Operations.

Separately, as previously reported, it was found that average daily XRPL transactions rose 35.3% during the first quarter of 2026. The network also recorded growth in stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets while XRP’s market price weakened.

Schwartz’s poem did not claim responsibility for every recent development. It instead presented his historical role, technical knowledge and continued place in the XRP Ledger community.

Something revealing is happening on Google.

Searches for the phrase “Bitcoin to zero” have surged to the highest level ever recorded in the United States, hitting a peak score of 100 on Google Trends, stronger than the panic spikes of the 2022 collapse and the 2025 drawdowns.

The query is a window into the crypto market’s collective psychology in mid-2026: with Bitcoin down sharply from its highs, the Fear and Greed Index buried in extreme fear, and the longest Bitcoin ETF outflow streak on record, a growing number of people are typing the most existential question a holder can ask into a search bar.

Could Bitcoin actually go to zero?

It is a fair question, and it deserves a serious answer instead of either reflexive dismissal or doom-mongering.

The honest response requires separating what would truly have to happen for Bitcoin to reach zero from the panic that drives people to search for it, and understanding why the record-breaking fear in the search data is, historically, more likely a contrarian signal than a prophecy.

This piece takes the question seriously, walks through the actual scenarios that could send Bitcoin to zero and why each is improbable, and explains what the search surge really tells us.

What the search data is actually showing

Start with the signal itself, because the “Bitcoin to zero” search spike is remarkable and worth understanding before judging what it means.

According to Google Trends data, U.S. searches for “Bitcoin to zero” climbed to a peak score of 100, the maximum on Google’s relative scale, marking the highest level on record.

This is not a modest uptick.

The phrase has spiked during previous market drawdowns, including the 2022 bear market and briefly in 2025, but the current surge is stronger than those previous peaks.

That means more people are searching for Bitcoin’s potential demise now than at any point in its history, including during the FTX collapse.

For most of 2023 and early 2024, interest in the phrase remained muted, reflecting calmer markets.

The sudden record-breaking rise reflects acute retail anxiety as Bitcoin consolidates after a sharp decline.

The context explains the fear.

Bitcoin has fallen substantially from its cycle high, the Fear and Greed Index has registered readings deep in extreme fear, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs bled through a record 13-day outflow streak draining billions, and the broader market shed hundreds of billions in a matter of days.

For a retail investor watching their portfolio collapse amid a relentlessly negative news cycle, “Is this going to zero?” is the natural question, and the search data captures millions of people asking it simultaneously.

The spike is a direct readout of peak retail fear, the moment when the emotional bottom feels closest.

Advertisement

Here is the first and most important thing to understand about that signal: peak-fear searches have historically clustered near market bottoms, not before further collapses.

The same behavioral pattern that drives the Fear and Greed Index applies to search behavior.

People search “Bitcoin to zero” when they are most afraid, and they are most afraid after prices have already fallen hard, which is precisely when much of the selling has already occurred.

The record-breaking nature of the current search spike, stronger than 2022 or 2025, is therefore as easily read as a sign of capitulation-level fear as a warning of imminent doom.

Advertisement

The intensity of the “Bitcoin to zero” searches is, paradoxically, one of the better contrarian arguments that Bitcoin is not going to zero.

But to make that case properly, the scenarios must be examined.

What would have to happen for Bitcoin to reach zero

To answer the question seriously, it is necessary to ask what “Bitcoin to zero” would actually require, because zero is a specific and extreme outcome, not just a big further decline.

For Bitcoin to reach zero, it would need to become genuinely worthless, held by no one, used by no one, and valued by no one.

Advertisement

Walking through the scenarios that could produce that outcome reveals how high the bar is.

The first scenario is a fatal technical failure.

Bitcoin could, in theory, go to zero if its underlying technology catastrophically and irreparably broke: a flaw that allowed the supply to be counterfeited at will, a break in its cryptography, or a failure of its consensus mechanism so severe that the ledger could no longer be trusted.

This is the scenario that the Zcash Orchard bug recently made vivid for a privacy coin.

Advertisement

But for Bitcoin specifically, it is extraordinarily unlikely.

Bitcoin’s core cryptography and consensus have operated without a successful protocol-level breach for more than 15 years, securing trillions of dollars in value through relentless adversarial testing.

The cryptography securing it—SHA-256 hashing and elliptic-curve signatures—is the same battle-tested cryptography underpinning much of the global financial and security infrastructure.

Even the quantum-computing threat, the most discussed long-term technical risk, is years away and is being actively addressed through proposals like BIP-360.

Advertisement

A sudden fatal technical break is the clearest path to zero and also among the least probable.

The second scenario is total network abandonment.

Bitcoin could go to zero if everyone simply stopped using it—if miners stopped securing it, developers stopped maintaining it, exchanges stopped listing it, and holders stopped holding it—all at once.

But this contradicts everything observable about Bitcoin’s current state.

Advertisement

The network is secured by an enormous, globally distributed mining industry with billions of dollars invested in hardware and energy infrastructure.

It is held by tens of millions of individuals, public companies with Bitcoin on their balance sheets, spot ETFs holding tens of billions in assets, institutions, and governments exploring strategic reserves.

For Bitcoin to reach zero through abandonment, all these committed, heavily invested participants would have to abandon it simultaneously.

That is not how a deeply entrenched, widely held asset behaves.

Advertisement

The infrastructure and ownership are far too distributed and committed for coordinated total abandonment.

The third scenario is a global regulatory ban so complete that it extinguishes all use.

A coordinated worldwide prohibition, with every major government banning ownership, trading, and mining simultaneously and enforcing it effectively, could theoretically strangle Bitcoin.

But this scenario has only grown less plausible over time, not more.

Advertisement

The trend in 2026 is the opposite of a global ban: the United States is exploring a strategic Bitcoin reserve, spot ETFs have been approved across major markets, regulatory frameworks such as the CLARITY Act are advancing to legitimize rather than prohibit crypto, and Bitcoin is being woven into mainstream finance through mortgage recognition and institutional products.

A coordinated global ban would require the world’s governments, many of which now hold Bitcoin through seizures or are developing favorable regulatory systems, to reverse course in perfect unison.

That is geopolitically implausible.

Even authoritarian bans have historically pushed Bitcoin activity underground rather than extinguishing it.

Advertisement

Why each path to zero is improbable

Having laid out the scenarios, it is worth being explicit about why, in combination, they make zero a genuine tail risk rather than a realistic forecast.

The reasoning matters more than the conclusion.

The deepest reason is that Bitcoin has crossed a threshold of entrenchment that makes total worthlessness extraordinarily difficult to achieve.

An asset goes to zero when it has no holders, users, infrastructure, or believers—the state of a failed startup token or collapsed scheme.

Advertisement

Bitcoin is the opposite.

It has the deepest liquidity in crypto, distributed ownership, the largest and most committed mining base, regulated financial products built on top of it, corporate and potentially sovereign treasuries holding it, and a track record spanning more than 15 years.

Each of these is a structural anchor against zero, and they reinforce one another.

The ETFs need the asset to exist. Miners are financially committed to securing it. Corporate holders have staked their balance sheets on it. Governments holding seized coins have an interest in its value.

Advertisement

Zero would require all these anchors to fail together.

They are held by different parties with different incentives in different jurisdictions, making coordinated total failure close to impossible.

The historical record reinforces the point.

Bitcoin has been declared dead hundreds of times throughout its history and has survived the 2018 bear market that took it down roughly 84%, the 2022 collapse that took it down 77% amid the Terra and FTX failures, and numerous smaller crashes.

Advertisement

Each decline generated its own “Bitcoin to zero” fears.

In every case, the asset recovered and later reached new highs, not because recovery is guaranteed, but because the structural anchors held and capitulation eventually exhausted itself.

The current drawdown, severe as it feels, is so far shallower than the 2018 and 2022 declines that preceded recoveries.

Advertisement

A holder searching “Bitcoin to zero” today is doing what holders did at every previous bottom, and at every previous bottom the asset did not go to zero.

None of this means zero is impossible, and intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that.

An authentically catastrophic, unprecedented technical break or an unforeseeable coordinated global collapse cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty.

Anyone claiming Bitcoin can never, under any circumstances, go to zero is overstating the case.

Advertisement

But “cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty” is a very different claim from “is a realistic outcome to plan around.”

Zero is a genuine tail risk—the kind of low-probability, high-impact scenario that belongs in a serious risk assessment—not the base case the record-breaking search spike might suggest.

The honest framing is that Bitcoin going to zero is improbable to the point that it should inform position sizing and risk management more than panic selling.

That is the opposite of what the search surge suggests people are doing.

Advertisement

What actually does go to zero

A useful way to calibrate the Bitcoin-to-zero question is to examine the kinds of crypto assets that have actually gone to zero.

Plenty have, and the contrast with Bitcoin is instructive.

Crypto is littered with assets that went to zero or close to it, and they share characteristics Bitcoin conspicuously lacks.

Failed algorithmic stablecoins such as TerraUSD collapsed to near-zero when their mechanism broke because their value depended entirely on a confidence loop that, once shattered, had nothing underneath it.

Advertisement

Thousands of ICO tokens from the 2017 boom went effectively to zero when their projects failed to deliver because they were claims on promises that never materialized, with no users, revenue, or staying power.

Exchange tokens such as FTX’s FTT collapsed when the exchange behind them failed because their value was tied to a single company that turned out to be fraudulent.

Countless meme coins have gone to zero after their fleeting attention faded because attention was the only thing supporting them.

The common thread among assets that actually went to zero is that each depended on a single point of failure: a mechanism, company, promise, or wave of attention that, once removed, left nothing behind.

Advertisement

TerraUSD depended on its algorithm. FTT depended on FTX. ICO tokens depended on teams delivering. Meme coins depended on hype.

When the single supporting pillar collapsed, the asset had no other foundation.

It went to zero because there was nothing else holding it up.

This is what going to zero actually looks like: the removal of the one thing an asset depended on.

Advertisement

Bitcoin is structurally the opposite, which is why the contrast matters.

It does not depend on a single mechanism that can break, one company that can fail, one team that can fail to deliver, or one wave of attention that can fade.

It is supported by a distributed mining industry, ownership across tens of millions of holders, regulated financial products, corporate and potentially sovereign treasuries, a track record spanning more than 15 years, and the deepest liquidity in crypto.

Each is an independent pillar held by different parties with different incentives.

Advertisement

For Bitcoin to go to zero, all these independent pillars would have to fail together, whereas the assets that actually went to zero each had only one pillar to lose.

The things that go to zero are single-point-of-failure assets.

Bitcoin is the most multiply redundant asset in crypto, which is precisely why the historical examples of crypto going to zero do not map onto it.

Understanding what does go to zero clarifies why Bitcoin almost certainly will not.

Advertisement

What the search surge really tells us

Step back from the scenarios, and the more useful question is what the record “Bitcoin to zero” search spike actually signals about the market.

The answer points in a more constructive direction than the query implies.

The search surge is, first and foremost, a sentiment indicator, and an extreme one.

Advertisement

It belongs in the same family as the Fear and Greed Index reading deep in extreme fear: a measure of how frightened the market is, not a measure of what is actually likely to happen.

The fact that “Bitcoin to zero” searches hit a record, stronger than in 2022 or 2025, shows that retail fear has reached an extreme rarely seen.

That is information about psychology, not Bitcoin’s fundamental prospects.

As with all extreme sentiment readings, the contrarian interpretation has historical weight.

Advertisement

Peak fear has tended to cluster near bottoms because, by the time the maximum number of people are searching whether their investment is going to zero, the maximum amount of capitulation selling has typically already happened.

The behavioral pattern is consistent and worth internalizing.

Search interest in Bitcoin, including fearful queries, spikes during sharp price declines, not during calm uptrends.

That means these searches are a lagging reaction to price rather than a leading predictor of it.

Advertisement

People do not search “Bitcoin to zero” when Bitcoin is at all-time highs.

They search it after it has already fallen hard, which is structurally close to the point of maximum pessimism.

This is why analysts read surging search interest during a sell-off as a potential sign that retail is re-engaging and capitulation may be peaking, in the same way they read extreme-fear measurements.

The record search spike is the crowd at its most afraid, and the crowd at its most afraid has historically been wrong about the direction more often than right.

Advertisement

There is a second, subtler signal in the surge: it indicates retail attention is returning to Bitcoin after a period of disengagement.

For much of the period when institutions and ETFs dominated the market, retail search interest faded.

The resurgence of searches, even fearful ones, suggests everyday investors are paying attention again.

Whether that attention converts into buying or selling is uncertain, but renewed retail engagement is itself a precondition for the broad participation that has historically accompanied recoveries.

Advertisement

The honest synthesis is that the record “Bitcoin to zero” search spike is best understood not as evidence that Bitcoin is going to zero, which the scenarios show is improbable, but as evidence that fear has reached an extreme and retail attention has returned.

That combination has historically appeared near bottoms instead of before further collapses.

The people searching the question are, in aggregate and historically, asking it close to the worst possible moment to act on the fear behind it.

How to actually think about the question

For anyone worried enough to search “Bitcoin to zero,” the constructive path is to translate fear into disciplined thinking rather than letting it drive action.

Advertisement

A few principles help.

The first is to right-size the risk.

Bitcoin going to zero is a real tail risk, which means it should inform how much of a portfolio is placed into Bitcoin in the first place, not whether someone panic-sells after a decline.

A risk that cannot be ruled out with certainty is a reason for prudent position sizing and holding an amount that could be lost entirely.

Advertisement

It is not automatically a reason to capitulate at the bottom of a drawdown.

If the possibility of zero is frightening, the lesson is about allocation discipline before the fact, not panic after it.

Selling into extreme fear because of a sudden awareness of a tail risk that existed all along is reacting to emotion, not new information.

The second principle is to recognize that the question itself is a contrarian signal.

Advertisement

Anyone searching “Bitcoin to zero” is, by definition, experiencing the emotional state that has historically marked bottoms rather than tops.

That does not guarantee a bottom is in.

But it should prompt reflection that the urge to sell is strongest at exactly the moments that have historically rewarded buying or holding.

The discipline is to notice that the fear is shared by a record number of people, that record-shared fear has preceded recoveries before, and that acting on it places the investor alongside the crowd that has historically been wrong at the extremes.

Advertisement

The clearest answer to the bottom-feared question is that Bitcoin going to zero is improbable to the point of being a tail risk rather than a forecast.

The asset has crossed a threshold of entrenchment, distributed ownership, institutional integration, and proven resilience that makes total worthlessness extraordinarily difficult to achieve.

The scenarios that could cause it—fatal technical failure, total abandonment, or a coordinated global ban—are each individually unlikely and collectively close to implausible.

The record-breaking search spike is not a prophecy of that outcome but a thermometer of extreme fear, and extreme fear has historically clustered near bottoms.

Advertisement

None of this is a promise that Bitcoin will recover, cannot fall further, or that zero is literally impossible.

Each of those claims would overstate the case.

The more measured truth is that the question millions are now searching reflects a moment of maximum fear, that the answer to the literal question is “almost certainly not,” and that the people asking it are, historically, asking close to the wrong time to act on that fear.

The search data is real. The fear is real.

Advertisement

The most likely meaning of both is not that Bitcoin is dying, but that the market is frightened, which is a very different and far more survivable condition.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile. The figures and analysis described reflect data available as of June 2026. Always do your own research and consult with qualified financial professionals before making investment decisions.

CoinDesk Indices presents its daily market update, highlighting the performance of leaders and laggards in the CoinDesk 20 Index.

The CoinDesk 20 is currently trading at 1708.48, down 1.4% (-23.82) since 4 p.m. ET on Monday.

None of the 20 assets are trading higher.

Leaders: ETH (-0.6%) and SUI (-0.6%).

Laggards: UNI (-2.9%) and AAVE (-2.6%).

The CoinDesk 20 is a broad-based index traded on multiple platforms in several regions globally.