TLDR:

• Publicly listed Bitcoin miners sold over 32,000 BTC in Q1 2026, marking the largest quarterly outflow ever recorded on-chain.
  
• The 2024 halving cut block rewards to 3.125 BTC while hash rate kept rising, pushing hash price below miner breakeven levels.
  
• On-chain Miner Position Index and Miner Selling Power metrics both signal that peak distribution pressure has already passed.
  
• ETF inflows, institutional demand, and macro conditions are now set to replace miner behavior as the key Bitcoin price drivers.

Bitcoin miner selling pressure is showing signs of easing after one of the most intense distribution periods on record. Publicly listed miners sold over 32,000 BTC in Q1 2026, marking the largest quarterly outflow ever recorded.

WuBlockchain reported the trend, attributing it to post-halving profitability compression and strategic reallocation toward AI infrastructure.

On-chain metrics confirm that miner reserves have been in steady decline, though selling power is now visibly contracting.

Record BTC Outflows Mark a Structural Shift in Mining Economics

The 2024 Bitcoin halving cut block rewards from 6.25 to 3.125 BTC, directly reducing revenue for the entire mining sector. As block rewards shrank, the global hash rate kept rising, placing further pressure on individual miner profitability.

Hash price fell below breakeven for many operators, leaving cash flow management as the only viable short-term priority. Miners across the sector prioritized cash flow, selling BTC to cover operational costs and sustain mining activities.

WuBlockchain shared that Q1 2026 marked the largest miner BTC sell-off on record, flagging the historic outflow volume.

The report noted that this was not panic selling but a deliberate operational and strategic response to market conditions.

Mining companies simultaneously redirected capital toward AI and high-performance computing, adding to the volume of BTC liquidations. This marked a notable shift in miner strategy, moving away from the accumulation approach seen in prior cycles.

On-chain data reinforced this narrative, with miner reserves declining steadily throughout the entire quarter. Net position change remained negative, confirming that miners were consistent sellers rather than accumulators over this period.

However, outflow pace began slowing toward the end of Q1, hinting that peak selling pressure had likely already passed.

Demand Drivers Take Over as Miner Selling Power Fades

Despite the sustained wave of distribution, bitcoin miner selling pressure has entered a phase of clear and measurable decline.

On-chain charts now show the Miner Position Index in negative territory while Miner Selling Power contracts sharply from peaks. This combination points to a market where forced miner supply has already been largely absorbed.

Bitcoin market cycles historically follow a progression from supply expansion into supply exhaustion, then into demand-driven price growth.

The current cycle appears to be transitioning into the exhaustion stage, where available seller volume contracts and buyer dominance increases. Miners are no longer adding to their sales volumes, even as Bitcoin prices remain in consolidation.

Going forward, ETF inflows, institutional participation, and macro conditions are expected to become the primary Bitcoin price drivers.

Bitcoin miner selling pressure is no longer the central force shaping near-term market direction. Capital flows from demand-side participants will likely set the timing and scale of the next major uptrend phase.

In Trump news today, President Trump criticized Pope Leo XIV as “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” in a social media post that escalated a days-long public feud with the first American pope, who has repeatedly condemned the US-Israel war on Iran and called Trump’s pre-strike threat to wipe out Iranian civilization “truly unacceptable.”

Trump news today centers on the most pronounced public rupture between a US president and a sitting pope in modern history, one that began with Leo’s Palm Sunday call for peace during the Iran war and escalated through the week into direct personal attacks exchanged via social media post and press conference.

Leo, born in Chicago and elected in April 2025, has been increasingly direct since the US and Israel launched the Iran campaign. He condemned Trump’s pre-strike rhetoric as attacks against civilian populations that violate international law, urged Americans to contact their congressional representatives, and on Palm Sunday said: “Jesus is the king of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war.” Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have both invoked God to frame the war in religious terms, which Leo has specifically and repeatedly rejected.

Trump’s escalation began with the Truth Social post calling Leo “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.” He told reporters he does not think Leo is doing “a very good job” and said “I’m not a fan of Pope Leo.” He also posted an AI-generated image depicting himself in a Christ-like pose with light emanating from his fingers, which drew criticism from evangelical allies and was later deleted. Trump said he thought the image depicted him as a doctor.

On Tuesday night, Trump posted again: “Will someone please tell Pope Leo that Iran has killed at least 42,000 innocent, completely unarmed, protesters in the last two months.” He claimed Leo was in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons, a position Leo had not stated. He said he did not want a pope who would “say crime is OK in our cities.”

Leo responded on his plane to Algeria, the first stop of an 11-day Africa tour: “I have no fear of the Trump administration or speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the church is here to do.”

Why the Confrontation Has Escalated

Rome-based Catholic correspondent Elise Ann Allen said Trump appeared to be “feeling threatened that Leo was emerging as a stronger figure on the international scene,” adding that Trump needs to be careful because “it’s the moderate Catholics who got him elected in both elections.”

The feud intersects with the Iran ceasefire expiry on April 22, which crypto markets are watching closely as a binary risk event. A ceasefire extension would likely maintain current risk-on conditions; a breakdown would reintroduce the geopolitical volatility that drove Bitcoin’s initial selloff from its October 2025 highs.

What It Means for the Political Environment

Pope Leo has become a significant voice in the international coalition of actors urging the US to seek a diplomatic resolution. His Africa tour framing of the conflict as part of a pattern of powerful leaders “ravaging the world” adds moral authority pressure to the administration at the same moment it is managing the Iran nuclear talks, the crypto reform legislative agenda, and the midterm electoral environment, where Catholic voters in swing districts remain a decisive constituency.

Polish cryptocurrency exchange Zondacrypto’s problems just keep mounting.

Already under fire following reports of frozen or delayed customer withdrawals, the company on Friday drew the ire of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who told parliament the company had sponsored some politicians who opposed crypto market regulation.

Blocking the legislation by some politicians showed they were toeing Zondacrypto’s line, Tusk said before a vote to overturn President Karol Nawrocki’s veto of the law, according to a report by AP. The exchange has links to Russia and had previously provided the lawmakers with financial support, he said.

Tusk’s comments came a day after Zondacrypto CEO Przemysław Kral turned to X to defuse allegations the company was helping itself to investors’ funds to bulk up its declining reserves.

In a statement and video published on the platform, Kral said the exchange had sufficient reserves, and owns a bitcoin wallet holding about 4,500 BTC, about $330 million. There is a problem, though: It can’t access the funds because the previous owner didn’t hand over the private key and has now disappeared.

Delayed withdrawals

Kral said he revealed the wallet address to “cut short the unfounded accusations of alleged misappropriation of funds.” The key was not handed over by former CEO Sylwester Suszek in 2021, when ownership of the exchange, then known as BitBay, transferred and Kral took over. Suszek has been missing for four years.

Zondacrypto has faced reports of frozen or delayed customer withdrawals since late March, according to local news reports. Kral denied any misuse of client funds and said the exchange remains profitable. He publicized the inaccessible wallet to prove the exchange has reserves, he said.

Kral framed the situation as part of a broader campaign against the company, according to an AI translation of his Polish video. He pointed to supposed political pressure, regulatory interference and coordinated media coverage that contributed to a surge in withdrawal requests.

Analysis conducted by blockchain intelligence firm Recoveris and cited by local news outlets found that bitcoin balances in hot wallets tied to Zonda have dropped by about 99% since mid-2024. At one point, Kral threatened legal action against Polish news outlets covering the situation.

The furor revives the long-running controversy surrounding the company.

Polish investigative reporting, led by broadcaster TVN, in 2024 identified shareholder Marek K., who held a 35% stake, as a criminal sentenced to eight years in prison for complicity in a 1995 gangland murder and fined 45 million zlotys ($12.5 million) for VAT fraud.

In 2019, Poland’s Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) placed BitBay on its public warning list for unauthorized financial activities.

In January 2025, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, Poland’s consumer protection agency, started an investigation — still in progress — into BB Trade Estonia, Zonda’s owner, for “violating the collective interests of consumers,” Fakt reported earlier this month.

“Fundamental error”

In an April 6 post on X, Kral said reports of the reported decline in reserves stemmed from a “fundamental analytical error” by focusing solely on hot wallets. At the time, Zonda stood as a “stable, solvent, and secure entity.”

As for withdrawal delays, he said that at one point the platform processed tens of thousands of requests in a short period, far above normal levels. That, plus “the implementation of new, advanced security and transaction monitoring systems,” forced manual withdrawal verifications.

The wallet presented as proof of reserves following customer demand has seen little recent activity. Onchain data shows no outgoing movements whatsoever, and a total of 32 receiving transactions.

As for the veto vote, 191 MPs voted in favor of Nawrocki’s veto and 243 against it, 20 mandates too few to overturn the block, TVP World reported.

Key Highlights

• Palantir is competing alongside Thales and Air Space Intelligence for a major FAA contract to develop AI-driven air traffic control technology.
• Congress has allocated $12.5 billion to the FAA’s modernization effort, though the agency projects it will need approximately $20 billion in additional funding.
• The proposed AI system aims to mitigate airspace congestion and provide early warnings when aircraft proximity becomes concerning.
• On April 10, Wedbush reaffirmed its Outperform stance on PLTR with a $230 price target, dismissing concerns about competition from Anthropic.
• Among 32 Wall Street analysts tracking PLTR, 63% maintain Buy recommendations, with consensus price targets suggesting upside potential exceeding 47%.

The Federal Aviation Administration is undertaking what could become the most significant technological transformation in American aviation infrastructure, and Palantir Technologies is positioning itself as a key player.

A Bloomberg report citing an individual with knowledge of the situation reveals that the FAA has selected Palantir Technologies (PLTR), Thales (THLLY), and Air Space Intelligence as finalists competing to secure a contract for developing next-generation AI-based air traffic control capabilities.

This initiative represents a critical component of the agency’s ambitious plan to upgrade America’s outdated air traffic infrastructure, which has struggled under increasing flight demand and decades of delayed technological improvements.

Palantir Technologies Inc., PLTR

Congressional appropriations have provided the FAA with $12.5 billion toward this modernization campaign. However, agency projections indicate an additional $20 billion will be required to fully execute the transformation.

This substantial financing shortfall amplifies the urgency for implementing innovative, cost-effective technological solutions.

The AI-powered platform under development would deliver multiple operational capabilities. Among the anticipated features: identifying scheduling conflicts when excessive departure or arrival sequences create bottlenecks, enabling air traffic controllers to preemptively address congestion issues.

Additionally, the system would monitor aircraft separation distances and issue alerts when planes venture dangerously close to one another — a critical safety enhancement that could provide controllers with valuable additional response time during high-stress scenarios.

Wedbush Maintains Confidence

Wedbush Securities reiterated its Outperform rating on PLTR on April 10, holding firm at a $230 price target. The investment firm expressed continued optimism regarding Palantir despite market speculation that rivals such as Anthropic might capture market share.

Anthropic has experienced remarkable expansion — its annualized recurring revenue surged from $9 billion to $30 billion since early 2026. Nevertheless, Wedbush maintains that this competitive momentum hasn’t negatively impacted Palantir’s position.

The firm highlighted Palantir’s proprietary AIP platform and its sophisticated data integration capabilities as strategic differentiators that competitors find challenging to duplicate. Wedbush characterized the company as a frontrunner driving the AI transformation rather than a vulnerable target within it.

Analyst Sentiment Overview

Wall Street sentiment toward PLTR remains predominantly optimistic. Among the 32 analysts providing coverage, 63% have issued Buy recommendations.

Consensus price projections indicate potential appreciation exceeding 47% from present trading levels.

According to TipRanks analysis, a Moderate Buy rating emerges from recent analyst activity spanning the last three months: 14 Buy ratings, five Hold ratings, and two Sell ratings. The collective average price target from these analysts stands at $194.06.

PLTR stock was trading 2.54% higher at the time of this report.

Stablecoins behave like a fragmented foreign exchange market, where liquidity is spread across blockchains and pools, creating price differences and uneven access to dollar liquidity.

Moving stablecoins looks simple on the surface. But under the hood, it’s often a multi-step transaction routed across chains and pools.

“It’s a very special case of a foreign exchange market onchain, and that leads to bad user experience, with unexpected slippage, transaction reversion and unfamiliar information when moving your dollar from point A to point B,” Ryne Saxe, CEO at stablecoin infrastructure company Eco, told Cointelegraph.

Stablecoins now have a market capitalization above $320 billion, led by Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC (USDC). 

But as institutions and large traders enter the market, moving large sums of stablecoins becomes harder to execute cleanly.

Stablecoins aren’t as fungible as they seem

A stablecoin may be pegged to the dollar — or other fiat currencies — but it does not trade as a unified asset, with liquidity split across issuers, blockchains and decentralized finance (DeFi) venues, each with its own depth, pricing and access conditions.

“Stablecoins, between them, aren’t very fungible,” said Saxe. “The different profiles between those markets mean pricing and moving stablecoins seamlessly and efficiently across them is actually a hard problem that people take for granted.”

In practice, a dollar stablecoin on one chain may not be equivalent to the same asset elsewhere. Differences in collateral backing, market access and liquidity depth create pricing gaps that widen with size or in thinner markets.

Those differences are typically negligible in liquid markets and for smaller transactions. But as trades get larger, the gaps become bigger.

“The more major DeFi markets focus on stablecoins, the more chains focus on stablecoins, the more stablecoin assets there are, the more fragmented,” Saxe said. “People think these are just dollars, but they’re actually not.”

In a March report, payments startup Borderless found that pricing divergence in stablecoins depends largely on where liquidity is sourced.

Related: Instant settlement strains crypto’s capital efficiency: Ethan Buchman

The report collected hourly buy and sell rates throughout February across 66 stablecoin-to-fiat corridors — or conversion routes such as USDC to Mexican pesos — covering 33 currencies and seven blockchains. The data showed that USDC and USDT traded almost identically in most cases.

Larger differences emerged at the provider level, where pricing gaps in the same corridor could exceed hundreds of basis points, making execution quality dependent on access to liquidity and routing across venues.

Stablecoins become harder to move at size

As stablecoins currently stand, their market structure resembles foreign exchange, where dollar proxies circulate across disconnected markets, according to Saxe. That becomes more visible in larger stablecoin movements across chains.

Stablecoins have become a centerpiece for institutions moving into digital assets, used for trading, cross-border payments and onchain treasury management. Firms rely on them to move capital between venues, settle trades and access yield opportunities across DeFi markets.

Related: Why yen stablecoins are key to Japan’s crypto ambitions

Unlike retail users, institutions often move tens of millions of dollars at a time, where execution needs to be fast, predictable and efficient.

“If liquidity is spread out, trying to sell $10 million of one stablecoin and buy $10 million of another in a single step will move the market,” Saxe said. “What usually needs to happen is breaking that transaction into multiple branches, which may route differently and converge at the destination.”

In such cases, fragmentation becomes a constraint. Instead of drawing from a single pool of dollar liquidity, institutions must navigate multiple chains, issuers and venues, each with different liquidity conditions. Moving size can shift prices, require splitting trades and introduce uncertainty into execution.

“Right now, they don’t have the risk management, trust and infrastructure that they need to move or hold a lot of stablecoins at size onchain by default,” Saxe said.

Stablecoins need infrastructure, not more supply

Companies are starting to build infrastructure to address those gaps, but they are doing so from different assumptions about what the problem actually is.

Circle is treating stablecoins as the foundation of a new FX system, where multiple currencies, liquidity providers and settlement layers are connected through shared infrastructure. Meanwhile, Eco focuses on routing and execution, aggregating liquidity across fragmented markets.

Both approaches point to the issue of stablecoins existing across multiple chains or issuers, but the liquidity behind them is distributed and uneven. Moving funds requires interacting with that fragmented liquidity, which introduces pricing differences, routing complexity and execution risk. 

“Fragmentation creates more spread between prices, meaning worse execution in many cases. To solve that, you need to read across markets, see the full liquidity picture, even if it’s fragmented, and route across it,” Saxe said.

For institutions, that complexity directly limits how much capital can move onchain. As Saxe explained, stablecoin flows need to become far more predictable before institutions have the risk management and trust required to move or hold large amounts onchain.

Magazine: Will the CLARITY Act be good — or bad — for DeFi?