SpaceX stock (SPCX) closed just above $115 on Wednesday, nearly 20% below its June IPO price, while its 2056 bonds sank to a record low below 89.

The dual decline pushed the bonds’ yield to worst to 7.6% and reignited talk of an AI-driven valuation reset across stocks and crypto. SPCX now trades roughly 48% below its June peak of $225.64.

Bond Market Flashes a Warning Signal

SpaceX priced $25 billion in bonds in June across five tranches, with coupons ranging from 5.35% to 6.65%. The longest maturity, due in 2056, has fallen the most and now trades alongside junk-rated debt.

Zerohedge reported the bonds slipping below 89 this week, alongside a broader selloff in hyperscaler debt. The move echoes the market top signal analysts flagged shortly after the IPO priced.

Credit spreads on the 2056 notes have widened from roughly 175 basis points at issuance to more than 230 basis points now.

Meanwhile, the company reported a first-quarter net loss of $4.28 billion on $4.69 billion in revenue, fueling scrutiny of its bond math.

In turn, analysts argue that the gap explains why bondholders, unlike equity buyers, are pricing in more risk.

Schiff Frames SpaceX Selloff as a Broader Signal

Peter Schiff reposted the bond data and separately noted SPCX closed nearly 50% below its high. He called the drop a possible harbinger for other overhyped stocks and cryptocurrencies.

Schiff has issued a prior bond market warning, arguing that credit stress, not Bitcoin, would trigger the next major crash. However, his critics note a long history of bearish calls that have not always come to fruition.

Still, the timing aligns with broader concerns about AI-linked valuations. SpaceX joined the Nasdaq 100 shortly after its debut, and the stock has since dropped roughly 29% from that milestone.

A delayed Starship test flight added to the negative sentiment this month.

Lockup Expiry Adds to the Pressure

SpaceX’s first major share unlock is scheduled for early August, two days after second-quarter earnings. Roughly 911.5 million shares, worth about $123 billion at recent prices, become eligible for sale.

Investors are already watching the stock’s share unlock schedule alongside dilution concerns tied to SpaceX’s reported Cursor AI acquisition. Some traders, however, still see a falling wedge pattern that could support a rebound near current levels.

Whether the stock and bond weakness spreads to crypto markets may become clearer once the lockup and earnings pass in August. Traders will likely watch SPCX bond yields as an early signal before any broader repricing hits digital assets.

The post SpaceX is a Warning For Crypto and Tech Stocks, Peter Schiff Says appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

The long-awaited US Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY) has hit another snag.

This time, it’s not software developers or the turf war between federal regulators at stake, but the thornier question of ethics — ironic, given many politicians’ demonstrable disdain for them.

After months of negotiations and what Coinbase’s chief executive Brian Armstrong called “thousands of hours of work on both sides,” disagreement over a code of conduct could make or break CLARITY once and for all.

Pretty much everyone agrees the United States needs clearer rules around digital assets. But negotiators are divided over whether the bill’s ethics provisions are strong enough, and, more importantly, who should enforce them.

Advertisement

Democrats worry the current proposal relies too heavily on the Department of Justice, arguing state attorneys general should be able to step in if the DOJ fails to enforce the law.

In a joint statement Wednesday, seven Democratic senators said the Republican proposal “falls short.”

“Key provisions including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity must be strengthened,” the senators said.

For their part, Republicans are pushing to keep enforcement of the ethics provisions with the DOJ, arguing that federal rules should be enforced through a single national framework. Attorney and former Republican Senate candidate John Deaton said Wednesday:

“The CLARITY Act is federal legislation… The Department of Justice – not fifty different state AGs with fifty different political incentives and fifty different interpretations – is the appropriate body to enforce federal law.”

Can lawmakers find a middle path before the bill reaches the Senate floor, or has the ethics debate become CLARITY’s biggest obstacle yet?

Advertisement

What the latest ethics proposal actually does

The latest Senate draft made public Wednesday would prohibit the president, vice president, members of Congress and other senior federal officials and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office.

Democrats oppose current CLARITY text. Source: Senator Ruben Gallego

That means future presidential meme coins would be off the table, at least temporarily, with no Trump 2.0 or Melania 2.0-style token launches while the restrictions are in play.

Related: CLARITY Act could help CFTC deal with prediction markets: Lawyer

The proposal would also prevent crypto platforms from listing assets issued or sponsored by covered officials.

Advertisement

Restrictions would expire in 2029, after President Donald Trump’s current term ends, though covered officials would still be permitted to own cryptocurrencies.

Democrats say current proposal falls short

Democrats have made it clear the text needs additional work before gaining their support, but getting CLARITY over the line isn’t doomed; they’ve also signaled a willingness to see the bill through to the end.

“We have been working in good faith with our Republican colleagues for the past year and will continue doing so to get this over the finish line,” the senators said.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks said negotiators were “fairly close” to reaching an agreement during a Semafor event on Wednesday, despite warning the ethics provisions remained a dealbreaker. The Maryland Democrat said:

Advertisement

“Although I have been supportive to this point, I absolutely will not support on the floor any legislation that does not include provisions around ethics.”

Her main concern is not only the substance of the rules, but who would enforce them.

“It’s an absolute that we cannot completely rely on the DOJ, given what we’ve seen of their inability and their unwillingness to enforce the law,” Alsobrooks said.

The debate has been fueled by Trump’s rapidly expanding crypto business interests spanning meme coins, World Liberty Financial and other digital asset holdings.

Related: Trump claims he can ‘future proof’ crypto regulation with CLARITY Act

Advertisement

The President’s crypto ventures have reportedly generated $1.4 billion on paper, prompting Democrats to argue stronger safeguards are needed to address potential conflicts of interest.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has focused on whether the restrictions go far enough, with the Massachusetts Democrat saying that the latest draft “does nothing to stop President Trump from making his next $1.4 billion from crypto.”

Former SEC official Amanda Fischer also argued the draft would still allow Trump to benefit from his existing projects, with limited restrictions on future crypto income streams.

Republicans say proposal already unprecedented

Republicans reject the idea that the ethics provisions are weak. Senator Bernie Moreno described the draft as containing “the most powerful ethics language in US history,” pushing back against Democratic claims that the provisions are insufficient.

Advertisement

The latest CLARITY Act text. Source: US Congress.

Patrick Witt, a former White House and Senate counsel, said Democratic opposition appeared to rest on one of two positions: either that ethics rules without state attorneys general are “meaningless,” or that they fail to penalize President Trump for past crypto activity.

“If you hold position (1), then you are basically saying that ALL current federal ethics laws are meaningless because none of them are enforceable by state AGs,” he said. “If you hold position (2), then there is literally nothing that can be done to appease you because what you are advocating for is blatantly unconstitutional.”

Others argue that, even if the legislation is imperfect, passing it would be preferable to preserving the status quo. Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Chris Dixon said the US has a similar opportunity to the early internet era, when lawmakers established rules that allowed innovation to flourish rather than forcing new technology into outdated regulatory frameworks.

While acknowledging that “no law is perfect,” Dixon argued the CLARITY Act would deliver long-overdue consumer protections and provide regulatory certainty for blockchain innovation in the US.

Can lawmakers find a middle path?

Despite stumbling over the ethics hurdle, most industry and policy observers still believe a deal remains in reach.

Advertisement

Kristin Smith, former chief executive of the Blockchain Association and now president of the Solana Policy Institute, sees that the latest draft is already a meaningful compromise.

“The new text includes a substantive, one-of-a-kind ethics provision, a necessary step to win the support of Senate Democrats,” Smith told Cointelegraph.

“But ethics is far from the only thing at stake. The Senate has added a full disclosure regime, an entire illicit finance section, and improved spot market regulation.”

Smith warned that rejecting the bill in pursuit of stronger ethics language could leave lawmakers stuck with no market structure legislation at all.

Advertisement

“There is no version of a ‘no’ vote that produces a stronger bill,” she said. “A ‘no’ vote produces no bill at all: no disclosure regime, no illicit finance protections, no spot market improvements, no ethics provisions, nothing.”

Vincent Chok, co-founder and chief executive of stablecoin issuer First Digital, said the fact negotiations have narrowed to ethics rather than the broader structure of the bill is itself a sign of progress.

“The core debate is no longer whether digital assets need a regulatory framework, but how to finalize one that commands broad support,” Chok told Cointelegraph.

He said that while no regulatory framework is likely to be perfect from day one, businesses can adapt to clear rules that evolve over time. Prolonged uncertainty makes long-term investment and product development far more difficult, he said.

Salman Banaei, head of public policy at Plume, a blockchain network focused on tokenized real-world assets, also believes a compromise remains possible, although he cautioned that the White House’s initial ethics proposal “is not a good starting point.”

Advertisement

For now, both sides appear to agree on one thing: a compromise is still possible, but exactly what it looks like remains the biggest unanswered question.

Magazine: Will the crypto lobby’s $189M campaign get CLARITY over the line?

Cointelegraph publishes long-form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Content published in here does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence.

Source link

Source link

Bitcoin spot ETF have recorded seven consecutive trading days of net inflows since July 14, attracting nearly $1 billion as Bitcoin price traded around $65,500. It marks the longest inflow streak in months and raises a familiar question. Are institutions quietly rebuilding positions, or is this simply a relief rally after heavy selling earlier this summer?

The streak follows a difficult stretch that pushed Bitcoin price below $58,000 before buyers returned. Rather than relying on one massive allocation, the inflows have arrived steadily each day. That pattern usually carries more weight because it suggests sustained demand instead of a short-lived burst driven by market excitement.

Trade Bitcoin on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

What the October 2025 Comparison Does and Does Not Prove

Some analysts have compared the current streak with October 2025, when persistent ETF demand came before Bitcoin rally toward its record high. However, the comparison has limits. The earlier run attracted well over $5 billion in seven trading days, making it far larger than the current streak. That difference makes a direct comparison difficult.

Today’s inflows are roughly one-fifth of that earlier pace. Even so, slower accumulation can still support higher prices without creating the same speculative conditions. Instead of pointing to another explosive rally, the data better fits gradual institutional positioning while leverage across the market remains relatively restrained.

Issuer data also shows where the money is flowing. BlackRock’s IBIT continued leading daily inflows, while ARK’s ARKB and Fidelity’s FBTC also attracted fresh capital. Meanwhile, Grayscale’s GBTC continued recording net outflows, extending a trend that has persisted since spot Bitcoin ETFs launched. That rotation suggests investors still prefer lower-fee products over legacy funds.

Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio

The $70K Bitcoin Target Depends on Sustained ETF Demand

A move toward $70,000 remains technically possible if ETF demand continues at a similar pace. However, no historical relationship guarantees that outcome. ETF inflows have often supported the Bitcoin price, yet macroeconomic conditions, derivatives positioning, and profit-taking can quickly outweigh fund flows.

The recent recovery should also be viewed in context. It follows weeks of persistent ETF outflows that pressured the Bitcoin price below $58,000. Seven positive sessions improve sentiment, but they do not confirm a lasting uptrend. Buyers still need to defend current levels before the market can challenge the $70,000 resistance.

One observation deserves attention. Healthy rallies often build through consistent inflows instead of one extraordinary buying day. During previous market peaks, the largest ETF inflow sessions appeared near the top rather than at the beginning of sustained advances. That history suggests investors should watch for signs of overheating.

For now, the current pattern looks more balanced than euphoric. If ETF inflows remain distributed across several sessions, Bitcoin price could continue grinding toward $70,000. However, a sudden surge in one exceptionally large inflow day may signal growing speculation rather than strengthening market fundamentals.

Trade Bitcoin on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

The post $981M Bitcoin ETF Streak Signals Institutional Re-Entry, $70K in Sight appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

New European Union sanctions just made crypto harder to use for people in Russia. EU governments agreed the measures on Thursday. They target 11 crypto platforms.

Officials have not named the platforms. Most sit outside Russia. The package also hits 94 Russian banks and the Moscow Exchange. Bitcoin (BTC) and other coins stay legal.

Why the EU Keeps Targeting Russian Crypto

The EU has a problem. Every time it shuts one crypto platform, Russians open a new one.

So its tactics keep shifting. First it named one exchange. Then it banned Russia’s entire crypto sector. Now it targets platforms in other countries.

Take Garantex. The US sanctioned this Russian exchange in 2022. The EU followed in early 2025. In March 2025, police seized its website and froze over $26 million. Within days, its team relaunched it as a near-copy called Grinex.

That is why the EU banned the whole sector in May. The reason is scale. One ruble-linked coin, A7A5, moved over $100 billion in a single year, says analytics firm Elliptic.

The new package goes further. For the first time, the EU can ban crypto services in whole countries outside Europe. Those are often the places Russians turn to next.

Kaja Kallas, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said the sweeping measures target Russia’s financial system, effectively limiting the financial lifelines the country relies on.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

“How hard this bites depends on how broadly the EU defines ‘crypto operators’,” says Nadezhda Surova of Russian Federation Member of the Expert Council for Digital Economy.

What Changes for Russian Users

First, some good news for holders. Bitcoin and other coins are not banned. You can still own and trade them. Coins in your own wallet stay safe.

The hard part is access. Big exchanges must follow the EU’s crypto rulebook, called MiCA. They check where your money comes from. They block anyone tied to sanctions.

Some users have already felt it. Their accounts were frozen after deposits traced back to A7A5. Expect more of the same. Fees go up. Transfers slow down. Exchanges drop more coins. Earlier rounds already left some Russian crypto assets stuck.

Nikolai Zagvozdkin, product development director for crypto at RBC, expects the same for everyday users.

“Working with crypto will become more expensive, slower, and somewhat less transparent,” Nikolai told BeInCrypto.

Russia is building its own way around this. It now allows crypto for foreign trade. It is setting up licensed exchanges under a new crypto law.

But there is a catch. The more Russia closes off its market, the less it connects to the world. The next question is whether the EU can enforce it all.

Alexey Zyuzin, CEO of the Institute for the Development of the Crypto Industry, expects the market to split in two.

“Two circuits are likely to form. The first is a legal domestic market under the control of the Russian regulator… The second is a cross-border segment, where elevated sanctions and technological risks will persist,” Alexey said in a statement to BeInCrypto.

The post New EU Sanctions Make Crypto Harder for Russian Users appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Source link

Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, U.S., July 20, 2026.

Brendan McDermid | Reuters

Major U.S. stock indexes tumbled on Thursday as investors began to price in the consequences of a renewed and prolonged conflict in the Middle East. 

Advertisement

While the U.S. has conducted strikes against Iran 12 nights in a row — sending both oil prices and Treasury yields higher — domestic equities had mostly brushed off the idea of the war between the two countries heating up again, staying flat while oil jumped. 

That changed on Thursday, though, when Brent Crude futures jumped above $100 per barrel and the 10-year Treasury yield broke through 4.7%, hitting its highest level since January 2025, after reports of attacks against tankers off the coast of Saudi Arabia. The S&P 500 headed for its biggest decline in a month.

Oil prices and S&P 500

FactSet

Advertisement

“These problems became too big to ignore,” said Steve Sosnick, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers, about the move in stocks on Thursday. “It’s too hard to ignore $100 oil. It’s too hard to ignore 10-year rates that are above 4.70%. It’s too hard for the stock market to ignore 30-year rates that are solidly above 5%.”

Western Texas Intermediate Crude futures jumped 6% to $92 per barrel, up more than 28% from lows below $70 per barrel they hit earlier this month. The S&P 500 is now down about 2% since the consecutive evening strikes by the U.S. began on July 12. 

In March, after the U.S-Iran war began, the S&P 500 fell more than 7.5% at its low point as oil surged nearly 70% and investors worried about stagflation, where higher energy prices would reignite inflation while elevated costs at the gas pump would weigh on consumer spending. 

A series of de-escalation announcements between the two countries and a reignited faith in the artificial intelligence trade led the S&P to ferociously rebound in April and May, even as hostilities at various times continued.

Advertisement

Betting on Trump’s off-ramp

The big factor, however, was a bet that President Donald Trump would find an off-ramp to end the war rather than face the economic and political consequences of a prolonged conflict. 

“We have consistently argued since 2nd half of March to use the equity weakness brought on by the Iran conflict to buy into, as the off-ramp and the eventual deal were likely, in our view,” wrote JPMorgan equity strategists in a note earlier this month. “The risks of renewed flareups remain, but we believe one should keep using any dips on the back of adverse geopolitical headlines in order to add.”

S&P 500 since Feb. 27, 2026

Advertisement

Sameer Samana, senior global market strategist at Wells Fargo Investment Institute, now thinks traders need to reconsider the economic fears they had in March.

Investors should be worried about both higher inflation and the impact higher gas prices may have on consumers, she said. Samana added the reignited conflict is a reason to prepare for a larger drawdown in equities. 

Sosnick said that stocks on Thursday were also likely pricing in a tighter borrowing environment for companies. Chances for a rate hike by the Federal Reserve next week according to CME’S FedWatch tool are up to almost 38%, while odds for a hike at the central bank’s September meeting are at more than 80%. 

A week ago, those odds were priced at about 12% and 53%, respectively

Advertisement

Back in March, many analysts were surprised that the stock market didn’t react more to the conflict initially, and concluded that the U.S. economy was in better shape than in the past to handle energy shocks. That’s a bet that Michael Tanney, CEO at investment advisory firm Pereon Wealth, is taking again.

“In the short term, the elevated spike is more meaningful to the headlines than client portfolios,” Tanney said. “If we have a sustained price above $120, that’s the breaking point where you’ll see serious trickle down effects.”

— CNBC’s Deena Zaidi, Tanaya Macheel, Ananya Chetia contributed reporting

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Source link

Source link

BitMEX is shutting down, and its token crashed with it. The BMEX price fell nearly 90% in one day after the exchange set a September 23 closing date.

The token now trades near $0.0068, according to live data. Its whole supply is worth just $680,000.

BMEX Price Falls With Its Exchange

Exchange tokens live and die with their platform. BMEX is a clear example.

BitMEX launched it in 2022. People who staked the token paid lower trading fees and earned other perks.

Those perks only work while the exchange is open. Once BitMEX confirmed its shutdown, the token lost its point.

BMEX now trades about 98% below its price a year ago. It hit a record low near $0.0033 on Thursday, then bounced back a little.

The Competition Stands to Gain

BitMEX changed crypto trading forever. In 2016 it launched the first perpetual swap, a trade with no end date.

Traders loved it. They could keep positions open as long as they liked, with up to 100x leverage. That multiplied both profits and losses.

Rivals soon copied the design. Perpetuals now drive most crypto trading. But BitMEX could not keep its early lead.

Then regulators caught up. US authorities charged BitMEX in 2020. A year later it paid $100 million to the CFTC and FinCEN over weak controls.

Founder Arthur Hayes even pleaded guilty to breaking US anti-money-laundering rules. While BitMEX dealt with the fallout, rivals raced ahead.

“BitMEX pioneered the perpetual swap and became the world’s #1 crypto exchange. Used by millions, it inspired the exchanges that followed — including Bybit. Regulators came for them, but the product outlived the backlash. Today perps are the beating heart of crypto, going legal in more countries every year (EU, Dubai VARA, HK, and more). End of an era. Respect to the legends who built it,” said Ben Zhou, co-founder and CEO of Bybit.

Today the winners are clear. Binance leads perpetual trading by volume, with OKX and Bybit close behind. Deribit rules crypto options.

On-chain venues are rising fast too. Hyperliquid leads perpetual DEX trading. dYdX draws institutional traders to decentralized markets.

BitMEX had already faded to almost nothing. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju said it handled about $84 million in Bitcoin (BTC) futures in one day. That was near 0.08% of the market.

Now its traders need a new home. Where they land will show who really won the market BitMEX built.

The post BMEX Price Falls 90% As BitMEX Shutdown Hands Market to Binance, Hyperliquid and Rivals appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

A public petition has alleged that foreign-funded groups helped drive India’s Cockroach Janta Party protests. A BeInCrypto audit found no public evidence of a broad crypto-funding wave during the movement’s July escalation.

The available signals moved in the opposite direction. Protest-related Google searches surged about 1,350% above baseline between July 18 and July 22. 

Crypto-buying searches fell about 18%. Estimated USDT/INR turnover dropped about 30%, while the premium Indians paid for USDT narrowed by roughly 44%.

The investigation did find crypto activity linked to the protest’s name. Four unofficial Solana tokens generated about $1.48 million in decentralised exchange volume. No public evidence connects their creators, traders or proceeds to protest organisers.

Claims of Foreign Extremist Groups Funding Indian Protests

A public interest petition filed before the Delhi High Court on July 22 requested a National Investigation Agency probe into alleged foreign funding behind the July 20 march on Parliament. 

The court agreed to hear the plea on July 24. The allegations remain unproven, and the court has not endorsed them.

Funding rumours had already spread online. A letter presented by several Indian media accounts as proof of support from Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami was later identified as a forgery by Alt News.

The Cockroach Janta Party began as an online satire movement in May after India’s chief justice compared some unemployed young people and activists to ‘cockroaches.’ 

It soon became a national protest channel for anger over exam paper leaks, unemployment and government accountability.

The movement’s immediate demand is the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan after the NEET medical entrance exam was cancelled over a question-paper leak. 

Tens of thousands tried to march towards Parliament on July 20, where police used tear gas and batons. Protesters have remained at Jantar Mantar since then.

How BeInCrypto Investigation Tested the Claim

BeInCrypto tested public data from May 15 to July 22. The study compared a baseline period, Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike and the five-day escalation that followed his forced hospitalisation.

Crypto Demand Fell as Protest Attention Surged

Google Trends showed a sharp split. Protest searches rose by about 1,350% across India and more than 2,000% in Delhi during the escalation. Searches linked to buying crypto, USDT, and wallets fell by about 18% nationally and 19% in Delhi.

Haryana produced one exception. Its crypto-action search basket rose about 48% from a small baseline. The result remains an open lead and does not establish transactions or protest financing.

Exchange data also weakened. Combined estimated USDT/INR turnover on CoinDCX and WazirX fell about 30% below the baseline. Combined Bitcoin and Ethereum turnover dropped about 23%.

The USDT premium provided the strongest market test. A sudden rush for dollar-linked crypto in India should create scarcity and push USDT above the official dollar-rupee rate. The median premium narrowed by about 44% during the escalation.

No Organiser Wallet Appeared in the Public Trail

The on-chain review covered USDT and USDC transfers touching 637 publicly labelled CoinDCX and WazirX addresses on Dune Analytics. 

Average daily stablecoin inflows to the labelled CoinDCX subset fell about 20%, from roughly $1,320 to $1,058. The WazirX labels returned no matched transfer legs.

These results have a large blind spot. Public labels cover only a small share of exchange infrastructure. They cannot see private peer-to-peer trades, over-the-counter desks, unlabelled wallets or crypto held before the protest.

Commercial clustering exposes the public-label blind spot. Sources: Arkham and Dune Analytics.

Labelled global exchange wallets also showed no surge. Stablecoin inflows into the public Binance, Coinbase, Bybit, and KuCoin clusters fell between about 20% and 52% from baseline.

No offshore exchange keeps a public India-specific wallet cluster. Source: Dune Analytics.

The social audit produced the same result. Researchers archived 118 publicly accessible Telegram posts from movement-linked channels and searched them for donation, payment and wallet language. 

They found no crypto addresses or payment wallets.

Founder Abhijeet Dipke used a missed-call number to mobilise supporters. One unrelated account posted a UPI payment handle ‘for Jantar Mantar,’ while another promoted an unofficial protest token and described it as community-created. 

Neither post established a financial link to the organisers.

Public wallet-label searches for 23 politicians and political organisations also returned no matches. 

Separate checks for Wangchuk and five institutions linked to him found no verified public wallet. A missing label does not show that a person owns no crypto. It means there is no authenticated starting point for tracing a payment.

Copycat Tokens Were the Clearest Crypto Activity

Four protest-branded Solana tokens traded during the research period. The largest, named after the Cockroach Janta Party, recorded about $1.39 million in volume across 24,635 trades involving 4,126 traders.

Its supply was highly concentrated. The largest observed holder controlled about 80%, while the top 10 controlled almost the entire supply. Three Wangchuk- or protest-themed tokens added roughly $91,700 in trading volume.

The CJP-branded token was extremely concentrated. Source: Dune Analytics.

The pattern suggests traders are monetising attention around the protests. It does not show fundraising. Organisers have not acknowledged the tokens, and no traced proceeds reached a verified protest wallet.

The identity problem extends to the web. Several CJP-themed domains emerged after the movement went viral, making conflicting claims about donations and official status. 

A brand-matching website, QR code, or token should be treated as unverified until organisers publish authenticated payment endpoints.

What the Public Evidence Supports

The movement’s visible support system was more conventional. AP and India Today documented supporters ordering food and water through delivery apps, while organisers said many participants paid their own travel costs.

The public evidence supports a limited conclusion. There was no broad, visible protest-linked crypto funding wave between May 15 and July 22. The data also provides no public support for claims of foreign or China-linked crypto payments.

A private route could still exist outside the tested data. Proving it would require a verified recipient wallet, exchange customer records, bank records or financial-intelligence reports. None has appeared publicly.

Methodology and Disclosure

The audit used public exchange candles, Google Trends exports, Dune labels, 118 Telegram posts, verified X activity and Solana trading data. Public sources cannot identify a trader’s residence or motive and do not cover private groups, peer-to-peer markets or unlabelled wallets. 

The findings do not establish illegal, political or foreign financing by any person or organisation. The court petition remains an unproven allegation.

The post Is Crypto Funding India’s Cockroach Protest? We Traced the Money appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link