Dogecoin has fallen to its lowest level in years after a decisive breakdown from a multi-year head-and-shoulders pattern added fresh selling pressure during the latest crypto market rout.

According to crypto.news data, Dogecoin (DOGE) price traded near $0.081 on June 6 after losing more than 20% over the past week. The decline came as Bitcoin briefly slipped below the key $60,000 level, triggering heavy liquidations across the digital asset market and pushing the Crypto Fear & Greed Index deeper into Extreme Fear territory.

Additional pressure has emerged from derivatives markets. Recent crypto-wide liquidation events erased billions of dollars in leveraged positions, with long traders accounting for the majority of forced closures.

Open interest across major crypto assets has also contracted sharply as traders reduced risk exposure during the selloff.

On-chain data, however, presents a different picture. As crypto.news reported earlier this week, analytics platform Alphractal said Dogecoin had returned to a historically important accumulation zone between $0.10 and $0.11 before breaking lower. The firm noted that DOGE was trading near the lower boundary of its CVDD Channel, a model designed to identify long-term value areas based on coin age and transaction value.

Alphractal argued that similar zones have appeared before major Dogecoin recoveries in previous market cycles. The firm also described the current structure as a period of quiet absorption rather than aggressive distribution, despite weak sentiment across the meme coin sector.

A multi-year head-and-shoulders breakdown dominates the chart

The weekly chart now shows one of the largest bearish formations in Dogecoin’s history. Price has completed a head-and-shoulders pattern that developed over more than two years, with the left shoulder forming in early 2024, the head near the late-2024 peak around $0.48, and the right shoulder during the second half of 2025.

DOGE broke below the ascending neckline earlier this year and has failed to reclaim it during subsequent rallies. The former support line near $0.16 has now turned into resistance, leaving sellers firmly in control of the longer-term trend.

Momentum indicators remain weak. The weekly MACD remains below its signal line, while the price continues to trade far beneath major moving-average clusters that supported previous bull cycles. At the same time, the Aroon structure on the weekly timeframe continues to favor the dominant downtrend.

Commenting on the market structure, crypto analyst Ali Martinez noted that Dogecoin has already reached the $0.0883 target and is now testing the lower boundary of a descending channel.

“As long as this support holds, I think a recovery toward $0.1019 and $0.1156 remains likely,” Ali wrote.

Support near $0.08 becomes the key battleground

The most immediate support now sits around the current $0.08 region. Losing that level would expose the psychological $0.067 area identified by Ali as the next major supply-demand zone below the market.

Failure to hold $0.067 could increase the probability of a move toward the long-term structural support area near $0.05, which aligns with historical consolidation levels seen before Dogecoin’s 2024 breakout.

Bulls still have a path to invalidate the bearish setup. A recovery above $0.10 would place DOGE back inside Ali’s projected rebound zone, while a move above the broken neckline near $0.16 would weaken the head-and-shoulders breakdown thesis and force traders to reassess the long-term trend.

For now, the weekly chart remains tilted toward further downside as Dogecoin trades beneath both the neckline and its former accumulation range.

Visa is testing privacy-preserving blockchain networks to support institutional stablecoin settlement without exposing sensitive transaction data. The proof-of-concept pairs Brale, the stablecoin infrastructure firm behind SBC, with the Canton Network—a permissioned ledger developed in collaboration with major Wall Street players—to evaluate whether SBC could become a viable settlement option for banks and market infrastructures.

The project, announced this week via Businesswire, centers on simulating institutional payment flows on Canton to assess if SBC can deliver on-chain settlement while keeping counterparty information, flow details, and other sensitive data under strict governance and access controls. The effort expands Visa’s ongoing experimentation with stablecoins for settlement on public blockchains—an initiative that began in 2021 with USDC settlement on Ethereum—but shifts the focus toward networks that preserve privacy for counterparties and assets involved in large-scale financial operations.

“The aim is to see whether a private, permissioned environment can pair the programmability of on-chain settlement with the confidentiality required by institutions,” Visa and Brale said in the release. While the current test is conceptual, the choice of partners and architecture signals a broader push among banks and market infrastructures to explore on-chain efficiency without broadcasting every detail of a transaction onto a public ledger.

The broader context for this push comes as policymakers and analysts consider how payment-focused stablecoins will evolve. S&P Global Ratings, in a report released this week, noted that global stablecoin issuance has surpassed $300 billion across currencies, with most demand still anchored in crypto trading but showing signs of broader use. The report adds that U.S. policy and regulatory developments—such as those anticipated around GENIUS Act-compliant stablecoins—could eventually unlock new use cases in cross-border payments and merchant remittances, though such flows currently account for only a small, growing share of international payment volumes.

Key takeaways

• The PoC tests private, regulator-accessible settlement of a US dollar-backed stablecoin (SBC) on Canton, aiming to preserve transaction confidentiality while enabling atomic settlement across tokenized assets.
• Brale’s SBC sits at the core of the experiment, representing a pathway for stablecoins designed specifically for institutional settlement rather than retail-facing use alone.
• Canton is a permissioned network designed for institutional applications, where only involved parties and authorized regulators can view sensitive deal data, enabling controlled on-chain settlement without public disclosure of counterparty details.
• Industry context suggests growing interest in GENIUS-compliant stablecoins among U.S. institutions, with potential near-term use cases in cross-border payments and merchant remittances, subject to final regulatory clarity.
• Analysts caution that while pilots highlight technical feasibility and privacy advantages, banks could be affected financially in the longer term as stablecoins reshape settlement rails and funding dynamics.

Private settlement in a public-privacy framework

The Canton Network lies at the heart of this investigation. Developed with input from Digital Asset, Canton connects permissioned blockchain applications used by institutions such as JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, and the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Unlike fully public blockchains, Canton is designed so that only transaction participants and authorized regulators can access specific data, while still enabling atomic settlement across tokenized assets, cash-like instruments, and other financial contracts.

Visa and Brale describe the PoC as a way to explore how Canton’s privacy architecture could support faster, programmable settlement with the ability to retain strict visibility controls for sensitive information. In practice, this could allow large financial institutions to leverage on-chain settlement for stability-focused transactions without exposing the details of who is transacting with whom, or the exact flow of funds, to the broader market.

For banks and market infrastructure providers, the potential was underscored by S&P Global Ratings’ assessment of the evolving stablecoin landscape. While a portion of stablecoin activity today remains tied to crypto trading, the emergence of GENIUS-compliant stablecoins opens a path toward regulated, privacy-preserving settlement rails that could integrate with existing payment networks and correspondent banking processes. The report highlights cross-border settlements as one of the most promising near-term use cases, even as these stablecoins currently account for only a minority share of international payment volumes.

What this implies for market infrastructure and policy

Institutional interest in private settlement networks reflects a broader ambition to combine the efficiency of on-chain settlement with the prudence and governance expected of traditional finance. The Canton-based pilot illustrates a practical route for institutions to test whether their own liquidity, collateral workflows, and cash-like instruments can be tokenized and settled in near real time, without exposing strategic details to competitors or the public.

From a regulatory standpoint, the emphasis on privacy is not merely a technical preference but a governance concern. The GENIUS Act and related regulatory trajectories aim to codify how U.S. stablecoins that meet certain standards can be deployed across the payments ecosystem. While final rules are still pending, the industry is watching closely to understand how such stablecoins will interact with existing payment rails, central-bank policies, and the capital markets framework that underpins settlement infrastructure.

Industry observers also note that the technology threading through Canton—privacy-preserving mechanisms, permissioned access, and cross-token interoperability—could influence how banks approach tokenized deposits and other digital assets in a regulated context. As banks experiment with issuing their own stablecoins or tokenized deposits, they may seek architectures that guarantee data confidentiality while enabling efficient on-chain settlement, reconciliation, and liquidity management.

It is important to acknowledge the lines of communication from the involved parties. Cointelegraph reached out to Visa, Brale, and Digital Asset for comment, but no formal responses were available at publication. The consortium-based nature of the project, with ties to large financial institutions and established infrastructure players, signals a measured, collaborative approach to evaluating new settlement workflows rather than a sudden shift in policy or product strategy.

Looking ahead: the path from pilots to practical adoption

What remains uncertain is how quickly privacy-focused, institutional settlement networks can scale in a live environment and what regulatory guardrails will govern their use. The current PoC is a proof of concept designed to illuminate feasibility and governance considerations, not a deployment timeline. Yet the trajectory is clear: if private settlement on permissioned ledgers demonstrates tangible improvements in settlement speed, counterparty risk management, and operational efficiency, it could push financial institutions to accelerate pilots and potentially migrate portions of their settlement flows onto permissioned, privacy-enabled rails.

For investors and builders, the development underscores two key themes shaping the crypto and digital asset space. First, the line between public and private ledgers is becoming increasingly nuanced as institutions demand both transparency and confidentiality. Second, the market is watching regulatory guidance on GENIUS-compliant stablecoins, and how those rules will interact with cross-border payments, merchant remittance, and wholesale financing needs. The outcome of this policy process will likely influence the speed and scope of adoption for private-stablecoin settlement schemes in the coming quarters.

As the ecosystem continues to evolve, observers should monitor how financial institutions balance the benefits of real-time settlement with the governance requirements that come with private, permissioned networks. The Canton-Visa-Brale collaboration represents a concrete step in that direction—one that could shape the next phase of digital-asset-backed settlement infrastructure if pilot results translate into scalable, compliant, and privacy-respecting operations.

Readers should stay tuned for further updates as more details emerge from ongoing discussions, technical evaluations, and potential broader deployments. In a market where data visibility and settlement speed are both crucial, privacy-preserving on-chain rails could become a pivotal element of the institutional fintech toolkit, provided they align with regulatory expectations and sound risk management practices.

Solana price has fallen to a multi-year low as a major corporate holder moved $31.9 million worth of SOL to Coinbase Prime, adding to fears that whales are reducing exposure during the market selloff.

According to data from crypto.news, Solana (SOL) traded near $62 on June 6 after briefly falling to the $60 area. The token has lost roughly 24% over the past week, more than 30% over the past month, and about 50% since the start of the year as traders continued reducing exposure to risk assets amid a broader crypto market selloff.

Large holders have added to concerns about the market’s outlook. According to blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain, Forward Industries transferred 455,784 SOL worth approximately $31.9 million to Coinbase Prime after a month of inactivity.

Since adopting a Solana treasury strategy in September 2025, the company has spent roughly $1.59 billion acquiring 6.83 million SOL at an average price of $232. Lookonchain estimates those holdings are now worth about $458.6 million.

The transfer does not confirm an outright sale, but traders frequently monitor deposits to institutional trading venues for signs that large investors may be preparing to reduce positions. The transaction arrived as SOL traded near its lowest levels since 2024 and reinforced concerns that other treasury holders could also move to protect capital if market conditions worsen.

Derivatives markets have already undergone a sharp deleveraging event. CoinGlass data shows more than $1.5 billion in crypto positions were liquidated over the past day, with long traders accounting for most of the losses. Solana absorbed a significant share of the damage as leveraged bullish positions were forced to close into a falling market.

Institutional demand has also weakened. SoSoValue data showed that U.S. spot Solana ETFs recorded net outflows after several weeks of inflows. The reversal came as investors reassessed exposure to digital assets following Bitcoin’s decline below the key $60,000 support level.

Outside crypto, financial markets have become increasingly defensive. A stronger-than-expected U.S. jobs report reduced expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts, while renewed geopolitical tensions in the Middle East pushed oil prices higher and revived inflation concerns.

Rising Treasury yields prompted another rotation away from speculative assets, weighing on altcoins across the market.

Solana approaches a critical long-term support zone

The weekly chart shows Solana testing a major support area near $51.5 after months of persistent selling pressure. The level served as an important breakout zone during late 2023 and now represents the most significant support remaining on the higher-timeframe chart.

Trend indicators continue to favor sellers. Solana remains well below its major moving averages, while the weekly MACD sits beneath the zero line with both MACD and signal lines still trending lower. Aroon indicators also remain bearish, with the Aroon Down reading returning to 100 and the Aroon Up trailing beneath it.

Commenting on the bearish market setup, crypto analyst Jack Adams argued that Solana may revisit lower levels before finding a durable bottom.

“I am almost certain $SOL is heading back to retest $67-$58 once more before reversing into $120-$175 this year.”

According to the analyst, previous demand zones between $58 and $67 could attract longer-term buyers despite the ongoing market weakness.

Weak support below current levels raises $50 risk

CoinGlass liquidation heatmap data identifies the largest concentration of leveraged positions between $70 and $75, with a particularly dense cluster near $74. Those levels could attract price during any relief rally, although they now represent significant resistance after the recent breakdown.

Below the market, liquidity becomes noticeably thinner. The heatmap shows relatively limited support beneath the recent lows compared with the large concentration of positions overhead, increasing the risk of an accelerated move if sellers force another breakdown.

A decisive breakdown below the $51.5 support zone could expose Solana to the psychological $50 level. Since the chart shows limited historical trading activity beneath that area, sellers could attempt to force a deeper move if market conditions remain unfavorable.

Any bullish recovery would likely require SOL to reclaim the former support area near $70 before challenging the heavy liquidation cluster between $74 and $75.

For now, corporate treasury transfers, ETF outflows, aggressive derivatives liquidations, and unfavorable macro conditions continue to keep pressure on the market, leaving the $50 level firmly on traders’ radar.

TLDR:

• Goldman Sachs projects $7.6 trillion in cumulative AI infrastructure capex between 2026 and 2031.
• Nvidia is forecast to capture 75% of the $5.1 trillion compute layer over the six-year period.
• Power is the smallest budget segment at $358 billion but the critical bottleneck for full deployment.
• Vistra locked in a 20-year, 2,600 MW nuclear deal with Meta to meet surging AI power demand. 

Goldman Sachs has released a detailed projection of artificial intelligence infrastructure capital expenditure, forecasting $7.6 trillion in cumulative spending from 2026 to 2031.

The breakdown covers three core layers: compute at $5.1 trillion, data centers at $2.1 trillion, and power at $358 billion.

The report identifies specific companies positioned to absorb capital across each segment. At $765 billion in 2026 alone, annual AI capex is expected to reach $1.6 trillion by 2031.

Compute and Data Center Demands Drive Infrastructure Buildout

Goldman Sachs AI infrastructure projections place Nvidia at the center of the compute layer. The firm assumes Nvidia will capture 75% of all compute spend over the forecast period, translating to roughly $3.8 trillion in cumulative revenue through its products. The baseline unit for this projection is the Rubin VR200 chip, priced at $80,500 per GPU.

Nvidia’s data center GPU gross margins sit at 75%, which is why major hyperscalers are developing custom silicon.

However, performance gaps mean those same companies continue purchasing Nvidia hardware in parallel. No current alternative matches its output at scale.

The data center layer reflects a sharp escalation in physical requirements. Standard cloud infrastructure runs between 5 and 15 kilowatts per rack.

Transitional Blackwell-era AI facilities operate at 130 to 200 kilowatts per rack. Next-generation AI factories running Rubin and Feynman chips require over 500 kilowatts per rack, with liquid cooling as the only viable thermal option.

Construction costs are rising alongside density. Traditional hyperscale data centers cost approximately $10 million per megawatt to build.

Next-generation AI data centers are being planned at $15 to $20 million per megawatt, a sharp increase driven by cooling and power infrastructure requirements.

Power Constraints and Key Companies Shape the Capital Cycle

Goldman Sachs AI infrastructure analysis identifies silicon useful life as the single largest variable in the model. At a three-year replacement cycle, cumulative compute depreciation reaches $3.99 trillion. A seven-year cycle drops that figure to $2.23 trillion, a difference of $1.76 trillion on one assumption.

Vertiv is positioned directly within the data center upgrade cycle. Every rack transitioning from 40 kilowatts to 500-plus kilowatts requires new liquid cooling systems and power distribution equipment. The liquid cooling market is projected to grow from $5.5 billion today to $15.75 billion by 2030.

Power, at $358 billion, is the smallest budget segment but the most operationally critical. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy captured the constraint plainly: “Our single biggest constraint is power.”

Grid connection timelines for large data centers extend into years, making early contracting essential for deployment.

Vistra has responded to that constraint by locking in long-term nuclear power purchase agreements. The company secured a 20-year deal with Meta covering over 2,600 megawatts of nuclear energy, along with a separate agreement with AWS.

Goldman Sachs and Jefferies both upgraded Vistra following the Meta announcement, according to Milk Road AI’s breakdown of the report.

Strategy co-founder and executive chairman Michael Saylor is urging Bitcoin to pursue a path of disciplined expansion that weaves the asset into the core fabric of conventional finance. In a Friday essay, he argued that Bitcoin’s base layer should be treated as sacred infrastructure, with most innovation taking place on higher layers, including custody systems, credit instruments and the financial plumbing surrounding the network. The thrust is not merely about more spot buyers or ETF inflows, but about embedding Bitcoin within banks, securities, credit markets and capital markets to fuel a sustainable, enterprise-grade adoption cycle.

The remarks come as Bitcoin endures a broad market setback that has strained the two dominant institutional avenues for exposure: passive spot ETF products and corporate/credit-market adoption. Strategy itself has recently sold 32 BTC to fund preferred stock dividends—the first sale since 2022—challenging the long-standing “never sell” ethos associated with Saylor’s corporate strategy and underscoring how liquidity needs canshape a narrative around perceived HODLers.

Data from SoSoValue illustrate the pressure on spot‑based ETF channels: Bitcoin spot ETF weekly net outflows reached roughly $1.42 billion, $1.26 billion and $1.0 billion in the last three weeks of May, with the current week tally already around $1.4 billion. The combination of outflows and price softness has intensified debate over whether Bitcoin’s recent weakness represents a temporary liquidity reset or a broader shift in institutional demand.

Key takeaways

• Michael Saylor’s framework pushes Bitcoin toward disciplined, embedded finance—integrating Bitcoin into balance sheets, securities, banks, brokers, and capital markets—rather than relying primarily on spot ETF inflows.
• Strategy’s sale of 32 BTC to fund preferred stock dividends marks a rare liquidity event that tests the “never sell” premise and highlights the role of corporate treasury needs in the BTC narrative.
• Spot BTC ETF outflows remain large and persistent, challenging the notion that ETF-driven demand will independently sustain a long-term bull run.
• Analysts present a split view on demand: one camp sees potential stabilization if ETF flows and reserves resume, while another cautions that the unwind in ETF narrative and on‑chain signals could delay a durable recovery without real institutional re-entry.

Saylor’s blueprint: Bitcoin beyond ETFs and into the financial system

In his essay, Saylor outlined four broad ideologies shaping Bitcoin discourse—maximalists, capitalists, technologists and fundamentalists—each valuing something essential yet potentially dangerous if taken to an extreme. The “disciplined expansion” concept aligns most closely with the capitalist frame, which treats Bitcoin as digital capital capable of sitting on corporate balance sheets, serving as collateral, and enabling participation across banks, brokers, insurers and asset managers.

That framing marks a shift from a market‑share metric defined by ETF inflows to a broader, infrastructure‑oriented vision. Saylor argues that Bitcoin’s core value proposition lies in its base layer as a foundation for a secure and auditable financial system, while most innovations will occur in higher layers—such as innovative custody architectures, credit instruments and other capital‑markets mechanisms that can leverage Bitcoin as an underlying asset.

Under this lens, Bitcoin becomes less about chasing ETF commissions or price momentum and more about its role as digital collateral and a decentralized store of value that can operate within traditional financial channels. Adopters—from treasuries to insurers and fund managers—could integrate BTC into capital markets operations, using it as a treasury tool, a collateral backbone, or a component of structured finance. The result would be a more embedded form of Bitcoin’s demand, one driven by corporate utility and risk management as much as by consumer or investor appetite.

“Sacred infrastructure” is not a rhetorical flourish here; it signals a deliberate attempt to distinguish the base layer’s reliability and security from the rapidly evolving layers that enable application development and finance. For builders, this signals a conducive environment for custody providers, liquidity facilities, and on‑ramp/off‑ramp ecosystems to mature in tandem with Bitcoin’s deeper integration into financial workflows.

Market signals and the two-channel test for institutional demand

The current market setup has heightened the tension between two institutional channels: the ETF‑driven path and the corporate/credit‑market route. SoSoValue’s ETF flow data show persistent weekly outflows, eroding the confidence that ETF inflows alone can underpin a lasting uptrend. This dynamic invites closer scrutiny of on‑chain signals and balance‑sheet demand as potential confirmatory indicators for a longer‑term reboot of institutional appetite.

Analysts have been quick to parse the implications. Lacie Zhang, a research analyst at Bitget Wallet, cautions that the key question extends beyond whether BTC holds a psychological level of around $63,000. “We need ETF flows to stabilize, exchange reserves to keep falling, and whale accumulation to pick up,” she told Cointelegraph. Her scenario still keeps open the possibility of a retest in the $55,000 to $57,000 area if outflows persist, given the liquidity constraints and leveraged liquidations that have punctuated recent sessions.

On the other side, Nicolai Sondergaard of Nansen offered a more cautious take. He noted that exchange‑flow data suggest participants have used Bitcoin’s bounce—from roughly $61,000 to the low $60,000s—to reduce exposure rather than to add to new long positions. “ETF demand narrative has been unwinding since May,” Sondergaard said, underscoring that a durable recovery would require visible, sustained re‑entry from institutional buyers. Without such participation, the market could struggle to regain momentum even if immediate pressure eases.

These competing readings reflect a broader debate about Bitcoin’s near‑term path. The ETF‑led demand narrative has waxed and waned over the months, and as liquidity conditions swing, traders are left weighing whether the current pullback represents a recalibration or the onset of a more protracted phase of subdued institutional buying. The next several weeks could prove decisive in whether ETF channels stabilize and if on‑chain dynamics or corporate treasury activity begin to offset declines in spot momentum.

What to watch next: a synthesis of embedded finance and market timing

The ongoing discourse around Bitcoin’s integration into the financial system—beyond simple ETF exposure—will likely shape both policy dialogue and investment decisions. If corporations begin to treat BTC as a regular financial instrument—used in treasuries, collateral, and capital‑markets operations—we could see a structural shift in demand that is less sensitive to ETF inflows and more anchored in balance‑sheet strategy and risk management. Conversely, if ETF outflows persist and on‑chain signals remain weak, the recovery may hinge on a gradual re‑establishment of institutional confidence, with a focus on risk controls, liquidity, and custody reliability as prerequisites for broader participation.

Readers should monitor a few concrete indicators in the coming weeks: ETF flow stability, changes in exchange reserves, and the pace of whale accumulation; especially whether new corporate treasury programs or credit‑market facilities materialize for Bitcoin. The tension between the embedded‑finance thesis and ETF‑driven exposure is likely to define the market’s trajectory in the near term, with the long‑run direction depending on how smoothly Bitcoin can be integrated into the existing financial infrastructure while maintaining its core properties.

As Saylor’s framework suggests, the path forward may hinge less on chasing inflows and more on building a robust ecosystem where Bitcoin functions as a trusted, auditable component of financial operations. Whether that vision materializes remains a question for the months ahead, but the ongoing debate signals that the “next phase” for Bitcoin could be less about rapid price moves and more about how deeply it embeds into the machinery of global finance.

Some online chatter seems to speculate that retail investors may be selling crypto to chase the biggest IPO ever.

The Elon Musk-owned rockets, satellite and AI company SpaceX is selling up to 30% of its record $75 billion offering straight to retail investors through Robinhood, Fidelity and Charles Schwab, more than three times the slice a typical IPO sets aside for individuals.

The roadshow opened Thursday already oversubscribed, with more orders than shares on offer, Bloomberg reported. It is offering shares at a $1.8 trillion valuation.

Bitcoin fell roughly 16% over the same timespan and briefly traded below $60,000 before recovering to around $61,000, according to CoinDesk data.

Stablecoins are the most direct way to track money leaving crypto for dollars. A trader cashing out bitcoin to fund a brokerage account converts into a dollar-pegged token like USDC or tether, then redeems it for cash. That shows up two ways, as stablecoins pulled off exchanges and, later, as a shrinking supply when issuers burn the redeemed tokens.

Neither moved of these readings show anomalies, per data assessed by CoinDesk Outflows for USDC and tether stayed inside the range they’ve held since February, according to CryptoQuant data. The largest single days in recent months were $2.5 billion in USDC on May 22 and $3.6 billion in tether on May 20, both came before the sell-off.

Bitcoin and ether did see heavy withdrawals on Friday, 66,470 bitcoin and about 2.49 million ether moving off exchanges, among the biggest single-day totals of the year on CryptoQuant’s data.

An outflow is coins leaving an exchange for a private wallet, which is what a buyer does after taking delivery. Selling does the reverse, coins moving onto exchanges to be sold.

On-chain data has a blind spot, however. It can’t see inside a Robinhood or Coinbase account, where someone can sell bitcoin for dollars without either ever touching a public blockchain.

Whether crypto holders funded their allocations won’t be answerable until the brokerages publish their own numbers. Robinhood reports monthly trading metrics, with June’s crypto volumes due in mid-July, and Coinbase breaks out retail activity in second-quarter results later in the month.

Bitcoin and ether did see heavy withdrawals on Friday, 66,470 bitcoin and about 2.49 million ether moving off exchanges, among the biggest single-day totals of the year on CryptoQuant’s data.

An outflow is coins leaving an exchange for a private wallet, which is what a buyer does after taking delivery. Selling does the reverse, coins moving onto exchanges to be sold. The week’s largest flows look like withdrawal and dip-buying, not a scramble for cash.

The one place money clearly drained from crypto was the funds.

Spot bitcoin ETFs, the exchange-traded products that hold bitcoin directly, bled for 13 straight sessions through June 3, a record stretch worth about $4.4 billion before a small $3 million inflow snapped the streak.

Ether ETFs ran a longer 17-session streak that broke the same day. When investors pull money from these funds the issuer sells the underlying coins, so the redemptions are real selling.

SpaceX prices on June 11 and lists on the Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX the next day.

Zcash (ZEC) has faced fresh scrutiny after a patched Orchard Pool vulnerability sparked a dispute over whether the privacy coin’s users and investors still face hidden risks.

Dragonfly partner Haseeb Qureshi said the market may be treating the bug as a larger immediate threat than the available evidence supports. He also said Dragonfly continues to hold ZEC, even as developers, investors, and privacy advocates debate what the flaw could have allowed before it was fixed.

Qureshi says ZEC fears look overstated

According to Qureshi, the critical issue was not whether the vulnerability was serious, but where its impact would likely have stayed. He said the bug could have allowed someone to create counterfeit ZEC inside the Orchard shielded pool, but he argued that those coins would face a major obstacle once an attacker tried to sell them.

In Qureshi’s view, an attacker would eventually need to move counterfeit shielded ZEC into transparent ZEC before using major exchanges. Since transparent ZEC can be checked against the public supply, he said any attempt to move inflated amounts into visible circulation would be easier for the network to catch.

For that reason, Qureshi said regular exchange users and many traders likely had limited direct exposure. He placed the largest risk on users who kept funds inside the shielded pool while the vulnerability existed.

Qureshi also cited recent Zcash network data to support his argument. He said the shielded pool’s share of supply fell from 31% to 30% over 48 hours after the disclosure.

To Qureshi, that small drop did not show a rush by privacy-focused users to leave the pool. He described the move as modest rather than a sign of panic, while still acknowledging that the bug created a serious debate around Zcash’s private transaction system.

Wei Dai warns attack could be harder to trace

Meanwhile, Zcash creator Wei Dai argued that a successful attacker may not have needed to empty the Orchard Pool. Dai said a careful attacker could have kept fake ZEC inside the shielded environment and moved it slowly through private transfers.

Under that scenario, Dai said the pool itself could have helped hide the movement of counterfeit coins. He also raised another possible risk. If someone discovered the flaw early, Dai said that person could have opened a large short position against ZEC before the bug became public.

Because ZEC trades on liquid perpetual futures markets, Dai argued that a trader could have profited from the later price reaction without leaving clear on-chain evidence of the original exploit.