Pi Network’s PI token fell to a new all-time low near $0.126 on June 5, 2026, capping a slide that has erased more than 30% of its value in a month and confirmed a bearish breakdown traders had been watching for weeks.

At roughly $0.13, the token carries a market cap around $1.36 billion and sits near rank #58, a long way from the excitement that surrounded its Open Mainnet launch and exchange listings.

The immediate triggers are clear and specific. More than 163 million PI (PI) tokens are scheduled to unlock and enter circulation this month, averaging over 5 million per day, with the single largest release of nearly 16 million PI due on June 11. That fresh supply is landing into thin liquidity and a brutal market-wide selloff that has dragged Bitcoin below $62,000 and wiped out over $1.6 billion in leveraged positions.

The question every PI holder is now asking is whether the unlocks push the token below $0.10. This piece breaks down why Pi hit a new low, the supply problem at the heart of it, the one bright spot, and what would have to change.

How Pi got here

The path to a new all-time low was not sudden. It was a steady erosion that accelerated into a breakdown.

Pi Network surged to around $0.296 in March 2026, riding enthusiasm around its exchange listings and the broader attention its unusually large user base attracted. That was the peak. From there the token entered a persistent downtrend, retreating through the spring as the initial excitement faded and selling pressure built. By late May it was trading near $0.15, already its lowest level since February, and below all its major moving averages, a sign that bears had taken firm control of the trend.

The technical structure then broke. For weeks, Pi had been trading inside a falling wedge pattern on the daily chart, with buyers repeatedly failing to reclaim resistance in the $0.18 to $0.20 region. When they failed one final time, sellers forced a decisive breakdown below the lower boundary of the wedge and below the critical support band around $0.129 to $0.131. That breakdown is what pushed PI into price discovery on the downside, opening the door to the fresh record low near $0.126 reached on June 5.

The drop also has to be understood against the backdrop of the broader market. This was not a Pi-specific collapse happening in isolation. Bitcoin briefly fell to an intraday low near $61,550 on June 4, Ethereum dropped below $1,800, and the CoinGlass data showed more than $1.6 billion in leveraged positions liquidated across crypto. That kind of market-wide capitulation crushes appetite for speculative altcoins, and Pi, as one of the more speculative large-cap names, felt it acutely. But the market selloff is only the accelerant. The core problem is structural, and it is about supply.

The supply problem at the heart of it

The single most important factor in Pi’s decline is its token unlock schedule, and the math is unforgiving.

Pi Network has a token release schedule that steadily moves locked tokens into circulation, and June is a heavy month. Data from PiScan shows more than 163 million PI scheduled to enter circulation over the next 30 days, with daily unlocks averaging over 5 million tokens. The largest single-day release, nearly 16 million PI, is expected on June 11. Every one of those tokens is new supply hitting the market, and supply that arrives faster than demand grows pushes price down by simple arithmetic.

This is the deep structural challenge Pi faces, and it is not new, just intensifying. The token’s design front-loads a large amount of supply entering circulation over time, and for that not to crush the price, there has to be commensurate demand: new buyers, real usage, genuine utility pulling tokens out of circulation as fast as the schedule puts them in. Right now, that demand is not there. Liquidity is thin, the broader market is in retreat, and there is no flood of new buyers stepping in to absorb the unlocks. The result is a persistent imbalance where new supply consistently outweighs new demand, and the price grinds lower.

The timing makes it worse. The June unlocks, and especially the June 11 release, are landing precisely when market liquidity is at its weakest and risk appetite at its lowest. In a strong bull market, an ecosystem might absorb 163 million new tokens without much trouble, because demand is rising fast enough to soak them up. In a fearful, illiquid market, the same supply becomes a heavy weight. This is why analysts are openly discussing whether PI breaks below $0.10: it is not a wild bearish fantasy; it is a straightforward read of supply outrunning demand at the worst possible moment.

They were born from the same code and the same founder, and now they are competing for a slice of what could become the largest market in finance. 

XRP and Stellar both trace back to Jed McCaleb, who co-founded Ripple and then left to create Stellar in 2014. A decade later, the two networks are the leading crypto contenders to become the settlement infrastructure for tokenized real-world assets, a market that bulls size at up to $114 trillion as stocks, bonds, funds, and Treasuries move on-chain. 

In 2026 each landed a defining win. XRP has the CLARITY Act advancing through the Senate, spot ETFs with $1.41 billion in cumulative inflows, and live cross-border payment volume that generates direct token demand today. Stellar secured the single biggest institutional endorsement any of these tokens has received: a deal with the DTCC, the backbone of US securities settlement, to bring tokenized stocks, ETFs, and Treasuries directly onto its network. So who wins? 

The honest answer is that they are winning different races, and the question that actually matters for investors is which catalyst pays off first. This piece compares them head to head across payments, tokenization, regulation, and token value capture, and lays out how to think about the contest.

Same roots, different bets

The shared origin story matters because it explains why these two networks are so similar and yet have diverged so sharply in strategy.

Jed McCaleb co-founded Ripple and helped create the technology that became the XRP Ledger. In 2014 he left after disagreements over direction and founded Stellar, building a network with deep technical similarities: both are fast, cheap, energy-light payment ledgers with native tokens, both use a consensus model rather than mining, and both were designed from the start for moving value across borders rather than running complex smart contracts. If you squint, XRP and Stellar are siblings, which is exactly what they are.

The divergence is in who they decided to serve. Ripple aimed XRP and the XRP Ledger squarely at banks and large financial institutions, building enterprise infrastructure, pursuing regulatory clarity through litigation and legislation, and selling directly to the commercial cross-border payments market. Stellar, through the nonprofit Stellar Development Foundation, leaned toward financial inclusion, emerging-market access, and partnerships with issuers and institutions willing to build on open infrastructure, with a stronger emphasis on stablecoins and asset issuance than on being the bridge currency itself.

Those different bets set up the 2026 contest. XRP went deep on commercial payments and US regulatory legitimacy. Stellar went deep on becoming a neutral issuance platform that established financial institutions could use to put real-world assets on-chain. Both strategies are now paying off, but in different arenas, which is why declaring a single winner misunderstands the race.

The payments race: XRP is ahead

On the original battleground, cross-border payments, XRP is winning on the metrics that exist today.

Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity network has real, growing volume. Cumulative Ripple Payments volume crossed $95 billion as of January 2026, the network spans more than 70 currency corridors, and it covers an estimated 80 percent of major global remittance routes. The heaviest volume runs through corridors like Japan, the Philippines, and Mexico, where legacy banking costs are high and demand for fast, cheap remittances is constant. Crucially for the token, ODL builds direct XRP demand into every transaction it touches, because the model uses XRP as the bridge asset converted on each side of a payment. ODL volume is projected to grow 30 to 50 percent in 2026.

Key Insights

• More than $500 billion were wiped out from the cryptocurrency market over 25 days as the sell-off became even more intense on major cryptocurrencies.
• More than $400 billion worth of market value was wiped out by Bitcoin as it dropped towards $61,000.
• Meme coins and growth coins registered even higher sell-offs as risk-on sentiment waned

Trigger for the Massive Crypto Market Contraction

The Crypto Market Reset is becoming very strong after a loss of over $500 billion in the digital assets space within the span of just 25 days. Almost all segments of the crypto industry suffered massive declines during this period, where even Bitcoin, Ethereum, major altcoins, and meme tokens saw significant losses.

The market sentiment changed very fast, prompting investors to switch to a defensive mode due to rising volatility and lack of liquidity. From a market correction phase, it escalated into a widespread sell-off trend that caused one of the biggest market contractions in recent months.

Based on data mentioned in social updates, there was a decline of over $500 billion in the value of digital assets in just 25 days as money started moving away from risky assets. This is primarily due to the cautious stance taken by investors amidst uncertain macroeconomic conditions.

Bitcoin Represents the Largest Proportion of the Losses

Bitcoin was identified as the greatest driver of the market correction. According to media reports, losses incurred by the main cryptocurrency amounted to over $400 billion as its price declined back to the $61,000 mark.

Data from market heatmaps indicated that Bitcoin was one of the worst performers. Given that Bitcoin is the largest crypto by market cap, its downturn negatively affected the whole crypto space.

The fall in Bitcoin’s price made investors less confident, which resulted in lower interest in risky crypto projects. Market participants started prioritizing capital preservation amid growing uncertainty.

While historically being a strong and resilient currency, the latest market correction demonstrated Bitcoin’s vulnerability amid unfavorable market conditions.

Downtrend Continues for Ethereum and Leading Altcoins

There was also selling pressure in Ethereum, one of the largest digital assets. Ethereum declined by about 33.6%, indicating a continuation of the downtrend.

Other top-ranked altcoins also showed severe drops in value. Solana saw an average drop of more than 55%, whereas XRP and Avalanche saw considerable declines amid investors’ efforts to avoid risk in the crypto market.

Cardano became another leading cryptocurrency to see a severe loss in value during the period, with an approximate 71.5% decline. Chainlink saw another notable decline of around 43%.

From these numbers, one can see a market-wide tendency rather than developments specific to each blockchain ecosystem. In particular, market factors seem to be more important than individual project news.

Growth Tokens and Meme Coins Suffer from Greater Adjustments

This correction was much more pronounced for growth tokens and speculative coins. Cryptocurrencies that were earlier highly in demand faced some of the most pronounced corrections.

In particular, Sui lost nearly 75.7% of its value, becoming one of the worst-performing assets. The same happened with Aptos, Kaspa, Render, and other growth projects.

Meme coins were not spared by this market readjustment either. For instance, Dogecoin shed over 53% of its value, whereas Shiba Inu, Bonk, and Pepe saw substantial decreases as well. Typically in bull markets, meme coins are among the best performers; however, during bear periods, the corrections are much deeper.

Seeking Stability Despite Continuing Uncertainty

Although a select few assets proved somewhat immune to the decline, there was only a limited degree of positive results seen across the market as a whole. The general heatmap continued to indicate weakness across the board, reflecting the conservative nature of recent trading activity.

The resetting of the crypto market demonstrates just how volatile the space can be. Having witnessed over $500 billion wiped out in less than a month, attention will now be focused on the performance of Bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies to see if stability is achieved. Liquidity and macroeconomic developments will continue to be the key determinants of crypto market performance in the coming weeks.

Hyperliquid has fallen sharply from its record high after a whale-led selloff triggered a wave of liquidations and pushed momentum indicators into their weakest position since the token’s breakout rally began.

According to data from crypto.news, Hyperliquid (HYPE) price was trading near $62 on Friday, June 5, after plunging from an all-time high of $75.48 just a day earlier. The token briefly touched the $58 area before buyers stepped in, though sentiment remains fragile following the abrupt exit of several prominent market participants.

The immediate bearish catalyst came from BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes, who liquidated his entire HYPE position worth roughly $18 million, as reported by crypto.news on June 4.

On-chain data tracked by Onchain Lens showed Hayes sold approximately 247,334 HYPE tokens. Other prominent traders, including Andrew Kang and Andreas Brekken, were also linked to sizable reductions in exposure. The concentrated selling overwhelmed spot demand and triggered a decline that wiped more than 17% off HYPE’s value within hours.

The selloff came only months after Hayes publicly projected a $150 price target for HYPE and placed a $100,000 charity wager on the token outperforming other large-cap cryptocurrencies.

Following the exit, Hayes pointed to a combination of macroeconomic headwinds, including rising oil prices driven by Middle East tensions, liquidity demand from several major AI-related IPOs, and the risk of a broader downturn in financial markets later this year.

Advertisement

Despite closing his position, Hayes maintained a bullish long-term outlook for HYPE. In a June X post, he wrote:

“Btw just because I dumped my entire $HYPE bag, doesn’t mean I still don’t have faith $HYPE will best $SOL by year end. Sometimes you gotta go down to go up.”

Additional pressure emerged from derivatives markets. Lookonchain reported that loracle.hl, a whale trader who previously lost $46.46 million shorting HYPE, had flipped long and was facing another unrealized loss of more than $840,000 during the latest selloff. The trade underscored how quickly leverage has been punished on both sides of the market as volatility intensified.

Technical structure places $55 and $50 in focus

The daily chart shows that HYPE has retreated into a key Fibonacci support region after failing to hold above the recent breakout zone. The token is currently trading between the 0.786 retracement level near $63.9 and the 0.618 level near $54.6, measured from the January low around $20.4 to the June peak near $75.7.

A breakdown below the 0.618 retracement could expose the midpoint support near $48.1, bringing the psychologically important $50 level into view. The area between $54 and $55 now represents the first major support cluster bulls need to defend.

Momentum indicators have also deteriorated. The daily MACD has produced its first bearish crossover since the rally accelerated in May, while the histogram has turned negative.

Advertisement

At the same time, the Relative Strength Index has dropped from overbought territory above 70 to roughly 54, showing that buyers have lost control of short-term momentum.

CoinGlass liquidation heatmaps identify another critical zone. Dense concentrations of leveraged positions remain stacked between $60 and $64, while larger liquidity pools sit around $58 and below. A decisive move through those levels could trigger another round of forced selling and increase downside volatility.

Institutional accumulation continues beneath the selloff

Not all capital has been leaving the ecosystem. As reported by crypto.news earlier, wallets linked to venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz accumulated an additional 224,100 HYPE tokens worth more than $15 million during the selloff.

The latest purchase increased a16z-linked holdings to roughly 6.90 million HYPE acquired in 2026, representing an estimated position worth more than $322 million. The buying activity contrasts sharply with the profit-taking seen from traders and whales near the highs.

Fundamentals also remain supportive for the token. Hyperliquid continues generating some of the highest revenues in crypto, while approximately 99% of protocol fees are directed toward programmatic HYPE buybacks.

Advertisement

The decentralized exchange has steadily increased its share of perpetual futures trading volume, giving the token a revenue stream that few competitors can match.

However, several risks could still challenge the bullish case. Further weakness in Bitcoin (BTC), escalating geopolitical tensions, additional whale distributions, or a sustained break below the $55 support area could accelerate losses toward $50.

For now, traders appear focused on whether HYPE can reclaim the $64 region and invalidate the bearish MACD crossover before sellers target the next major support zone.

Advertisement

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

While the crypto world fixates on price charts and the broader market bleeds, the most consequential fight for crypto’s future is happening in Senate offices and on conference stages, and it pits two of the most powerful men in finance against each other. 

On one side is Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of Ripple, who has spent years and a landmark SEC lawsuit pushing for US crypto legislation and who put the odds of the CLARITY Act passing at 80 percent. On the other is Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, America’s largest bank, who has said flatly that he is not satisfied with the bill as written and warned that banks “will not accept it that way.” 

The CLARITY Act is the crypto industry’s most important legislative priority, the bill that would finally define the legal status of digital assets in the US. Whether it passes, and what it looks like if it does, comes down in large part to a power struggle between the crypto industry that wants it and the banking industry that fears what it would unleash. This piece lays out who these two men are, what they are actually fighting over, why the fight matters far beyond their companies, and how it is likely to resolve.

Polymarket has paid at least $350,000 to social media influencers over a 14-month period, with many of those creators later promoting the prediction market platform on X without clearly disclosing a paid relationship, according to a POLITICO investigation based on PayPal transaction records.

According to POLITICO, the payments were sent by Polymarket chief marketing officer Matthew Modabber through a personal PayPal account between January 2025 and February 2026.

Market rout and leverage unwind

Cryptocurrency markets registered a sharp drawdown this week as bitcoin fell from near $74,000 to an intraday low around $61,556, a roughly 17% decline over four trading days. The move coincided with more than $4.4 billion in liquidations across derivatives markets, with long positions bearing the bulk of the losses.

Ether slid below $2,000 during the same period, and trading dynamics on major exchanges signaled a pullback in institutional participation: the Coinbase premium — the price gap between Coinbase and Binance — has been negative and widening, an indicator market participants often read as weaker U.S. institutional bid.

Traders and analysts pointed to a combination of macro and market‑micro factors. Heightened geopolitical tensions involving the U.S. and Iran appeared to sap risk appetite, while speculative capital rotated toward AI equities that were perceived to offer clearer near‑term earnings. On-chain metrics also showed that many recent buyers were underwater, intensifying forced selling in a leveraged market.

Gnosis Pay exploit underscores middleware risk

On June 1, users of Gnosis Pay — a service that links noncustodial Safe wallets to Visa‑branded payment cards — experienced an exploit traced to a vulnerability in the Zodiac Delay Module, a third‑party component used in Safe’s modular stack. Gnosis co‑founder Martin Koppelmann publicly urged affected users to withdraw certain assets, and the Gnosis team subsequently said it would cover user losses related to the incident.

The event follows a similar pattern seen in other recent incidents, where core wallet frameworks remain intact but ancillary modules introduce attack surfaces. A week earlier, a separate incident involving a third‑party Safe module known as the Squid exploit drained about $3.2 million from dozens of Safe wallets. Together, these failures highlight the security tradeoffs introduced by composable middleware: integrating external modules accelerates feature development but multiplies dependency and review surfaces.

For products that bridge on‑chain wallets to off‑ramp rails like Visa, the incidents illustrate the technical and operational complexity of safely extending noncustodial keys into payments ecosystems. The events have already reignited debate among custodial and self‑custody proponents about which custody models best balance user convenience and systemic risk.

Zcash halt and verification key updates after minting vulnerability

Zcash experienced a separate disruption when security researcher Taylor Hornby disclosed a flaw in the Orchard shielded protocol circuit that, according to the researcher, could enable undetected minting of ZEC. The disclosure precipitated an emergency response from the Zcash team, including temporarily disabling Orchard, coordinating a soft fork, and deploying verification key updates via a hard fork within days.

Price action responded violently: ZEC lost more than 40% in a 24‑hour window as market confidence in supply integrity deteriorated. Observers have noted that Zcash’s Turnstile Accounting — the system for tracking shielded pool balances — may not readily reveal whether counterfeit coins were minted and migrated within normal outflow bounds. That uncertainty, rather than any single technical fix, is what markets appear to be pricing.

Notably, the researcher reported using contemporary AI tooling during analysis, a reflection of how machine‑assisted code review is lowering the marginal cost of uncovering complex cryptographic or protocol vulnerabilities. That capability increases both the speed at which bugs are found and the urgency of rapid, coordinated protocol responses.

Regulatory pressure: MiCA transitional deadline looms

Adding to market strains, the EU’s Markets in Crypto‑Assets (MiCA) transitional period expires on July 1, 2026. MiCA entered into force on December 30, 2024, and member states were given up to 18 months to transpose its provisions into national law. Some jurisdictions accelerated that timeline — for example, the Netherlands implemented a shortened window — but the July 1 date is the common regulatory boundary for operating without authorization across the bloc.

The practical implication for users and service providers is concrete: crypto‑asset service providers serving European customers without MiCA authorization risk being out of compliance and could be forced to restrict services or accounts. Industry participants have urged users to verify the regulatory status of their platforms and consider self‑custody options where appropriate.

Implications and what to watch

Three themes emerge from recent events. First, leverage and concentrated derivative positions amplify price moves — liquidations remain a primary driver of short‑term volatility. Second, the architecture of Web3 services matters: composability accelerates innovation but introduces operational dependencies that are progressively becoming the focal point for attackers. Third, regulatory transitions such as MiCA impose timeline‑driven operational risk for centralized platforms offering services to European users.

For market participants, the near term will be shaped by how exchanges, protocol teams, and third‑party module developers respond to these failures: faster disclosure, coordinated emergency upgrades, and improved security auditing can restore confidence, but they are not panaceas. Users concerned about counterparty or platform risk should review custody arrangements and confirm whether their providers have regulatory authorization if they operate in the EU.

Finally, the Zcash episode underscores a broader point: supply integrity is fundamental to token value. Even when teams patch vulnerabilities quickly, the reputational shock can trigger sustained repricing as participants reassess trust in protocol assumptions.

We will continue to monitor price action, on‑chain flows, and follow‑up technical disclosures related to these incidents.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute investment or legal advice. Readers should verify technical claims and consult professionals before acting.

Morgan Stanley Wealth Management has expanded its crypto offering by enabling eligible clients to convert digital asset holdings into spot crypto exchange-traded products through a new referral arrangement with Galaxy Digital.

According to a Friday announcement, high-net-worth Morgan Stanley clients can lend cryptocurrencies including bitcoin, ether, and Solana to Galaxy Digital and receive shares in spot crypto investment products in return, including the recently launched Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust.

The companies said the process allows investors to move crypto exposure into regulated investment vehicles without selling their digital assets first. The announcement added that the structure could reduce in-kind crypto-to-ETP onboarding times by as much as 75%.

Explaining the rationale behind the arrangement, Alison Nest, Head of Investment Solutions Products at Morgan Stanley, said the bank has been active in decentralized finance and views the referral capability with Galaxy as a way to help wealth management clients integrate digital assets into their portfolios through an institutional framework.

Nest said the arrangement creates a connection between traditional finance and decentralized finance while giving investors additional ways to diversify their holdings.

Morgan Stanley deepens digital asset push

The latest initiative arrives as Morgan Stanley continues to add new crypto-related products and services across its wealth management and brokerage businesses.

Earlier this year, the bank launched the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust, a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund that completed its first month without recording a day of net redemptions, according to previous company disclosures.

Recent regulatory filings have also shown the bank expanding beyond Bitcoin products. In May, Morgan Stanley disclosed holdings in the Volatility Shares XRP ETF and the Grayscale XRP ETF, adding XRP-linked investment products to a crypto portfolio that already included Bitcoin and Ethereum exposure.

At roughly the same time, the firm submitted an updated registration statement for the Morgan Stanley Solana Trust, a proposed spot Solana ETF that would hold SOL directly and stake part of its assets through third-party providers. According to the filing, staking rewards generated from those holdings would contribute to the fund’s overall returns.

Crypto access has also extended to Morgan Stanley’s brokerage business. Through a pilot program launched on E*Trade in May, the bank began offering Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana trading through infrastructure provided by Zerohash. 

Morgan Stanley executives said at the time that the initiative formed part of a strategy to keep clients within the firm’s investment ecosystem.

Leadership changes have accompanied the expansion. Amy Oldenburg, a longtime Morgan Stanley executive, was appointed earlier this year to lead the firm’s first dedicated digital asset strategy role.

Galaxy expands institutional services

For Galaxy Digital, the partnership adds another institutional channel to its lending and asset management business.

According to company figures, Galaxy generated $505 million in adjusted gross profit during 2025 from its trading, lending, asset management, and staking services division.

Only days before announcing the Morgan Stanley referral arrangement, Galaxy also introduced an institutional over-the-counter prediction market trading desk, adding another service aimed at professional investors.

The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee has released seven crypto tax discussion drafts that would introduce new rules for decentralized finance lending, stablecoin payments, staking rewards, and other digital asset transactions ahead of a June 9 congressional hearing.

According to crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett, the discussion package breaks crypto tax policy into a series of standalone proposals covering areas such as stablecoins, mining, staking, DeFi lending, wash-sale rules, charitable donations, and a voluntary disclosure program for taxpayers with unresolved crypto reporting issues.

The proposals arrive as lawmakers increase their focus on how digital assets should be taxed in the United States. Several of the subjects included in the drafts were previously grouped together under greater legislative efforts, including the bipartisan Digital Asset Protection, Accountability, Regulation, Innovation, Taxation, and Yields Act, known as the PARITY Act, and separate legislation introduced by Senator Cynthia Lummis.

DeFi lending and stablecoin transactions move into focus

Among the most closely watched provisions are those affecting decentralized finance activity. Terrett said the discussion drafts address DeFi lending, an area that has faced years of uncertainty over how transactions should be treated under U.S. tax law.

The package also includes provisions related to stablecoin payments. Under one proposal, compliant stablecoins could qualify for a de minimis treatment on small gains and losses generated through everyday transactions.

The measure would allow certain low-value payments to receive different tax treatment from speculative crypto trades. At the same time, lawmakers continue to examine how stablecoins should be treated within the tax system.

As reported by crypto.news earlier, the bipartisan PARITY Act proposed a deemed-basis rule for regulated dollar-pegged payment stablecoins. According to Representative Steven Horsford’s office, the provision would treat digital dollars used as payment instruments more like cash for tax purposes while including safeguards against trading and arbitrage abuse.

Several anti-abuse measures also appear in the new discussion drafts. Terrett said the proposals would extend wash-sale and constructive-sale rules to crypto transactions, bringing digital assets closer to the framework already applied to traditional financial markets.

Mining and staking rules remain under review

Tax treatment of mining and staking rewards remains another major topic within the package. According to Terrett, the discussion drafts include provisions addressing both activities alongside charitable contributions and reporting requirements.

Related legislative efforts have already sought changes in this area. Under the PARITY Act introduced by Representatives Horsford, Max Miller, Suzan DelBene, and Mike Carey in May, taxpayers would be allowed to elect when staking and mining rewards become taxable. Horsford’s office said the proposal is designed to address the so-called phantom income issue faced by some participants.

Earlier coverage also noted that 18 bipartisan lawmakers urged the Internal Revenue Service to revisit its 2023 staking guidance before the 2026 tax year.

Attention now turns to the Ways and Means Committee hearing scheduled for June 9, where the discussion drafts are expected to play a central role. Terrett said the proposals will likely feature prominently during the proceedings as lawmakers evaluate potential changes to crypto taxation.

Outside the tax debate, Congress continues to consider other digital asset legislation. The CLARITY Act is advancing through the legislative process, while Representative Nick Begich recently introduced the American Reserves Modernization Act, a bill that would pursue budget-neutral methods of increasing U.S. Bitcoin reserve holdings rather than requiring the government to purchase up to 1 million BTC over five years.

Cardano is getting attention again, but not the kind holders usually want.

ADA fell to around $0.16 on Thursday, down nearly 30% over the past seven days and more than 75% over the past year, CoinDesk data show. The token briefly traded below $0.16, its lowest level since December 2020, extending a drawdown that has turned Cardano from one of crypto’s largest retail communities into one of the market’s clearest stress cases.

The latest selling followed comments from founder Charles Hoskinson, who said he was “taking a break” after warning that Cardano could face a “wave of failures” across its ecosystem. His remarks came after TapTools, a Cardano analytics platform, said it would shut down after four years, and after the community voted against funding Cardano’s 2026 Summit in Singapore.

The market reaction has now spread beyond price.

Santiment said ADA’s social dominance reached about 0.52%, a 2026 high, meaning more than one in every 190 crypto-related discussions across tracked social channels focused on Cardano.

Daily active addresses also climbed to 28,459, the highest level in four months, suggesting users are moving funds, checking positions or interacting with the network during the selloff.

Such a kind of activity can be read two ways.

The bullish version is that Cardano’s base has not disappeared. ADA still has one of crypto’s louder communities, and activity rising into a selloff can show holders are engaged rather than checked out.

However, another read is that attention is being pulled in by distress. Project shutdowns, funding fights and the founder stepping back are not the kind of catalysts that usually bring durable bids. Retail loyalty can keep a token relevant, but it cannot replace ecosystem growth, new capital or working applications.

That is the test now. ADA is cheap by old cycle standards, but cheap alone is not a catalyst. Cardano needs evidence that projects can survive, treasury funding can be deployed and users have reasons to do more than defend the chain online.