TLDR:

• Bitcoin dropped 83%, 84%, and 77% following the last three Federal Reserve leadership transitions.
• New Fed chairs typically adopt hawkish rhetoric early, tightening liquidity and pressuring risk assets.
• The Fed ended quantitative tightening in December 2025 and resumed short-term Treasury purchases.
• Warsh’s hawkish history and renewed inflation signals cloud hopes for dovish policy at June FOMC. 

Bitcoin is hovering near $63,000 as the Federal Reserve prepares for a leadership change in May 2026. Jerome Powell will hand over the chair to Kevin Warsh amid subdued crypto markets.

Equities continue hitting all-time highs, yet Bitcoin remains roughly 50% below its $125,000 peak. A recurring historical pattern now draws renewed attention: every Fed Chair transition has coincided with a major Bitcoin drawdown.

Bitcoin Fed Chair Transitions and the Drawdown Pattern

The data behind this pattern is difficult to ignore. Bitcoin dropped approximately 83% after Janet Yellen assumed office in 2014.

A similar 84% decline followed Jerome Powell’s first term beginning in 2018. Powell’s reappointment in 2022 preceded a 77% collapse tied to the most aggressive tightening cycle in modern history.

MacroMicro research attributes these declines to several recurring forces. Early in a new chair’s tenure, institutional investors reduce exposure to volatile assets while policy direction remains unclear.

New chairs also tend to adopt hawkish rhetoric to establish inflation-fighting credibility, which tightens liquidity conditions.

Markets further compound the effect through anticipation. Tightening expectations often get priced in before formal policy shifts occur, producing classic “buy the rumor, sell the news” behavior. External shocks then frequently amplify whatever policy pressure already exists.

Each historical cycle shows this combination clearly. The Mt. Gox collapse in February 2014 hit just as Yellen took office and QE tapering began.

The ICO unraveling in 2018 coincided with rate hikes and balance sheet reduction under Powell. In 2022, the Terra and FTX collapses struck as the Fed raised rates at an unprecedented pace.

Why This Cycle May Differ for Bitcoin

The current transition carries meaningful differences from prior episodes. The Federal Reserve formally ended quantitative tightening in December 2025 and has since resumed purchases of short-term Treasury securities. This shift keeps baseline liquidity conditions more stable than during the 2018 or 2022 cycles.

MacroMicro’s research notes that a liquidity-driven Bitcoin selloff, similar to previous transitions, carries reduced risk this time around.

Stable liquidity foundations remove one of the central mechanics that turned prior drawdowns into prolonged bear markets.

That said, uncertainty around Warsh’s policy direction remains. His historically hawkish stance and signs of renewed inflation suggest the June FOMC meeting may not deliver the dovish signals some market participants expect. Trump’s pressure on Warsh to support rate cuts adds another layer of unpredictability.

Investors watching Bitcoin through this transition should focus less on the historical curse and more on the Fed’s actual policy trajectory.

Whether the new chair tilts accommodative or restrictive will likely determine whether Bitcoin breaks the pattern or repeats it.

Kraken is expanding access to a SpaceX IPO through its tokenized equities platform, xStocks, highlighting a broader push to blend crypto-style trading rails with traditional capital markets. SpaceX will be the first public offering available via xStocks IPO Access, with eligible Kraken users able to apply for IPO participation directly in the mobile app. The move underscores the growing willingness of crypto-enabled platforms to anchor mainstream equity events in tokenized form.

Participation through IPO Access requires a verified Kraken account on the company’s mobile app, and the offering is not accessible via Kraken Pro or the desktop platform. Kraken says the service is available across the European Economic Area and more than 110 international markets, though regulatory constraints exclude participation from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom for now.

Under the tokenized structure, investors who receive an allocation will be issued SPCXx, a tokenized representation of SpaceX equity that is backed 1:1 by the underlying shares. These SPCXx tokens are tradable 24/7 on Kraken and on other participating xStocks platforms, providing continuous liquidity for participants in a way that traditional IPO access does not offer.

The SpaceX IPO comes with high expectations. Bloomberg reported that demand for the offering has already outstripped the available shares, with SpaceX aiming to raise roughly $75 billion at a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion. If achieved, the listing would be one of the largest in history, potentially eclipsing the record set by Saudi Aramco’s 2019 IPO. The coverage notes that SpaceX’s growth narrative relies heavily on Starlink, the satellite internet business that has become a significant revenue driver, even as the company continues to shoulder substantial costs associated with launches and ongoing space ventures.

Key takeaways

• First tokenized IPO via xStocks: SpaceX will launch on Kraken’s xStocks IPO Access, with tokens representing 1:1 SpaceX equity backed by the underlying shares and tradable around the clock.
• Global reach with regulatory limits: IPO Access spans the EEA and 110+ markets, but participation is restricted in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the U.K. due to regulatory considerations.
• Massive fundraising potential: Bloomberg indicates demand has exceeded supply, with SpaceX seeking roughly $75 billion and a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion, which would set new IPO records if realized.
• SpaceX growth linked to Starlink: The satellite internet business is a central pillar of SpaceX’s revenue model, though the company’s capital-intensive operations raise questions about long-term valuation and profitability.
• xStocks momentum and ecosystem: The tokenized equities platform has gained notable traction, with prior coverage highlighting substantial volume and thousands of on-chain holders.

SpaceX’s IPO path and what tokenized access means for markets

The combination of a high-profile IPO and a tokenized access framework is a notable test of how traditional capital markets can coexist with crypto-native infrastructure. By issuing SPCXx tokens that correspond 1:1 to SpaceX shares, Kraken aims to offer a parallel path to public ownership that sidesteps some of the friction inherent in conventional IPO processes—such as book-building, pro rata allocations, and limited trading windows before and after listing. In practice, tokenized access could broaden participation beyond institutional buyers and accredited investors, particularly in jurisdictions where IPO investment is accessible via digital-asset rails. Yet it also introduces a different set of risks and questions, including how tokenized allocations align with actual share availability, how price discovery will unfold in a 24/7 trading environment, and how cross-border regulatory regimes will adapt to tokenized equity structures.

SpaceX’s publicly valued potential hinges on more than the number of shares offered. Bloomberg’s reporting frames the deal as a validation of SpaceX’s multi-pronged growth strategy, with Starlink as a driving engine for revenue and profitability. At the same time, the company’s launch cadence, capital expenditure, and ongoing R&D intensity create an environment where investors must weigh growth prospects against near-term cash burn and long-term capital needs. If the market delivers on SpaceX’s ambitious IPO aspirations, it could redefine how investors approach high-profile ventures that straddle private innovation and public ownership—an area where tokenized equities are increasingly being pitched as a bridge between worlds.

The broader crypto market context adds another layer. xStocks, as a platform, has already demonstrated substantial activity, with prior coverage noting more than $25 billion in tokenized-equities volume and thousands of on-chain holders. The SpaceX entry through xStocks could serve as a litmus test for how scalable tokenized IPO access can be, not just as a novelty but as a replicable model for future listings. That trajectory will depend on how regulators respond to tokenized offerings, how liquidity and execution align with underlying share trading, and whether more blue-chip IPOs follow suit.

What investors should watch next

As SpaceX approaches its planned public debut date, investors on xStocks and beyond will be closely watching several key factors. First, the pace and size of initial allocations will influence the perceived accessibility of tokenized IPOs and the signaling value for broader markets. Second, trading dynamics for SPCXx tokens—particularly how they track SpaceX’s underlying stock price and how liquidity holds up in times of market stress—will be critical to assess. Third, regulatory clarity across major jurisdictions will determine the feasibility of expanding tokenized IPO access to additional markets, including the U.S. and the U.K., where restrictions currently apply.

Finally, the SpaceX IPO itself will set a benchmark for how investors value a company at the intersection of aerospace prowess and consumer-facing connectivity infrastructure. The outcome may influence how ventures with heavy upfront costs and high growth potential are perceived by public markets, especially when tokenized instruments promise around-the-clock trading and novel allocation mechanics. If the market embraces SpaceX via tokenized anchors, it could accelerate further experiments in tokenized equity and cross-market collaboration between crypto ecosystems and traditional stock markets.

As the listing date draws nearer, market participants should stay attentive to updates from Kraken about eligibility, allocation timelines, and any shifts in available jurisdictions. The evolving dynamic between tokenized access and conventional IPO mechanics will continue to shape how investors navigate this new frontier.

Note: Bloomberg’s reporting on SpaceX’s IPO dynamics and demand provides the latest context for the deal’s scale and potential implications. For readers tracking the broader xStocks ecosystem, prior coverage highlighted significant volumes and growing on-chain participation in tokenized equities.

TLDR:

• Arthur Hayes-linked token picks posted major corrections, with ZEC leading losses above 61%.
• WLD, HYPE, NEAR, and ZEC attracted strong retail interest before sharp market reversals.
• Social media debate intensified following claims surrounding Hayes’ reported WLD position exit.
• WLD is testing a major demand zone that could determine its next directional move.

Arthur Hayes crypto picks have come under renewed market scrutiny after several tokens he publicly discussed recorded sharp declines from recent highs.

As debate grows around retail participation and influencer-driven narratives, traders are increasingly turning their attention to Worldcoin, where a key technical support zone is now emerging as the market’s next focal point.

Arthur Hayes Crypto Picks Spark Debate After Major Token Declines

Arthur Hayes Crypto Picks have become the center of a growing market discussion after four closely watched tokens posted substantial corrections.

NEAR Protocol (NEAR), Hyperliquid (HYPE), Zcash (ZEC), and Worldcoin (WLD) all attracted strong retail interest following public commentary linked to the former BitMEX CEO.

Recent market data shows the extent of the pullback. WLD has fallen roughly 36% from its local high, while HYPE declined about 25%.

NEAR recorded a steeper correction of more than 41%, whereas ZEC suffered the deepest drawdown, losing over 61% from peak levels highlighted on market charts.

The losses have reignited conversations around the influence of prominent market participants in crypto. Social media discussions have questioned whether retail traders entered positions based on conviction generated by public commentary, only to face heavy losses during subsequent corrections.

Particular attention has centered on Worldcoin. Community members circulated claims that Hayes exited a WLD position shortly after publicly indicating confidence in the asset. While the full context remains debated, the timing became a major talking point across crypto platforms.

The situation also reflects a broader reality within digital asset markets. High-profile investors can quickly shape market sentiment, and bullish narratives often attract significant buying activity within a short period.

However, professional traders frequently operate under different strategies, risk tolerances, and investment horizons than retail participants.

Worldcoin Price Defends Key Demand Zone Amid Market Uncertainty

Despite the controversy surrounding Arthur Hayes Crypto Picks, traders are increasingly focused on Worldcoin’s technical structure.

After rallying from the $0.24-$0.30 range to nearly $0.55, WLD entered a sharp corrective phase that pushed price back toward a critical support region.

The $0.40-$0.43 area has emerged as a major battleground between buyers and sellers. Before the breakout, this zone acted as resistance for several months. Technical traders often view such levels as potential support once a breakout is confirmed.

Price action around the zone has remained relatively constructive. Selling pressure accelerated following the rally, yet buyers repeatedly stepped in to prevent a decisive breakdown below support.

Market participants are now watching for confirmation through candle closes above the demand region. If support continues holding, attention could shift toward a recovery into the $0.48-$0.50 range. A stronger move may eventually open the path toward a retest of the recent high near $0.55.

For now, Worldcoin’s ability to maintain this support level remains one of the most closely monitored developments among traders tracking the aftermath of the recent correction.

In March, when Meta announced plans to begin paying creators in USDC across Colombia and the Philippines, with expansion to more than 160 countries expected by the end of the year, the move was widely interpreted as another milestone for stablecoins entering the financial mainstream. A company responsible for nearly $3 billion in annual creator payouts choosing onchain settlement over traditional banking rails is unquestionably significant. What Meta introduced, however, was not a complete payments experience. It was a faster way to move money between accounts.

For many users, particularly in emerging markets, the difficult part begins only after the payment arrives. Stablecoins have largely solved cross-border digital settlement, but integration into local consumer financial systems remains uneven. That is precisely where the next phase of payments competition will be decided.

The real friction starts after settlement

Creators receiving USDC payouts from Meta must connect external wallets, choose a supported network such as Solana or Polygon and manage their own custody. Meta warns that funds sent to the wrong address or an unsupported chain cannot be recovered. From that point onward, the platform steps out of the transaction entirely.

The transfer itself is efficient. Settlement is near-instant, costs are negligible and cross-border movement is effectively frictionless compared to traditional banking rails. But a creator in Manila or Bogotá will often still need to convert USDC into local currency to participate fully in the local consumer economy. That means sending funds to an exchange or liquidity provider, passing compliance checks, selling into fiat and withdrawing through domestic banking infrastructure. Each step introduces fees, delays and operational friction that sit entirely outside Meta’s ecosystem. For a creator whose expertise is content, not crypto, that is a significant amount of complexity to navigate just to access their own earnings.

And this is where stablecoin payments reveal their structural limitations. The infrastructure optimizes settlement, while usability still varies significantly by market.

The choice of the Philippines and Colombia as pilot markets makes this tension even more apparent. Both countries combine strong creator economies with costly cross-border payment systems, where conversion and transfer fees can consume a meaningful share of smaller payouts. In the Philippines in particular, mobile wallet adoption is already deeply embedded in everyday commerce, supported by platforms such as GCash and Maya and reinforced by the arrival of tokenized payment services from global technology companies. These are precisely the kinds of markets where stablecoin payouts should have a compelling advantage. Yet the off-ramp infrastructure remains fragmented, with uneven liquidity, compliance requirements, fees and user experience across providers and jurisdictions.

Card rails are starting from the other end

Card networks have taken a different approach. Instead of starting with blockchain settlement and leaving conversion to the user, they have focused on embedding stablecoins into existing financial infrastructure.

Mastercard’s $1.8 billion acquisition of BVNK expands its stablecoin settlement capabilities across more than 130 jurisdictions, integrated into established reporting and compliance systems. Visa’s partnership with Bridge enables stablecoin-linked cards that allow users to spend digital dollar balances at any merchant that accepts Visa, with conversion handled in the background.

The distinction reflects a deeper architectural choice about where complexity should sit. In Meta’s model, a payout requires a multi-step journey through wallets, exchanges and withdrawal queues before it becomes spendable. While this lighter-touch approach may also reflect the regulatory and operational burden of directly offering fiat conversion and custody services across dozens of jurisdictions, the user is ultimately responsible for navigating the crypto layer. In the card network model, stablecoins exist entirely behind the scenes. Users never see USDC balances or manage blockchain networks. Fiat enters and exits the system as normal, while stablecoins handle settlement invisibly.

Both models use stablecoins in the settlement layer, but they differ significantly in how user-facing complexity is handled.

Where stablecoin adoption actually scales

Stablecoin transaction volumes reached $33 trillion in 2025, up 72 percent on the previous year, with institutional adoption continuing to accelerate. At this point, the question for the payments industry is no longer whether stablecoins will become part of global financial infrastructure – that shift is effectively underway – but whether the off-ramp layer can scale at the same pace as onchain settlement.

The systems that will ultimately scale are those that make blockchain infrastructure invisible to the end user. Stablecoins may sit in the middle of the stack, but the user experience will be defined entirely in fiat terms: pesos in a wallet, a card balance, or a payment accepted at checkout, with no awareness of the underlying rails.

This is where current implementations, including Meta’s, expose the industry’s remaining friction. By surfacing wallets, networks, and conversion steps directly to creators, they reveal the operational complexity that still sits beneath what is marketed as instant global payments. The infrastructure is efficient at settlement but fragmented at integration, reflecting an industry that has progressed faster in building onchain systems than at embedding them cleanly into existing financial workflows.

Meta has helped push the conversation forward, but the next phase of adoption will be defined less by transaction speed or blockchain throughput and more by seamless integration into the financial stack: card networks, banking apps and merchant terminals. In that end state, stablecoins will be present in the system but largely invisible to users. That work is already underway across the card networks; the platforms handling payouts will need to keep pace.

America’s largest banks are preparing a direct response to one of crypto’s fastest-growing products: stablecoins.

JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and other major lenders said Friday that they plan to launch a shared tokenized deposit network through The Clearing House by the first half of 2027. The project would allow bank deposits to move across blockchain infrastructure with round-the-clock settlement, giving traditional bank money some of the same capabilities that have helped stablecoins gain traction.

The move highlights the growing competition to become the preferred form of cash on blockchain networks.

“Following the GENIUS Act, a competition seems to be emerging between stablecoins, tokenized deposits and tokenized money market funds to become the preferred onchain cash instrument,” said Reid Noch, vice president of U.S. equity market structure at TD Securities.

Stablecoins, specifically Circle’s (CRCL) USDC and Tether’s USDT, currently dominate that market. The dollar-pegged tokens are widely used for crypto trading, cross-border payments and increasingly for savings products. But banks are concerned that if stablecoins become mainstream, deposits could migrate from traditional accounts into crypto wallets.

Tokenized deposits allow banks to bring customers onchain without losing control of their deposits. A customer’s bank deposit would be represented as a digital token that can move across blockchain rails. Unlike stablecoins, the funds would remain inside the banking system.

Noch said tokenized deposits address long-standing inefficiencies in global payments.

“Anyone who has ever wired money, especially internationally, knows the process can be expensive and often takes one or two business days to complete,” said Noch. By using blockchain infrastructure, tokenized deposits could allow near-instant transfers around the clock while reducing costs and settlement frictions, he said.

The initiative also signals how far blockchain technology has moved into the financial mainstream.

“The biggest banks in America are voluntarily coming onchain,” said Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone. “When the country’s largest institutions decide the future of finance runs on blockchain, they’re proving exactly what our industry has been building toward all along.”

Significant competition

Still, the banking industry’s approach differs sharply from crypto’s vision of open networks.

Noelle Acheson, author of “Crypto is Macro Now,” noted that banks have spent years experimenting with private blockchain systems that move money internally while maintaining strict control over users and transactions. The planned Clearing House network expands that model across multiple banks but remains far removed from public blockchain ecosystems where stablecoins circulate freely.

Acheson argued that the project demonstrates that banks are taking stablecoins seriously despite public comments from some executives, including JPM CEO Jamie Dimon, who downplayed the threat. While stablecoins offer greater liquidity and flexibility, she said many corporate customers may prefer a bank-backed system that fits within existing compliance frameworks.

In a report in March, Jeffries said it estimates that stablecoins could drive a 3% to 5% runoff in core deposits over the next five years and shrink average bank earnings by about 3%.

The outcome could reshape how money moves on blockchain networks.

If successful, the Clearing House initiative could emerge as a significant competitor to stablecoins for corporate payments and treasury operations. At the same time, it underscores a broader trend: traditional finance is increasingly adopting blockchain technology, even as it competes with crypto-native alternatives built on the same infrastructure.

TLDR:

• Hyperliquid weekly revenue returns above $20.22M after months of $8M–$15M consolidation range phase shift.
• Open interest share climbs to 7.9%, marking record gain against centralized derivatives exchange competitors.
• Platform maintains $5.9B TVL with $222B monthly volume and strong perpetual futures trading activity levels.
• Annualized fees exceed $1.05B while revenue reaches $881M, driven by sustained derivatives market usage.

Hyperliquid shows renewed momentum across revenue, liquidity, and derivatives positioning as weekly earnings return above $20 million in June 2026.

The protocol also records rising open interest share and sustained capital inflows, signaling continued activity across its trading ecosystem platform.

Revenue Recovery Signals Trading Cycle Reset

Hyperliquid recorded a return above $20.22 million in weekly revenue during the June 1–7, 2026 period. This marked the first break above the $20 million level since February 2026, ending a multi-month range of lower activity across the platform’s derivatives markets.

Source: Degen News(X)

Earlier in the cycle, Hyperliquid revenue fluctuated between $8 million and $15 million weekly, reflecting subdued volatility conditions after the 2025 expansion phase. Activity remained consistent, though far below the highs recorded during the previous market surge.

During August and September 2025, Hyperliquid reached weekly revenue peaks above $30 million, driven by elevated trading activity and increased participation across perpetual futures markets. Those conditions represented a volatility-heavy environment compared with 2026 trading behavior.

Market structure data shows Hyperliquid maintaining a stable revenue floor even during contraction phases. This indicates persistent engagement from core users, supported by continued derivatives trading activity across the ecosystem.

Open Interest and Capital Flows Point to Structural Shift

Hyperliquid’s share of aggregate perpetual futures open interest reached 7.9%, marking a record level against centralized exchange competitors.

The metric reflects increasing capital commitment, as traders allocate larger positions to decentralized infrastructure for derivatives execution.

Source: Degen News(X)

Total value locked on Hyperliquid stands near $5.9 billion, supported by consistent inflows across market cycles. Annualized fees exceed $1.05 billion, while revenue approaches $881 million, driven primarily by perpetual futures trading volume and sustained position activity.

Trading volume data shows $222 billion processed over a 30-day window, with open interest at $9.15 billion, indicating sustained positioning rather than short-term speculative turnover.

Liquidity conditions have remained stable across volatility shifts, supporting continuous derivatives activity on the platform. 

Capital allocation trends suggest users are increasingly treating decentralized venues as primary execution layers rather than alternative markets.

The progression of market share in perpetual futures trading continues to expand, supported by improved execution efficiency and deeper order book participation. 

Hyperliquid continues to operate within a competitive landscape dominated by centralized exchanges, yet its share of activity has increased steadily across 2026.

The platform’s ability to maintain liquidity during both expansion and contraction phases reflects persistent usage across diverse trader segments.