Crypto World
ICT Trading: What Are the Main ICT Concepts?
Inner Circle Trading (ICT) is a price-action methodology developed by Michael J. Huddleston, also known as the Inner Circle Trader. It explains market behaviour through concepts such as liquidity, market structure, order blocks, fair value gaps, and trading session timing. Traders use them to analyse price movements from an institutional perspective. Although ICT trading is most commonly associated with the forex market, the methodology is also applied to indices, commodities, and other financial instruments.
This article explains the core ICT concepts, how they fit together, and how traders use them to develop market bias, identify potential liquidity targets, and analyse price action across different market conditions.
Key Takeaways
- ICT explains market movement through institutional behaviour, focusing on liquidity, structure, and order flow rather than indicators.
- The Inner Circle Trading method is used across forex, indices, and commodities on intraday and higher timeframes to interpret how major players influence price.
- Core ICT concepts include Break of Structure (BOS), Change of Character (CHoCH), Market Structure Shift (MSS), liquidity pools, order blocks, fair value gaps, optimal trade entries, and kill zones.
- ICT shows how price targets liquidity, reacts to imbalances, and shifts momentum, giving traders a clearer narrative of market intent.
- The framework combines structure, timing, and context, making it a detailed but discretionary approach to analysing market movement.
- The ICT methodology is not a mechanical strategy. It relies on discretionary analysis rather than fixed rules.
What Is ICT in Trading?
ICT, or Inner Circle Trading, is a price-based methodology developed by Michael J. Huddleston that offers a way to read institutional behaviour in the markets. It focuses on identifying where banks and large funds, the so-called “smart money,” enter, exit, and target liquidity. Traders use ICT across forex, indices, and commodities, mainly on intraday charts like the one-minute to one-hour, as well as higher timeframes when building directional bias.
The approach breaks price into structure, liquidity, and imbalance. It teaches traders to spot where the market takes stops, when momentum shifts, and where price often returns before moving again. Rather than relying on indicators, ICT centres on raw price action and the recurring patterns created by institutional order flow. This makes it a structured way to analyse short- and medium-term movements.
ICT is one interpretation of smart money concepts (SMC) rather than the whole field. Other institutional order-flow approaches exist and use different terms for similar ideas. What separates ICT is its specific vocabulary and its focus on when liquidity enters the market, not only where.
Who Developed ICT?
Inner Circle Trading was created by Michael J. Huddleston, widely known as “The Inner Circle Trader.” He is an online educator who built a large following by teaching institutional-style price action.
The abbreviation ICT refers to two things. It names Huddleston himself, and it names the body of concepts he teaches. When traders say they follow ICT, they usually mean the methodology rather than the person.
His public lessons shaped much of the terminology traders now associate with the Inner Circle Trader methodology, including order blocks, liquidity grabs, and kill zones.
How Do ICT and Smart Money Concepts Differ?
Smart money concepts is the broader term. It covers any approach that reads price through institutional order flow, including work by educators with no connection to Huddleston. ICT sits inside that category as one version of it, with its own vocabulary and its own sequence of analysis.
The two share most of their core ideas. Both read market structure, both treat liquidity as a target rather than a by-product, and both look for imbalances left behind by fast moves. The differences sit in the detail. The ICT methodology adds session timing through kill zones, defined entry models such as optimal trade entry, and terms like inducement and displacement that general SMC material often leaves out.
Traders frequently treat the two labels as identical. They are not. ICT is one branch of SMC, so ICT ideas are smart money ideas, while the reverse does not hold.
ICT vs Smart Money Concepts at a glance:
How Do ICT Concepts Differ From Traditional Technical Analysis?
Inner Circle Trading differs from traditional technical analysis because it focuses on reading institutional order flow rather than reacting to indicators. The approach strips charts back to structure, liquidity, and imbalance, giving traders a more price-driven way to analyse markets.
Traditional technical analysis tends to start with a tool, such as a moving average or an oscillator, and read price through it. Institutional trading concepts start with price itself and ask which levels large participants are likely to be working towards.
The main differences include:
- Focus on liquidity: ICT centres on where stop orders sit and how the market seeks them, while technical analysis relies on indicators or pattern recognition.
- Institutional logic: ICT frames moves as deliberate actions by large players. Traditional analysis often treats price swings as neutral or random.
- Market structure detail: ICT breaks trends into Break of Structure (BOS), Change of Character (CHoCH), Market Structure Shift (MSS), offering a tighter read on shifts in momentum than generic swing-high/swing-low analysis.
- Imbalance and displacement: Inner Circle Trading highlights rapid moves and Fair Value Gaps as signals of strength, whereas standard approaches often minimise the relevance of these gaps.
- Time-based context: ICT uses kill zones to track when liquidity enters the market, while technical analysis rarely factors in session timing.
What Are the Main ICT Trading Concepts?
Inner Circle Trading concepts are a group of price-action tools that explain how institutional traders move the market. They cover structure, which includes ideas like Break of Structure (BOS), a Change of Character (CHoCH), liquidity through pools, sweeps, and engineering, and order blocks that show where major players commit orders. It also works with fair value gaps, optimal trade entries built from retracements, and kill zones linked to specific trading sessions. Together, these concepts offer a clear framework for reading intraday and higher-time-frame behaviour.
The sections below group these ICT trading concepts into four blocks: structure, order blocks, liquidity, and imbalance, followed by the timing and entry tools that sit alongside them. To understand them, you can consider following along in FXOpen’s TickTrader platform.
1.Structure
In the context of ICT, market structure is based on the idea that market direction can be identified through patterns of highs and lows. Within market structure, key structural events are split into distinct movements: a Break of Structure (BOS), a Change of Character (CHoCH), and a Market Structure Shift (MSS).
Market Structure
Market structure describes how price moves through a sequence of highs and lows. It shows whether the market trends up, trends down, or ranges, and gives traders a clear view of the current direction. In ICT, structure forms the foundation for reading intent behind price movements and deciding when a trend strengthens, weakens, or begins to reverse.
Specifically, structure is characterised by a series of higher highs and higher lows in an uptrend, or lower highs and lower lows in a downtrend.
For example, EUR/USD rises to 1.0850, pulls back to 1.0800, then pushes on to 1.0920 before dipping to 1.0870. Each high and each low sits above the one before it, so the structure stays bullish. That reading holds until the price closes below 1.0800.
Structure is also fractal, which means a downtrend on a 15-minute chart can be a single pullback inside a daily uptrend. Reading ICT market structure on more than one timeframe keeps that context visible, which is why traders often check the higher timeframe before acting on a lower one.
Break of Structure (BOS)
A Break of Structure (BOS) is a concept that confirms the continuation of the current market direction. It occurs when price moves beyond a key swing point that defines the current trend.
- Bullish BOS appears in an uptrend, when a candle moves above the most recent swing high while the prior swing low remains intact.
- Bearish BOS occurs in a downtrend, when a candle drops below the most recent swing low while the prior swing high holds.
An ICT BOS points to trend continuation, so it tells traders the existing direction is still intact rather than warning of a turn. Traders looking for signs of trend reversal watch for a Change of Character instead, which breaks the swing point on the opposite side of the move.
Change of Character (CHoCH)
A Change of Character concept reflects a possible trend change. It occurs when price violates the swing point that protects the current trend, signalling the first meaningful shift in control. In an uptrend, a CHoCH forms when price fails to set a new high and then closes below the most recent swing low that previously held the trend. In a downtrend, it forms when price fails to create a fresh low and then closes above the most recent protective swing high.
An ICT CHoCH on its own does not confirm a reversal. It marks the first crack in the existing structure, and price often reclaims the level and continues in the original direction. Traders typically wait for follow-through, such as strong displacement that breaks a key structural level, before treating the shift as established.
Market Structure Shift (MSS)
A Market Structure Shift is a significant change in the market that can disrupt the existing trend. This specific type of CHoCH is typically marked by a price moving sharply (a displacement) through a key structural level, such as a higher low in an uptrend or a lower high in a downtrend.
An ICT MSS differs from a CHoCH in how the level breaks rather than which level breaks. A CHoCH can form on a slow drift through the protective swing point, while an MSS requires a decisive move, often leaving an imbalance behind it.
These shifts can signal a profound change in market dynamics, with the sharp move often preceding a new sustained trend. Recognising an MSS allows traders to reevaluate their current bias and adapt to a new trend, given its clear signal.
2. Order Blocks
ICT order block meaning relates to a price area associated with the final buying or selling activity before a strong directional move. In ICT analysis, traders monitor these areas because price may later return to them and react.
There are a few different types of order blocks to be aware of: regular order blocks, breaker blocks, and mitigation blocks.
Regular Order Blocks
A regular ICT order block is an area on the price chart representing a concentration of buying (demand zone) or selling (supply zone) activity.
A bullish order block typically forms around the last bearish candle or price area before a strong move higher, while a bearish order block forms around the last bullish candle or area before a strong move lower. Depending on the existing market structure, the subsequent move may either continue the prevailing trend or contribute to a structural shift.
In the ICT trading strategy, order blocks are treated as potential reaction areas. In an established uptrend, for example, a bullish order block may form during a retracement before price moves higher and produces a bullish Break of Structure (BOS). If price later retraces into that order block, traders may monitor the area for a bullish reaction and potential continuation of the existing trend.
Conversely, in an established downtrend, a bearish order block may form during a retracement before price moves lower and produces a bearish Break of Structure (BOS). If price later retraces into that order block, traders may monitor the area for a bearish reaction and potential continuation of the existing trend.
Breaker Blocks
A breaker block forms when price invalidates an order block that should have held if the trend remained intact. This formation indicates that liquidity has been taken (fueling the movement through the order block) and that the trend is likely shifting.
For instance, in an uptrend, if the price creates a new high but then reverses below the previous higher low, the bullish order block above the low becomes a breaker block. Price often returns to that zone afterwards, and traders watch how it reacts there as the new direction develops.
Mitigation Blocks
A mitigation block appears when institutional players place orders to offset (“mitigate”) losses from an earlier position that moved against them.
The sequence runs in three parts. A strong displacement moves price away from a level, a counter-move brings price back to where that displacement began, and institutions use the revisit to close out the earlier losing position and re-enter in the direction of the original move.
A bullish mitigation block is the last down candle before a strong upward displacement. A bearish one is the last up candle before a strong downward move, as in the example above. When price returns and reacts from that candle, ICT traders read it as the original order flow resuming.
3.Liquidity
Liquidity refers to areas on the price chart with a high concentration of trading activity, typically marked by stop orders. ICT liquidity concepts include: buy- and sell-side liquidity, liquidity grabs, and inducements.
Buy-Side and Sell-Side Liquidity
Buy-side liquidity is typically found above recent or equal highs, where stop-loss orders from short positions and breakout buy orders may cluster. When triggered, these orders can add buying pressure. Sell-side liquidity works inversely, with sell orders typically clustering below recent or equal lows.
In ICT analysis, if price moves beyond a high or low to take liquidity but quickly returns within the previous range, the move may be interpreted as a liquidity sweep and a potential reversal signal.
For example, if EUR/USD repeatedly fails to break 1.1500, buy-side liquidity may build above this level. Price may rise above 1.1500, trigger buy orders, and then fall back below it. ICT traders may interpret this rejection as a sweep of buy-side liquidity and watch for signs of a bearish reversal.
Liquidity Grabs
A liquidity grab occurs when the price quickly spikes into high-density order areas, triggering stops and then reversing direction. According to ICT methodology, larger participants take advantage of the resulting order flow to fill sizeable positions with limited slippage. The move temporarily shifts price momentum, usually just long enough to trigger the stops before direction reverses.
What traders observe is the pattern itself, and a liquidity sweep through an obvious high or low that immediately fails is the signature they look for.
Inducement
An inducement is a specific type of liquidity grab that triggers stops and makes other traders enter the market. It often appears as a peak or trough, typically into an area of liquidity, in a minor counter-trend within the larger market trend. The pattern creates the appearance of a trend change, which tends to attract entries in that direction. Price then reverses and continues with the original major trend, and the stops from those entries add to the order flow behind the move.
4.Fair Value Gaps and Displacement
In the Inner Circle Trading methodology, two specific types of sharp trending movements signal significant shifts in market dynamics: fair value gaps and displacements.
Fair Value Gaps (FVGs)
A fair value gap is a concept that reflects an imbalance in price caused by a fast, aggressive move where the market skips over prices that normally would be traded. It forms when a three-candle sequence leaves a space where the middle candle’s body and wick do not overlap with the wicks of the candles on either side. This shows that price moved so quickly in one direction that no trading occurred in that portion of the range.
Traders monitor revisits because the gap represents unfilled orders. Buyers and sellers who wanted to transact in that range never got the chance, and their orders may still be resting there. When price returns, that pending interest can produce a reaction, which is why an ICT fair value gap is often treated as a potential entry area rather than a target.
Displacements
Displacements, also known as liquidity voids, is a sudden, forceful price move that leaves a large stretch of the chart with little trading activity behind it. It typically spans several candles and can contain multiple fair value gaps within it.
Displacement matters most for what it implies about intent. A slow drift through a level and a violent push through the same level are read differently, and the second is what turns a structural break into an MSS or gives an order block its significance.
5.Additional ICT Concepts
Beyond these ICT concepts, there are a few other niche components. These include Kill Zones, optimal trade entries, and balanced price ranges.
Kill Zones
Kill Zones refer to specific periods during the trading day when market activity significantly increases due to the opening or closing of major financial centres. These periods often set the tone for price movements based on the increased volume and volatility.
The concentration is real. BIS data for April 2025 puts global OTC foreign exchange turnover at $9.6 trillion dollars a day, with sales desks in the United Kingdom handling around 38% of it and the United States about 19%. That is why ICT kill zones cluster around the hours those two centres are active.
Times shift by an hour when either region moves to daylight saving, so traders check the current session times against their own platform clock rather than relying on fixed hours.
Optimal Trade Entry (OTE)
An optimal trade entry (OTE) is a type of Inner Circle trading strategy, found using Fibonacci retracement levels. After an inducement that prompts a displacement (leaving behind an FVG), traders use the Fibonacci retracement tool to pinpoint entry areas.
The Fibonacci tool is applied to the price move that created the displacement, from high to low in a bearish move and from low to high in a bullish move. Traders typically focus on the 61.8% to 78.6% retracement zone as a potential entry area.
Traders may also look for an order block or fair value gap within the ICT OTE zone. When these concepts overlap, they can provide additional confirmation for the setup.
Balanced Price Range (BPR)
A balanced price range is a zone where price trades back and forth, rebalancing previous inefficiencies. Opposing displacements create overlapping FVGs, and the resulting zone shows where both directions have now traded. During this phase, price often oscillates between the extremes of the range as it works to resolve the imbalance.
A BPR gives traders defined boundaries rather than a single level. Reactions at the edges are watched for continuation, and a decisive move beyond either edge is read as the imbalance resolving in that direction.
ICT Trading Workflow
This is an analytical framework rather than a fixed rule set. Traders work through it in order, but each step involves judgment, and the sequence adapts to what the market is doing. It blends systematic market reading with judgment, context, and experience. The goal is to build a coherent narrative from higher-time-frame bias down to precise execution zones.
- Establishing a Higher Timeframe Bias
Traders begin by analysing the weekly, daily, and four-hour structure to identify the prevailing trend, key swing points, and major liquidity pools. This step frames whether the market is delivering higher or lower prices. - Marking Liquidity and Structural Levels
Traders identify buy-side and sell-side liquidity, including equal highs/lows, obvious stop clusters, and major swing points. Structural markers like BOS, CHoCH, and MSS may help traders understand whether momentum is intact or shifting. - Locating Imbalances and Institutional Footprints
Fair value gaps, order blocks, mitigation blocks, and displacements provide clues about where institutional orders may sit. Traders study how price reacts around these levels to understand whether smart money is adding to, mitigating, or closing positions. - Assessing Session Timing and Volatility Windows
Kill zones filter periods of heightened activity, potentially helping traders judge when ICT liquidity is likely to be taken. Timing adds context that chart patterns alone do not provide. - Building a Directional Narrative
Traders combine structural bias, liquidity targets, imbalances, and timing into a single market narrative. This sets expectations without forcing a mechanical decision. - Identify Potential Execution Zones
Areas such as retracements into order blocks, FVG fills, or OTE regions often align with points where momentum may resume. Traders use confluence, not a single signal, to refine these zones. - Review, Adapt, and ReassessAs price develops, traders reassess structure, liquidity, and displacement. The ICT strategy relies on active interpretation, so the process stays flexible.
Which Markets an ICT Concepts Be Used In?
ICT is built around price behaviour rather than the characteristics of any single market, so the same reading applies wherever there is enough participation to produce clean structure and visible liquidity.
ICT forex analysis is the most common application, particularly on major pairs, where session timing lines up directly with the London and New York kill zones. Index CFDs are the next most active area, since instruments tracking the S&P 500 or the DAX respond to the same session-driven volume. Commodities such as gold and oil, individual shares, and cryptocurrency* CFDs are all analysed with the same concepts, though liquidity and session behaviour vary between them.
Timeframes work the same way. Traders apply ICT concepts from the weekly chart down to the one-minute, usually running two or three timeframes together, with the higher one setting bias and the lower one refining entry areas. The shorter the timeframe, the more noise sits alongside the structure, which is why ICT concepts forex trading material tends to focus on the 15-minute to 1-hour range for execution.
What Challenges Do ICT Traders Face?
ICT presents several practical challenges because it demands strong chart interpretation skills and a good grasp of context. Traders often find the approach mentally demanding, especially when markets move quickly or produce conflicting signals.
Newer traders tend to struggle for a specific reason: individual concepts are easy to define, but they only make sense when combined, so learning definitions isn’t the same as being able to read a chart in real time.
The main challenges include:
- High complexity: ICT uses many concepts that interact with each other, so traders must read multiple layers of structure, liquidity, and imbalance at once.
- Context dependence: Signals rarely stand alone. Traders need to judge whether a displacement, BOS, or liquidity grab aligns with the broader narrative, which requires experience.
- Session-based variation: Price behaves differently across sessions, meaning traders must adapt to changing conditions rather than stick to fixed expectations.
- Discretion and nuance: ICT relies heavily on interpretation, so traders manage uncertainty and avoid forcing patterns that are not there.
- Emotional discipline: Because setups form quickly around liquidity events, traders face pressure to act without overreacting to noise.
ICT Trading Concepts: Advantages and Limitations
ICT trading offers a structured way to analyse price, but it also has clear limitations for traders to consider. The framework gives a detailed view of institutional behaviour, yet it remains demanding to apply consistently.
Advantages
- Institutional focus: ICT centres on how large players move price, giving traders a clearer read on why markets expand or reverse.
- Strong structural logic: Concepts like BOS, CHoCH, and MSS make trend shifts clearer than broad pattern-based methods.
- Precision in levels: Order blocks, liquidity pools, and FVGs provide well-defined areas that traders may use to take advantage of key price reactions.
- Multi-time-frame alignment: The framework links higher-time-frame bias with intraday execution, creating a coherent workflow.
Limitations
- Assumption of deliberate intent: ICT often interprets market moves as intentional actions by institutional traders, which may not always reflect how order flow actually operates.
- Steep learning curve: The depth of the framework means traders may require considerable time before applying it with consistency.
- Retrospective clarity: Many concepts appear clearer in hindsight, making them harder to apply consistently in real time.
- No fixed rules: The discretionary nature means consistency can be harder to maintain than with mechanical systems.
Whether ICT suits a particular trader depends less on the concepts themselves than on how they are used. This methodology rewards traders who are willing to tolerate uncertainty and form opinions based on multiple factors, and tends to disappoint those looking for a signal to enter a trade.
The Bottom Line
ICT trading brings market structure, liquidity, imbalances, and timing into a single framework for analysing price action. Rather than treating concepts such as BOS, order blocks, fair value gaps, and liquidity sweeps as isolated signals, traders can use them together to build a broader view of market direction and potential price reactions. As ICT relies heavily on interpretation, these concepts require practice and should be considered alongside appropriate risk management.
Traders interested in applying ICT concepts across forex and CFD markets can open an FXOpen account and access multiple markets with spreads from 0.0 pips and commissions from $1.50 per lot.
FAQs
What Is ICT Trading?
ICT (Inner Circle Trading) is a price-action methodology developed by Michael J. Huddleston. It focuses on market structure, liquidity, order blocks, fair value gaps, displacement, and session timing to analyse price movements and potential changes or continuations in market direction.
What Are the Main ICT Concepts?
The main ICT concepts include market structure, Break of Structure (BOS), Change of Character (CHoCH), Market Structure Shift (MSS), liquidity, order blocks, fair value gaps (FVGs), displacement, Optimal Trade Entry (OTE), and kill zones. Together, they form a framework for analysing price action.
What Is an ICT Trading Strategy?
An ICT trading strategy combines several concepts rather than relying on a single signal. Traders may establish a higher-timeframe bias, identify liquidity and market structure, and then look for potential entry areas using order blocks, fair value gaps, or OTE zones.
What Is the Difference Between ICT and SMC?
ICT (Inner Circle Trading) is a specific methodology developed by Michael J. Huddleston, while Smart Money Concepts (SMC) is a broader term for approaches that analyse price through liquidity and institutional market behaviour. They share concepts such as market structure, liquidity, and order blocks, while ICT uses specific terminology and models.
Is ICT Trading for Beginners?
ICT trading can be studied by beginners, but it involves numerous interconnected concepts and requires discretionary analysis. Understanding market structure, liquidity, and ICT price action first may make concepts such as order blocks, fair value gaps, and market structure shifts easier to interpret.
Does ICT Trading Use Indicators?
ICT trading primarily focuses on price action rather than technical indicators. Its core analysis is based on market structure, liquidity, imbalances, order blocks, and trading sessions. Some traders combine ICT concepts with indicators, but indicators are not central to the methodology.
Can ICT Concepts Be Used in Forex Trading?
Yes. ICT concepts are commonly applied to forex, as well as indices, commodities, shares, and other financial markets. Because the methodology focuses on price structure, liquidity, and timing, traders can analyse ICT concepts across different instruments and timeframes.
What Is the Difference Between BOS, CHoCH, and MSS?
A Break of Structure (BOS) generally indicates continuation of the existing market direction. A Change of Character (CHoCH) suggests that the current structure may be changing, while a Market Structure Shift (MSS) involves a structural change accompanied by strong displacement through a significant level.
What Is a Fair Value Gap in ICT Trading?
A Fair Value Gap (FVG) is a price imbalance created during a strong directional move. In ICT analysis, traders monitor these areas because price may later return to the gap before continuing or establishing a new direction.
Can ICT Be Combined With Other Trading Methods?
Yes. Traders may combine ICT concepts with other forms of technical analysis, such as support and resistance, trend analysis, or technical indicators. However, additional tools do not necessarily confirm an ICT setup, and each method should be assessed within the broader market context.
*Important: At FXOpen UK, Cryptocurrency trading via CFDs is only available to our Professional clients. They are not available for trading by Retail clients. To find out more information about how this may affect you, please get in touch with our team.
This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.
JPMorgan’s reported position in BlackRock’s Bitcoin exchange-traded fund increased by about 25% in the second quarter, while its Ether ETF position more than quadrupled, according to its latest securities filing.
The Form 13F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, submitted Wednesday, covers holdings as of June 30 and includes 17 other investment managers across JPMorgan.
That makes it difficult to determine whether individual positions reflect a directional market view, Jonatan Randin, senior market analyst at PrimeXBT, told Cointelegraph.
“It gives you some idea of what they are doing but not their opinion about the future direction of a specific market,” Randin said.
JPMorgan reports larger Bitcoin, Ether ETF positions
The filing showed about 10.4 million shares in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) in Q2, up from 8.3 million shares in Q1 with a reported value of roughly $356 million.
Its position in the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) rose more sharply, climbing more than fourfold to about 1.17 million shares from roughly 267,000.
Randin said a 13F can combine holdings from different parts of an institution, including positions related to client activity and inventory, making it difficult to determine the purpose behind individual holdings. Form 13F filings also exclude short positions, meaning JPMorgan’s reported long holdings do not show its net exposure.
XRP appears in JPMorgan’s holdings
Beyond Bitcoin and Ether, Randin pointed to small positions reported in XRP investment products.
JPMorgan reported 181 shares of Grayscale’s XRP product worth $3,763 and 113 shares of Bitwise’s XRP ETF worth $1,356 in Q2, after reporting no positions in either product in Q1.
Randin linked the timing to regulatory developments around XRP and the emergence of spot XRP investment products in the US.
“From my point of view this adds credibility to the regulatory improvements surrounding XRP,” he said.
Related: Crypto whales accumulate as bear market nears late stage: CryptoQuant
Additionally, JPMorgan cut positions in several Bitcoin miners, which Randin said have become less straightforward proxies for Bitcoin as some expand into artificial intelligence and high-performance computing.
“If that was the reason for holding them, trimming that part of the portfolio makes a lot of sense regardless of your view of the future direction of price,” he said.
Magazine: Sorry everyone, Bitcoin is headed down to $43,500: Michael Terpin
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is conducting an internal review into “mention markets” on prediction platforms, people familiar with the situation told CNBC Friday.
Mention markets are made up of contracts where traders speculate on whether specific words will be used in a speech, a corporate earnings call with analysts and investors or a television broadcast.
One of the people familiar with the matter said the CFTC first alerted platform Kalshi of the review several weeks ago. The platform removed sports-related mention markets around the same time the CFTC — the federal regulator for prediction markets — alerted the company, the person said. NPR first reported an inquiry into mention markets late Thursday.
It’s unclear if the inquiry only applies to sports-related mention markets, or all of them regardless of topic.
Kalshi and the CFTC declined to comment.
Most scrutinized
Mention markets are some of prediction markets’ most scrutinized offerings. Critics view them as easily manipulable by one individual, and some platforms don’t offer them. Mention markets saw about $3.3 million in trading volume on Kalshi last month, according to Dune Analytics, far behind larger markets such as those devoted to cryptocurrencies.
In July, the CFTC said it was investigating a former teleprompter operator for President Donald Trump who allegedly made $90,000 in profits on Kalshi betting on the content of Trump’s speeches.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong last December rattled off a series of random words at the end of an earnings call to demonstrate how easily prediction market wagers can be manipulated. “I just want to add here the words bitcoin, ethereum, blockchain, staking and Web3 to make sure we get those in before the end of the call,” he said.
Proponents of mention markets argue words by powerful individuals have the power to move billions of dollars of money across traditional markets, making it useful to have attach predictive power to them.
“The suggestion that Mentions Markets create ‘new’ manipulation incentives is, on close inspection, overstated,” Kalshi head of market operations Arjun Sawai wrote in a letter to the CFTC as part of a public comment period last month. “They merely add a marginal, regulated, transparent, position-limited, surveilled increment to a vastly larger existing incentive structure.”
Platform Polymarket does not have mention markets on its CFTC-regulated U.S. exchange, but offers them overseas.
Meeting next week
The probe into prediction market contracts comes ahead of a meeting of the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee on Aug. 20. The committee will discuss prediction markets, as well as artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, according to a public agenda.
The latest investigation also comes after the CFTC increased scrutiny of prediction market platforms in recent weeks, even as it supports the event contract exchanges in a battle with states over sports-related wagers and gambling. The commission has sued nine states to defend what it sees as its exclusive jurisdiction to regulate event contracts.
Last month, the CFTC invited public comments on vertical integration among regulated entities, warning platforms to avoid sending broadly-worded, self-certified event contracts. The agency also sent letters to the platforms last week, reminding them not to present their odds in a casino-style format.
A Washington state judge on Thursday issued an order blocking several of Kalshi’s markets from operating there, including mention markets, sports, elections and other high volume categories. Kalshi is likely violating state law by operating as an illegal gambling operation, according to the order.
Washington becomes the fourth state blocking Kalshi, joining Michigan, Nevada and Massachusetts. A federal judge in Minnesota last month overturned a potential statewide ban on prediction market platforms.
The Financial Times reported Friday that Polymarket was cut off from financial services by JPMorgan last October over concerns about government regulation. A Polymarket spokesperson told CNBC it’s still maintaining a relationship with the largest U.S. bank.
“We maintain a close, active relationship with JPMorgan across multiple entities, operational integrations, and material handling customer fund flows; the strength of our relationship is highlighted by our CEO speaking at three of their flagship events in the past year alone,” a Polymarket spokesperson said in a statement. “Any suggestion otherwise fundamentally mischaracterizes our relationship.”
Disclosure: CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.
Morgan Stanley increased its reported cryptocurrency-related positions in the second quarter, according to its Q2 13F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The most notable change was a significant step-up in holdings of BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF, alongside broader adjustments across other crypto-linked equities and exchange-traded funds.
Specifically, Morgan Stanley’s reported exposure to the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) rose to roughly 16.5 million shares from 13.4 million, an increase of about 23%, as reflected in the SEC filing submitted on Thursday. The firm also reported 2.57 million shares of its own Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), which began trading in April.
Key takeaways
- Morgan Stanley boosted its IBIT share count by more than 3 million shares in Q2, even as the reported dollar value declined due to weaker Bitcoin prices during the quarter.
- Its MSBT position was initiated in the period, adding a new channel for the firm’s own spot Bitcoin product exposure.
- Ether exposure expanded as well, with major increases in iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) and Grayscale’s Ethereum staking-focused mini fund.
- The filing shows uneven positioning across the broader crypto equity complex, with gains in some miners and Circle (USDC issuer) contrasted by cuts in others.
- Morgan Stanley’s Circle (CRCL) holdings rose sharply, while reported holdings in Coinbase and some mining names declined.
IBIT adds volume, valuation drops with Bitcoin
While Morgan Stanley added approximately 3.04 million shares to its IBIT position, the value of that stake fell by about 18% to $549 million from $667 million. The filing’s figures reflect a common dynamic for large investors: even when share counts rise, reported portfolio value can still decline if the underlying asset—here, Bitcoin—trades lower over the reporting window.
The SEC filing indicates the increase in IBIT shares occurred alongside also adding to several other Bitcoin ETF exposures. Morgan Stanley reported higher allocations to products including Grayscale’s Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF and Bitwise’s Bitcoin ETF, while its Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) position rose by nearly 38%.
Beyond the headline IBIT change, the broader pattern suggests Morgan Stanley was concentrating more into established spot Bitcoin vehicles rather than trimming exposure at the start of Q2. Investors often watch this kind of behavior for clues on whether institutional demand is strengthening at the ETF level, particularly when the share count rises faster than the reported valuation.
Ether positions expand across spot and staking-linked products
Morgan Stanley’s Q2 filing also showed substantial growth in reported Ether-related ETF holdings. Its iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) position increased by about 202% to around 4.6 million shares. Morgan Stanley also raised its Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (ETH) holding by approximately 26% to about 5.1 million shares.
These increases matter because they signal that Morgan Stanley’s crypto ETF footprint is not limited to Bitcoin. For market participants, large incremental allocations to Ether products can be interpreted as broader institutional participation—especially when the increases span both mainstream spot-style Ether exposure (ETHA) and products linked to staking (Grayscale’s staking-focused mini fund).
In addition, Morgan Stanley initiated new exposure to Solana-related funds. The filing showed additions to Grayscale Solana Staking ETF (GSOL) and Fidelity’s Solana fund (FSOL), with those positions reported at about $4.25 million and $2.26 million, respectively.
Circle and mining/infrastructure names show selective momentum
Beyond ETFs, Morgan Stanley also adjusted its holdings in crypto-adjacent public companies. The firm dramatically increased its reported stake in Circle Internet Group (CRCL), the company behind the USDC stablecoin. According to the Q2 filing, Circle shares rose from roughly 1.46 million to about 8.32 million.
On the mining and infrastructure side, the filing reflected additions to several names, including Cipher Digital (CIFR), Core Scientific (CORZ), Hut 8 (HUT), and Bitdeer Technologies (BTDR). For investors tracking institutional risk appetite, expanding positions across multiple miners and infrastructure providers can indicate confidence in the sector’s operational resilience—or at least a willingness to accumulate exposure while valuations and market conditions fluctuate.
However, the changes were not uniformly positive across every crypto-linked equity. Morgan Stanley reported about 550,000 fewer shares of Coinbase (COIN). It also cut its CleanSpark (CLSK) position by more than 3.1 million shares and fully exited a roughly 8 million-share holding in Bitfarms (BITF).
That mix—adding in some areas while trimming others—suggests a more selective approach rather than a broad increase across the entire crypto equity basket.
What to watch after Morgan Stanley’s Q2 adjustments
Going into the next reporting period, investors will likely focus on whether Morgan Stanley continues to build its ETF share counts—particularly in IBIT and ETHA—or whether the firm’s activity reverts toward valuation-driven changes as crypto prices move. The SEC 13F updates also remain a key way to observe institutional positioning shifts, even though they are inherently lagging compared with day-to-day market flows.
US investment banking giant Morgan Stanley reported larger crypto fund positions in the second quarter, led by an increase of more than 3 million shares in BlackRock’s Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF).
Morgan Stanley’s reported holdings in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) increased by 23% to around 16.5 million shares from 13.4 million, according to its Q2 13F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.
Morgan Stanley also reported 2.57 million shares of its own Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), worth about $43.3 million. The product began trading in April.
The filing showed increases across several direct crypto fund positions in Q2, even as reported holdings declined in Coinbase and some other crypto-linked companies.
Morgan Stanley grows Bitcoin and Ether ETF exposure
Despite adding about 3.04 million IBIT shares, the position’s value fell about 18% to $549 million from $667 million as Bitcoin fell during the quarter.
Morgan Stanley also sharply increased several smaller Bitcoin ETF positions, including the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (BTC) and Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB), while its Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) holding rose nearly 38%.
Bitcoin (BTC) price chart year-to-date. Source: CoinGecko
Ether holdings grew as well, with Morgan Stanley increasing its iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) position by about 202% to 4.6 million shares and its Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (ETH) position by about 26% to 5.1 million shares.
Related: Italy’s biggest bank triples staked Ether ETF holdings while cutting IBIT shares
In addition to initiating its MSBT position, Morgan Stanley added new exposure to the Grayscale Solana Staking ETF (GSOL) and Fidelity Solana Fund (FSOL), worth about $4.25 million and $2.26 million, respectively.
Circle and Bitcoin miners gain ground
Morgan Stanley made an even larger move in Circle Internet Group (CRCL), the company behind the USDC stablecoin, with reported holdings increasing from about 1.46 million shares to 8.32 million shares.
The filing also showed substantial additions to several Bitcoin mining and infrastructure companies, including Cipher Digital (CIFR), Core Scientific (CORZ), Hut 8 (HUT) and Bitdeer Technologies (BTDR).
Not every crypto-linked position grew. Morgan Stanley reported about 550,000 fewer Coinbase (COIN) shares, cut its CleanSpark (CLSK) position by more than 3.1 million shares and fully exited a roughly 8 million-share Bitfarms (BITF) position.
Magazine: Bitcoin will never fall below $60K again: Nansen founder
Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.
All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
RedotPay’s planned US initial public offering (IPO) has reportedly been pushed back as the stablecoin payments firm focuses on expanding into the United States. Bloomberg reported on Friday that the timing of the offering has been delayed, citing people familiar with the matter as RedotPay works through regulatory approvals and ongoing legal disputes.
A RedotPay representative declined to comment on specific IPO timing when asked by Cointelegraph. Instead, the company highlighted its near-term operational priorities, saying it obtained a US money transmitter license this week and is preparing to launch its product in the country.
Key takeaways
- Bloomberg reports RedotPay’s US IPO plans have been delayed while the company pursues additional approvals and manages legal risk.
- RedotPay says it secured a US money transmitter license this week and is preparing a US product launch.
- The delay comes amid a lawsuit in which Binance affiliates are seeking nearly $473 million in damages.
- RedotPay has previously discussed a potential New York listing and has also explored raising additional funding ahead of a public-market debut.
US IPO ambitions meet a shifting priority list
RedotPay first drew attention in February, when reports said the company was considering a New York listing. At the time, the prospect included the involvement of major Wall Street firms—JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Jefferies Financial Group were reported to be involved—and RedotPay was said to be targeting a valuation above $4 billion.
Bloomberg’s latest report frames the IPO slowdown less as a withdrawal of intent and more as a timing adjustment: RedotPay appears to be working to strengthen its US compliance footing while legal challenges continue to play out. For investors and market watchers, the practical question is whether the company can align its regulatory rollout with public-market readiness, especially in a US environment where stablecoin-related businesses face heightened scrutiny.
Separately, Cointelegraph reported earlier this year that RedotPay had been in discussions to raise as much as $150 million, even as it adjusted its organization to support a potential “unicorn” transition. Those reported funding and leadership changes suggest RedotPay was already positioning itself for a future listing—making any IPO deferral notable for shareholders watching catalysts and timelines.
New US licensing is a near-term catalyst
While RedotPay’s IPO timetable appears to have moved, the company’s immediate focus is its US expansion. According to a statement provided to Cointelegraph, RedotPay obtained a money transmitter license in the US this week and is preparing to launch its product in the country.
That licensing step matters because it speaks directly to whether a stablecoin payments business can operate with the regulatory infrastructure required in the United States. If the company’s launch proceeds as planned, it could help RedotPay generate real-world traction in one of the most important markets for crypto-adjacent payment services—even if the public offering itself takes longer than originally contemplated.
Still, the licensing win does not automatically resolve everything needed for an IPO. Public listings typically require a clear path through regulatory and legal uncertainties, along with disclosure and risk management that underwriters and boards must be comfortable with. RedotPay’s recent legal entanglements therefore remain a central factor shaping how quickly investors may see a filing or public-market debut.
Binance lawsuit raises pressure on timing and risk profile
Legal issues have intensified around RedotPay. Earlier in August, Binance affiliates filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong against RedotPay’s founders, seeking nearly $473 million in damages. The plaintiffs allege that confidential information—obtained through prior work with Binance—was used to build a competing payments business and to attract Binance users to RedotPay.
RedotPay denies the allegations and told Cointelegraph it would “vigorously defend all claims.” Even so, litigation of this size can affect corporate decision-making, particularly for companies weighing a US IPO where due diligence, disclosures, and investor risk appetite are tightly linked to ongoing disputes.
The conflict has also spread into Singapore. Cointelegraph previously reported that Binance and RedotPay disagree on the outcome of a related case. RedotPay told Cointelegraph this week that it expected Binance to discontinue that matter, while Binance rejected RedotPay’s account and stated its claims remain active.
This multi-jurisdiction picture is part of what may be pushing IPO timing later. For potential investors, it creates uncertainty around the company’s future legal costs, settlement risk, and potential operational distractions—factors that can weigh on underwriting timelines and the composition of any public-market narrative.
What to watch next for RedotPay
RedotPay’s next moves likely hinge on two tracks running in parallel: regulatory execution in the US and the evolution of its legal disputes. The company’s money transmitter license and planned product launch provide a concrete operational milestone, but the reported IPO delay suggests that legal overhang still matters for capital market plans.
For readers tracking the story, the key developments to monitor are whether RedotPay’s US launch progresses smoothly, whether any court proceedings shift in the Binance-related cases, and whether RedotPay revises its earlier public-market timeline after regulatory and legal questions become clearer.
Long positions in XRP have grown rapidly over the last few weeks, with well over $1.5 billion worth of exposure being added to the derivatives market since the start of August.
This buildup of leverage exposure is indicative of increased bullish positioning among traders who expect the coin to stage a recovery.
According to Crypto Rover, XRP is building up “parabolic” exposure, and this has been attributed to the recent growth in long positions. It is evident from the above chart that exposure has been steadily increasing to reach around $1.596 billion.
Notably, while futures exposure growth might indicate similar demand for XRP in the spot markets, it is possible for traders to build up such exposure without buying any XRP at all.
XRP Testing $1 Support as Price Structure Narrows
XRP is currently trading at $1.0056, and the psychological $1.00 level has been the focus of the present market structure. For the past few months starting from February, the daily chart has created lower highs under a descending trendline, thus signifying that sellers have been controlling the market more.
Another trendline has been created since June on the $1.00 support level, thereby forming a narrowing structure in the form of a descending wedge. Now, XRP is nearing an important level as the price narrows under both support and descending resistance levels.
The crucial resistance level is seen in the range of $1.10–$1.15. Any daily close above this region will make the existing bearish market structure weaker and move the market toward the next technical level of $1.20. In case of a breakdown below $1.00, the current setup will be invalidated.
Weak RSI Keeps Momentum Under Pressure
Momentum indicators are keeping their guard up. The daily RSI comes in at 35.64, while the moving average holds at 39.90. Both figures continue trading below the neutral 50 line, suggesting that bearish momentum is still prevailing within the overall pattern.
On the other hand, the RSI approaches the oversold area. Although this is a signal that selling has gone too far, it does not mean that a reversal will happen immediately. Traders may want to see some RSI recovery before calling the momentum change a definite one.
Trading volume also remains relevant. Previously, lower levels had been seen alongside increased trading, while consolidation is now seen amid low volume. This means buyers have not shown enough interest in the asset yet.
Crowded Longs Lead to a Double-Edged Structure
The emergence of more bullish XRP longs, along with $1 support and a squeezed price range, creates a high-risk structure. If spot demand improves and XRP breaks above $1.10–$1.15, the bullish positioning could help to continue the uptrend toward $1.20.
Nevertheless, if XRP fails to hold $1.00, the situation could turn out differently. In such an event, crowded longs could get liquidated, adding to downside momentum.
XRP is now at a crossroads in terms of the technical picture. A breakout from descending resistance lines would indicate a rally, while a daily close below $1.00 could confirm the bearish structure.
Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.
All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
Security incidents and corporate balance-sheet decisions are reshaping how mainstream investors think about Bitcoin, even as regulated products pull in fresh capital. A reported $116 million hardware wallet exploit has reignited the debate over self-custody, while US spot Bitcoin ETFs notched their strongest weekly inflows since April—suggesting demand is returning alongside renewed concern about holding funds directly.
Meanwhile, major industry players are making moves on the edges of the Bitcoin ecosystem: Strategy is signaling a return to accumulation after a period of small sales, Riot Platforms is reportedly lining up long-term power for a large AI compute deal, and Trump Media is revisiting how it manages a crypto-linked treasury after a steep quarterly loss.
Key takeaways
- A Coldcard-related hardware wallet vulnerability tied to roughly $116 million drained in Bitcoin has pushed attention back toward self-custody risks.
- US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw about $1 billion in net inflows for the week, marking their strongest performance since April.
- Strategy CEO Phong Le says the company intends to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year after scrutinized, smaller sales this year.
- Riot Platforms is reportedly securing a 20-year, 191 MW power arrangement tied to a major “frontier AI” customer identified by Bloomberg as Anthropic.
- Trump Media disclosed large unrealized losses tied to its crypto and securities holdings and said it will revamp its digital asset treasury strategy.
Strategy signals renewed Bitcoin accumulation
Strategy CEO Phong Le told FOX Business that the company plans to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year, aiming to reassert its long-term treasury approach after a stretch of relatively small sales drew public scrutiny. Le said Strategy has “bought” roughly 175,000 BTC and sold about 7,000 BTC this year—roughly 25 times more buying than selling.
Even with that imbalance, the company’s willingness to sell periodically has remained a point of focus. Le said Strategy now holds more than 840,000 BTC and remains the largest institutional Bitcoin holder, but has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May. The most recent sale referenced in the report was the unloading of 1,690 BTC to fund preferred dividends, buybacks, and its dollar reserve.
Analysts note that the issue is not just whether a company sells, but what those sales mean for capital efficiency. According to Novaque Research, when corporate treasuries trade below Bitcoin net asset value, raising additional capital can be increasingly dilutive—making the financing cycle harder to sustain. In that context, Strategy’s stated intent to accumulate again may be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the long-term friction created by repeated sales for shareholder and reserve needs.
ETF inflows strengthen as self-custody concerns resurface
While Bitcoin’s spot price has remained subdued, US spot Bitcoin ETFs attracted roughly $1 billion in net inflows for the week, according to Cointelegraph’s reporting referenced to data on weekly ETF flows. Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas described the period as the third-best week since October, using the term “silent IPO” to explain how early supply dynamics can keep price action muted even as institutional demand grows.
The renewed inflow momentum has also come as attention returns to a major self-custody failure: a Coldcard hardware wallet exploit linked to faulty key generation that reportedly drained about $116 million in Bitcoin. Balchunas said the incident could ultimately enhance the appeal of ETFs for investors concerned about self-custody risks, pointing to the post-hack rebound as a possible—though not proven—connection.
In his comments, Balchunas also cautioned that correlation does not imply causation. Still, his broader point was that if security scares continue to surface, some investors may decide that regulated products better match their risk tolerance—particularly those who want exposure without managing key storage themselves. What remains uncertain is whether inflows will persist beyond a short-term narrative effect, or whether the ETF market will return to a more typical pattern as memories fade and wallets fix vulnerabilities.
Riot’s reported 191 MW AI power deal highlights capacity constraints
Bitcoin miners are increasingly positioning their infrastructure for demand outside traditional hash-rate competition. Riot Platforms is reportedly negotiating a major compute-adjacent arrangement: a 20-year contract for 191 megawatts of capacity from Riot’s Texas campus. The report identifies the customer as “a leading frontier AI” company, with Bloomberg naming Anthropic.
According to the coverage, Riot said the agreement was tied to a long-term supply of power from its Rockdale campus. The timing matters because data center expansion has faced persistent constraints, and power availability is often the limiting factor for large-scale AI deployments. In that sense, miners with energy access can present themselves not only as Bitcoin producers, but also as suppliers of the physical capacity AI builders require.
The broader trend is visible across the sector. The report lists several Bitcoin miners that have expanded or announced AI-adjacent efforts, including Bitdeer, CleanSpark, MARA Holdings, Core Scientific, Hut 8, and IREN. Riot’s stock performance also reflected investor appetite for this shift: shares fell 5.4% Monday before rising 21% overnight and were up roughly 50% year-to-date at the time of the report.
Trump Media revises crypto treasury approach after large quarterly loss
Corporate exposure to crypto remains a sensitive balancing act, and Trump Media’s latest disclosures underline how quickly valuation changes can hit financial results—even without selling. The company said it will revamp its digital asset treasury strategy after unrealized losses contributed to a $238 million second-quarter net loss, emphasizing the risks of holding digital assets and related securities on a balance sheet.
Trump Media reported $190.4 million in unrealized losses across its digital assets during the quarter and pledged digital assets and equity securities in the period. It also disclosed that it held 9,477.16 Bitcoin as of June 30, down from 9,542.16 in the prior quarter. In July, the company sold $159.6 million in Bitcoin-related securities and used proceeds to buy more Bitcoin, increasing its holdings to about 14,139 BTC worth $890.5 million by July 31.
Beyond the mark-to-market impact, the company warned that generating additional income from its Bitcoin holdings could introduce counterparty risk. It noted the possibility that a counterparty could default or become insolvent, potentially limiting recovery of Bitcoin committed under unsecured arrangements. The company also indicated that it plans to redirect more resources toward Truth Social, Truth+ and other media operations as part of broader capital allocation changes.
Going forward, investors should watch whether Strategy’s renewed accumulation language translates into measurable buy activity, whether ETF inflows remain resilient beyond the immediate post-hack period, and how corporate treasuries adjust their risk controls as more security incidents and valuation swings test the durability of different Bitcoin exposure models.
The cryptocurrency market is another sea of red today (August 14), with Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Cardano (ADA), and many more posting losses.
However, Cronos (CRO) has defied the ongoing pullback, and some analysts believe its price could pump even higher if it clears key levels.
Turbulent Days
The last several days have been quite eventful for CRO, which experienced severe volatility. Earlier this month, Trump Media (the entity behind Truth Social) withdrew its intentions to ink an ETF deal with Crypto.com and backed off its plans to accumulate $6.4 billion in CRO.
The token reacted negatively to the news, tumbling to around $0.046, its lowest level in the past three years. It spent the next few days trading below $0.05 before bulls finally reclaimed that mark (albeit briefly) earlier today. As of this writing, CRO trades at around $0.048 (per CoinGecko), representing a 5% daily increase.
The most likely catalyst for the resurgence appears to be Ryan Wyatt’s announcement. The CEO of Cronos App revealed that next month the platform “goes global to everyone” on iOS and Android. He said that users can access sports, stocks, crypto, and perps, and that they are “just getting started.”
“More to share in the future: plans for CRO, sharing future feature rollouts, a desktop version of Cronos, and more,” he added.
Analyst Crypto With Gopal claimed that the price has formed a double bottom after retesting the $0.046 support zone twice, with buyers defending that zone and building a potential reversal base.
“The key confirmation is a breakout above $0.050 resistance. A confirmed breakout could open the way toward the chart’s $0.055 target. Market sentiment: Bullish setup – $0.050 breakout is the trigger,” he concluded.
Maintain Realistic Expectations
Wyatt’s disclosure has indeed triggered a clear price increase in CRO, yet it is unlikely to cause a sustainable rally. The excitement may soon fade, and sellers could retake the helm, while the persistent bear market isn’t helping either.
Another negative factor is CRO’s Relative Strength Index (RSI), which has risen to around 74. This suggests the asset has entered overbought territory and could be gearing up for a short-term pullback. The technical analysis tool ranges from 0 to 100 where anything below 30 is usually viewed as a buying opportunity.
The post Cronos (CRO) Rises 5% Daily Following Major Ecosystem News: Details appeared first on CryptoPotato.
SILVER for Rhasidat Adeleke in Women’s 200m Final
Google’s hyped-up RGB HiLight on the Pixel 11 Pro had me excited for nothing
TRUMP: USA XRP STRATEGIC RERSERVE DEAL!?!? (XRP $10,000 = REAL??)
-
News Videos6 days agoCan Astrology Help Find Gold and Silver Trends? A Financial Astrology Guide
-
Business5 days agoDatadog: Best Of Breed For Multiple Reasons
-
Tech7 days agoRinn Pharma & Biopharma to join NordicPharmaTrain network
-
Business6 days agoHow to Start a Cleaning Business: A Step-by-Step Guide
-
Business6 days agoBDC Weekly Review: Private BDC Q2 Numbers Are Strong
-
NewsBeat3 days agoCommunication cards help banking customers access services or report scams
-
Business4 days agoOil Price Today (August 11): Crude oil rises to $88 after Trump’s compensation demand dents Hormuz opening. Here’s why
-
Fashion3 hours agoWeekend Open Thread: Ann Taylor
-
Entertainment7 days ago10 R-Rated Drama Movies That Can Be Called Masterpieces
-
Fashion5 days agoAmazon Sundays: Closet Care Before Fall
-
Business7 days agoSharkNinja Keeps Eating
-
Politics6 days agoBe quiet, Miriam! – spiked
-
Business5 days ago5 Things You Must Know About Jorge Messi, the Father and Longtime Agent Who Shaped Lionel Messi’s Career
-
Business6 days agoMutual Fund Manager Scoops Up Beaten-Down Stocks
-
Politics5 days agoBen-Gvir’s crocodile project halted but abuses at Ketziot Prison continue
-
Tech7 days agoMetabase SQLi zero-day exploited in customer data-theft attacks
-
Politics5 days agoThe Church of England’s ruinous reparations racket
-
Crypto World4 days agoWhy Did Nvidia Stock Fall on Monday Despite a $500 Billion Wall Street AI Deal?
-
Politics6 days agoCalls to permanently pedestrianise central Belfast following festival success
-
Crypto World6 days agoA Deep Dive Into One Of The Most Significant Hacks In Recent Memory
You must be logged in to post a comment Login