The Major County Sheriffs of America has withdrawn its opposition to the decentralized finance provision in the CLARITY Act, easing one of the main law enforcement concerns surrounding the proposed U.S. crypto market structure bill.

According to a letter sent by the Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) to Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, the organization has changed its position from opposing the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act provision to taking a neutral stance after conducting a continued review of the legislation. The change comes as lawmakers prepare for the next stage of Senate discussions on the bill.

The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act section of the CLARITY Act would protect software developers and infrastructure providers from legal responsibility for crimes committed by users of decentralized platforms, provided they do not control customer funds.

Law enforcement organizations had argued that the language could make investigations into illicit crypto activity more difficult.

Law enforcement concerns narrow as amendments remain on the table

While ending its formal opposition, the MCSA did not give unconditional support to the provision. In its letter, the organization said continued discussions with the Trump administration had provided additional clarity on how officials expect the DeFi language to be interpreted and implemented if the legislation becomes law.

Alongside its updated position, the sheriffs’ association proposed several changes. It asked Congress to give state and local law enforcement agencies a formal role in the Treasury study required under Section 309 of the CLARITY Act and in any advisory groups created under the legislation.

The MCSA argued that local and state agencies investigate most cryptocurrency-related crimes and should therefore help shape future legislative, regulatory, and policy recommendations.

It also urged lawmakers to recognize that a new federal regulatory framework should be matched with funding and operational resources needed by state and local authorities responsible for enforcing the rules.

Earlier this week, the CLARITY Act also secured backing from the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE). As previously reported by crypto.news, the organization said the legislation would provide law enforcement with additional investigative capabilities while preserving existing criminal enforcement powers.

Senate timeline points to renewed momentum

Meanwhile, political attention has shifted back to the Senate’s legislative schedule after Senator Bill Hagerty outlined a revised timeline for the bill. Reports citing Hagerty indicate that the Senate is expected to release the final text of the CLARITY Act this weekend before debate resumes after lawmakers return from the July recess.

The updated schedule replaces earlier expectations that President Donald Trump could sign the legislation by July 4. Instead, Hagerty has indicated that Senate floor action is more likely after Congress reconvenes on July 13.

Support for the legislation has continued to build despite the delay. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, the probability of the CLARITY Act passing during July has increased to around 60%, suggesting improving expectations for a federal digital asset market structure framework.

Prediction market participants have also turned more optimistic. According to Polymarket, the odds of President Trump signing the CLARITY Act into law before the end of the year have climbed back above 50% after falling earlier in the week.

Still, not every issue has been resolved. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has continued to argue that lawmakers should prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from issuing or promoting crypto assets before advancing major digital asset legislation, keeping ethics provisions among the remaining points of debate as the Senate prepares to take up the bill.

The Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) has dropped its opposition to the proposed CLARITY Act, shifting its position to “neutral” after lawmakers addressed concerns it raised in an earlier letter about how the bill could affect illicit finance investigations.

In a letter sent to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the group said its stance changed after revisions addressing its objections to Section 604, a provision tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. The development removes a key resistance point from law enforcement stakeholders that had been flagged as a hurdle for the bill’s progress through the Senate.

Key takeaways

• MCSA moved from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral position after concerns raised in a May 14 letter about Section 604 were addressed.
• Section 604 is intended to protect blockchain and decentralized platform developers from liability for illicit activity committed by users.
• MCSA previously argued the provision could be exploited by criminals, complicating law enforcement investigations into crypto-related crimes.
• The CLARITY Act still faces delays in the Senate, with banking groups reportedly pushing to limit stablecoin yield arrangements.
• MCSA says it still wants changes—particularly to include state law enforcement in a Section 309 Treasury study of DeFi and illicit finance risks.

Why MCSA’s position shift matters for Senate momentum

Although the CLARITY Act has drawn bipartisan backing, its path to enactment has been slowed. Senators have had to balance support for clearer rules for blockchain and decentralized finance with objections from segments of the financial industry, especially around stablecoin-linked products.

Against that backdrop, MCSA’s shift is notable because it directly concerns the enforcement community—an area where legislators often expect operational consequences to be scrutinized. In its earlier stance, MCSA said Section 604 could create a loophole for bad actors, potentially making it harder for law enforcement to investigate criminal activity facilitated through crypto systems.

By describing its new posture as “neutral,” the group is signaling that revised bill language (or interpretive clarifications) has reduced enough of its concern that it no longer believes the provision should face outright resistance from sheriffs’ leadership.

What Section 604 does—and what law enforcement worried about

Section 604 is part of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act embedded within the broader CLARITY Act. The provision aims to provide developers with regulatory certainty by limiting liability for illicit activity carried out by users on decentralized platforms.

In its May 14 letter, MCSA argued that this protection could be turned into a shield by criminals, enabling misuse without sufficient accountability and thereby complicating investigative work. That concern reflects a broader tension at the heart of many crypto compliance debates: striking a balance between preventing user harm and avoiding rules that inadvertently discourage legitimate development or overreach into decentralized systems.

According to MCSA’s Friday letter, the group’s earlier objections were addressed—enough for it to move to neutrality—suggesting lawmakers incorporated changes related to how Section 604 would operate in practice.

Stablecoin yield concerns remain a major drag on passage

Even as the CLARITY Act retains political support, the bill’s Senate timeline has been affected by resistance tied to stablecoin structures. The bill has largely been stalled by banking groups seeking restrictions on stablecoin yield, which they argue functions like an unregulated deposit product.

As characterized in earlier reporting, critics of yield-bearing stablecoins warn that such arrangements could lead to large-scale outflows from the traditional banking system, potentially reaching “trillions of dollars,” though the exact magnitude is framed as an industry concern rather than a specific forecast tied to the act itself.

The CLARITY Act has been waiting for a full Senate vote since May, when the Senate Banking Committee advanced it largely along party lines. That bottleneck means the bill’s prospects are still highly sensitive to how other constituencies—beyond developers and enforcement—view the practical effects of the proposed compliance regime.

Law enforcement support grows, but MCSA wants further amendments

MCSA’s change in stance is not the end of its engagement with the bill. The group said it still wants modifications to Section 309, which would require the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks.

Specifically, MCSA asked that state law enforcement be included in the section. The group’s position underscores how compliance studies and policy implementation often run into real-world capacity gaps: even well-designed legal frameworks can underperform if enforcement agencies lack the tools, training, and partnerships needed to act on the intelligence they receive.

In its letter, MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should provide the training, technology, and resources required to investigate increasingly sophisticated digital asset-enabled crimes. He pointed to a range of alleged criminal activity, including fraud, narcotics trafficking, ransomware, child exploitation, terrorism financing, and other offenses.

“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”

That emphasis highlights a key reason the law enforcement community continues to matter in the crypto policy conversation: not just whether legislation creates clearer responsibilities, but whether it is matched by implementation capacity at the local and state level.

What could happen next

With MCSA moving off opposition, the immediate “roadblock” narrative around enforcement stakeholders appears to be easing, but the CLARITY Act still depends on Senate scheduling and on overcoming financial-industry objections—especially around stablecoin yield. Investors and builders should watch whether the bill’s remaining concerns narrow enough to clear a full vote, and whether Section 309 modifications addressing state law enforcement involvement gain traction as lawmakers try to finalize the measure.

The Major County Sheriffs of America reportedly said it no longer opposes the CLARITY Act after initially raising concerns over how the bill would affect illicit finance investigations.

In a letter to US Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday, the MCSA said it shifted its stance on the CLARITY Act to “neutral” after some of its concerns in a May 14 letter regarding Section 604 in the bill were addressed.

Section 604 relates to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which seeks to protect developers from liability for illicit activity committed by users on their decentralized platforms.

The MCSA previously contended that Section 604 could create a loophole for criminals to exploit, making it tougher for law enforcement to investigate crypto-related crimes.

Source: Eleanor Terrett

While the CLARITY Act has bipartisan support, its passage through the Senate has largely been stalled by banking groups seeking to restrict stablecoin yield, which they argue functions like an unregulated deposit product that could drive trillions of dollars in outflows from the traditional banking system. 

The bill has been awaiting a full Senate vote since May, when the Senate Banking Committee passed the bill mostly along party lines.

Senators in favor of the bill are pushing for a full Senate vote this month, in hopes that it can be passed and signed into law before the US midterm elections in November.

One of CLARITY Act’s “biggest roadblocks” removed

Crypto investor Mark Chadwick described MCSA’s initial opposition to the CLARITY Act as one of the “biggest roadblocks” in preventing the Senate from passing the bill.

“With that hurdle now out of the way, the path to passage just got a lot clearer,” Chadwick said. “One more major hurdle down.”

MCSA still wants improvements to CLARITY Act

The MCSA said it would like the CLARITY Act to be amended to include state law enforcement in Section 309, which requires the Treasury Department to study decentralized finance and illicit finance risks.

Related: Senate leaders push for July passage of CLARITY Act 

MCSA President Bob Gualtieri argued that Congress should provide the training, technology and resources needed to “investigate increasingly sophisticated digital asset-enabled activity” tied to fraud, narcotics trafficking, ransomware, child exploitation, terrorism financing and other crimes.

“State and local law enforcement agencies investigate these crimes every day and must have the tools, partnerships, and resources necessary to identify offenders, trace illicit proceeds, recover assets, and protect victims.”

Magazine: Does ‘Paper Bitcoin’ mean there’s an unlimited supply of BTC?

Bitcoin’s rebound this week underscored how quickly market sentiment can shift: after trading near a 21-month low, BTC rallied on July 3 toward the $63,000 area, while Ether outpaced the broader complex to push toward $1,775. The move came despite a still-dark sentiment backdrop, with the Crypto Fear & Greed Index registering “Extreme Fear” at 11 out of 100.

That disconnect—an index signaling near-panic while price action turns constructive—became more interesting after data showed a notable change in US spot Bitcoin ETF flows. According to SoSoValue, July 2 saw net inflows of $221.7 million into US spot Bitcoin ETFs, their largest single-day inflow since early May and a break from 10 straight days of outflows.

Key takeaways

• BTC recovered toward $63,000 on July 3 and Ether moved to about $1,775 after both hit fresh weakness earlier in the week.
• Crypto Fear & Greed showed “Extreme Fear” (11/100), even as spot ETF inflows turned positive on July 2.
• SoSoValue data points to a sharp reversal in ETF demand, with $221.7 million net inflows on the day.
• Derivatives indicators—positive funding for eight straight days and rising open interest—suggest leverage is building even as price has not fully trended.
• Near-term levels to watch include BTC holding around $61,000 and potential follow-through above $62,500 during thinner holiday-weekend trading.

Fear gauge vs. improving ETF demand

The “Extreme Fear” reading matters because it often reflects a market that is either under-allocating to risk or actively de-risking. Yet Friday’s bullish price activity suggests that, at least for some investors, the fear signal may have begun to lose effectiveness as buyers returned.

One concrete reason for that improvement is the ETF flow reversal. According to SoSoValue, the $221.7 million net inflow on July 2 stands out not only for its size, but for what it ended: 10 consecutive days of outflows. In practice, ETF flows can act as a steady channel for fresh spot demand, and a single-day reversal can sometimes be the first sign of a broader turn—though it is not, by itself, proof that a sustained trend has formed.

For traders, the key question is whether ETF buying holds up beyond one session. If inflows remain consistent, it strengthens the case that the market’s earlier drawdown was being countered by institutional-style accumulation. If inflows fade quickly, the rally could be more prone to reversal, especially given how low sentiment already is.

Derivatives: leverage is growing, but that can cut both ways

Spot data and ETF flows are only part of the picture. Futures and margin conditions can amplify moves—and also reveal when positioning is becoming fragile.

According to figures cited from Hyblock, funding rates have stayed positive for the past eight days and have climbed during that stretch. Funding is the periodic payment between traders who are effectively betting in opposite directions; persistent positivity typically signals that the market is leaning toward higher prices, with longs paying shorts.

Hyblock data also indicates that the total amount of outstanding leveraged Bitcoin positions is near its highest level over the past several days, even while price action has mostly moved sideways. This combination—leverage building up without a clear upward trend—has historically been a caution sign. The risk is that if the market fails to push higher soon, highly leveraged positions can become vulnerable to liquidation cascades, turning a choppy market into a fast reversal.

In other words, derivatives are confirming interest on the long side, but they are also raising the stakes if follow-through does not arrive quickly.

What to watch in the next sessions

With the rally gaining traction, near-term technical reference points have regained importance. One level highlighted is whether BTC can hold above roughly $61,000, where a large cluster of leveraged buy positions sits. When leverage is concentrated at a specific price zone, that area can act as a support “magnet” during turbulence—either absorbing weakness if buyers defend, or triggering stop-and-liquidation activity if it breaks.

On the upside, another threshold to monitor is a move back above $62,500. The logic is tied to positioning: returning above that level could bring BTC closer to price areas where leveraged shorts become more exposed. If spot ETF buying continues while funding remains constructive, it can reinforce the pattern seen over the preceding days.

Even with these bullish triggers, the broader market read described in the underlying data is mixed rather than uniformly bullish. Spot ETF inflows and the rebound in prices suggest sentiment may be improving faster than the Fear & Greed number implies. But when the market is as fearful as reflected by “Extreme Fear” and leverage is already elevated, the environment tends to be more fragile than it would be after a more orderly, less-positioned rally.

Compounding that uncertainty is the calendar. The upcoming US holiday-weekend stretch typically brings thinner trading conditions, which can reduce liquidity and increase the odds that price moves overshoot in either direction.

Closing perspective

Investors and traders should watch whether the July 2 ETF inflow becomes the start of a sustained bid, and whether BTC can hold the ~$61,000 support zone or reclaim ~$62,500 before liquidity thins further. The next few sessions will reveal whether this is a durable shift away from extreme fear—or a short-lived bounce amplified by improving flows and crowded leverage.

Bitcoin (BTC) rallied, $50 short of $63,000, on July 3, and Ether (ETH) outperformed the wider market, pushing to $1,775. The end-of-week rally comes a few days after BTC fell to a 21-month low and ETH sank to fresh year-to-date lows. Highlighting the negative sentiment, the Crypto Fear & Greed index registered “Extreme Fear” at 11 out of 100. 

Crypto Fear & Greed Index. Source: Alternative.me

That gap between the “Extreme Fear” reading and Friday’s bullish market activity is worth noting. On July 2, US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) took in a net $221.7 million, their largest single-day inflow since early May and a break from 10 consecutive days of outflows. 

Spot Bitcoin ETF netflows. Source: SoSoValue.com

Futures markets fuel Bitcoin and Ether gains

The leverage side of the crypto market looks more one-sided than the spot buying data alone would suggest. “Funding,” the periodic payment traders holding bets on higher prices make to traders betting on lower prices when the market leans bullish, has stayed positive for the past eight days and has been climbing throughout this period. 

Bitcoin open interest, funding rate. Source: Hyblock

The total amount of outstanding leveraged Bitcoin positions is also near its highest level in the past several days, even though the price has mostly moved sideways. Leverage building up without price making much progress is generally viewed as a caution sign rather than confirmation that a rally is underway. 

Related: Bitcoin holds $61K after US jobs data report, AI sector weakness: Did BTC bottom?

Can bulls keep their pace? 

Looking at the next few trading sessions, a few reference points stand out. On the cautious side, whether Bitcoin holds above roughly $61,000, where a large cluster of leveraged buy positions sits, matters, and so does whether Wednesday’s ETF inflow turns out to be a one-day event or the start of a new trend. 

On the more encouraging side, a move back above $62,500 would put Bitcoin within reach of price levels where leveraged short positions become more exposed, and continued positive buying activity alongside a still-growing pool of leveraged positions would extend the pattern seen over the past few days. 

Bitcoin liquidation heatmap. One-month view. Source: Hyblock

The overall market read is mixed rather than clearly bullish or bearish. Spot buying and a rebound in ETF flows suggest sentiment may be improving faster than the fear-and-greed number implies, but a market this deeply fearful and this leveraged toward higher prices tends to be more fragile. The upcoming US holiday-weekend stretch of typically thinner trading adds another layer of uncertainty to the current setup.

U.S. President Donald Trump has pushed back against criticism over his 2025 financial disclosures, telling CNBC that there was “nothing illegal” and “nothing wrong” with profiting from crypto-related investments while in office. In the interview, Trump also suggested that other parties were responsible for certain investment activity, adding that he did not “even know who they are,” an answer that did not directly address conflict-of-interest concerns.

The comments came after the U.S. Office of Government Ethics released Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure report, which shows he received more than $2 billion from business and investment holdings during the year, with roughly $1.4 billion tied to crypto ventures. Advocacy groups have argued that such earnings create incentives to shape policy in ways that benefit related projects.

Key takeaways

• Trump told CNBC he saw “nothing illegal” in profiting from crypto investments while president, even as critics highlighted potential conflicts.
• The 2025 disclosure report from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics ties about $1.4 billion of Trump’s income to crypto-related activity.
• Disclosure breakdown cited in the report includes $636 million from a memecoin, $588 million from World Liberty, and $197 million connected to equity in a stablecoin venture.
• Public Citizen says crypto-linked contributors have put $189 million into the 2026 U.S. election cycle as of June.

What Trump said after the disclosure release

During a Thursday appearance on CNBC with Joe Kernen, Trump responded to questions surrounding the 2025 financial disclosures. He maintained that profiting from crypto investments as president was not improper, framing the controversy as baseless.

When pressed on the issue of who managed or executed the investments, Trump did not provide a straightforward explanation of how he handled potential conflicts. Instead, he argued that others were responsible for the investments and said he did not know the people involved, leaving open key questions that critics say are central to public trust.

Trump’s remarks followed the release of his 2025 disclosure report by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, an agency responsible for collecting and publishing high-level financial information from top federal officials.

How the 2025 figures connect to crypto projects

According to coverage of the filing, Trump reported more than $2 billion in income from his businesses and investments in 2025, with about $1.4 billion connected to crypto-related activities. Among the crypto-linked components cited were his memecoin, the family platform World Liberty Financial, and an equity stake associated with a stablecoin venture.

Specifically, the crypto-related totals described include approximately $636 million generated by his memecoin, about $588 million from World Liberty sales, and roughly $197 million from equity in a stablecoin venture. Together, these figures form the bulk of the reported $1.4 billion crypto-related income highlighted by critics.

Advocacy organizations have characterized these investments as a form of “grift,” arguing that political influence—whether direct or indirect—could advantage projects tied to Trump and his family. One such critique referenced in the reporting linked the donations and leverage question to proposed legislative efforts, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.

Earlier reporting on the disclosure emphasized the scale of the crypto-linked earnings and the overlap with areas where U.S. policy could affect digital asset markets.

From skepticism to industry alignment

Trump’s evolving posture toward crypto has been a defining theme of the past several years. In the wake of his first term, he had referred to Bitcoin as a “scam.” However, in the period leading up to the 2024 election, he increasingly associated himself with high-profile crypto figures and industry executives.

As described in the reporting, the shift included engagement with Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, alongside relationships with executives from mining companies and crypto exchanges. During that same broader period, Trump launched a memecoin known as Official Trump (TRUMP), while his family’s involvement with World Liberty and American Bitcoin placed additional attention on crypto-native business activity.

The contrast between earlier skepticism and later engagement is central to why the disclosure controversy has attracted significant attention: critics argue the president’s financial exposure to crypto projects makes it harder to separate policy decisions from personal or business incentives.

Election spending: crypto money looks set to stay active in 2026

The controversy over Trump’s disclosures arrives amid evidence that crypto-related money is becoming a fixture of U.S. electoral spending. After digital asset firms and figures reportedly spent $170 million to support “pro-crypto” candidates to Congress in 2024, political action committees and aligned organizations appear to be applying a similar approach for 2026.

According to Public Citizen, companies and individuals tied to the crypto industry contributed $189 million to this year’s election cycle as of June. Public Citizen also reported that the $189 million figure makes up most of $294 million spent so far by crypto, AI, Big Tech, and online betting companies to support or oppose politicians.

With Trump’s term ending in January 2029, the current political landscape matters for more than symbolic scrutiny: all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 seats in the Senate are up for election in 2026. For digital asset firms, stablecoins, exchanges, miners, and token issuers, legislative outcomes in the next cycle could shape compliance rules, market structure, and the pace of regulatory clarity.

Related coverage pointed to how these spending patterns reflect a sustained effort to influence policy direction during election years.

Pressure and counterpressure from within Trump’s orbit

Criticism is not limited to advocacy groups outside Trump’s circle. In comments relayed from a Friday interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Mary Trump—his niece—accused him of pushing boundaries and argued that people could evade consequences due to the president’s use of the presidential pardon power.

While her remarks were not directly focused on the legal interpretation of financial disclosure rules, they underscore the broader narrative opponents are advancing: that public officials with substantial financial exposure to crypto-related enterprises face intensified scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest and the consequences for those who invest based on political proximity.

What to watch next

As scrutiny continues, the next signals to monitor are how regulators and watchdogs interpret the disclosure details in the context of federal ethics rules, and whether the 2026 election cycle brings additional policy movement on digital assets—especially in areas that intersect with stablecoins, token issuance, and broader market structure.

Bitcoin is flashing a highly unusual on-chain signal: its realized profit-and-loss ratio has fallen to a 43-month low of -0.35, an indicator CryptoQuant says reflects “extreme” loss conditions across the market. Historically, CryptoQuant adds, that type of reading has tended to appear close to major price bottoms.

The metric has not been this low since shortly after the FTX collapse, when Bitcoin traded below $16,000 in late 2022. With BTC still recovering from a steep drawdown that began after a peak near $126,080 in October, the new data is adding fuel to a broader debate among analysts over whether the market is past its worst stress—or merely approaching it.

Key takeaways

• CryptoQuant reports Bitcoin’s realized P&L ratio hit -0.35, the lowest reading in 43 months, last seen around late 2022.
• CryptoQuant says past occurrences of readings below -0.35 in 2015 and 2019 preceded subsequent rallies.
• CryptoQuant’s on-chain stress signal is arriving as “Fear and Greed” sentiment has moved off near-record lows and Bitcoin has bounced more than 7% from a June 25 trough near $58,190.
• Some analysts link the current drawdown to Strategy’s Stretch (STRC) preferred-stock offering and related concerns about dividend coverage.
• Other commentators argue investors should not wait for a “bottom” to be obvious because historical discount zones have been associated with strong 6- and 12-month forward returns.

Realized P&L reaches a historically rare loss zone

According to CryptoQuant, the Bitcoin realized profit-and-loss (P&L) ratio has dropped to -0.35. The realized P&L ratio measures the net percentage of Bitcoin currently in profit or loss relative to total supply, using on-chain cost basis information. In practical terms, a more negative reading indicates that a larger share of holders are underwater on their realized entry prices.

CryptoQuant emphasized that the -0.35 threshold has shown a strong historical relationship with major bottoming behavior. In its analysis published Thursday, the firm said that realized P&L has “marked BTC bottoms with extreme precision,” citing earlier periods where the ratio slipped below -0.35 before later rebounds.

The indicator’s last comparable level came around December 2022, shortly after the FTX collapse exposed fragile market liquidity. Back then, Bitcoin fell to levels under $16,000—an episode that many market participants still reference as a stress test for crypto’s risk assets.

What the signal may mean for sentiment and timing

CryptoQuant’s indicator arrives during a sharp correction cycle that began from a high set in October near $126,080, after which Bitcoin experienced a roughly 50% drawdown. While past realized P&L readings can be informative, timing remains the key question for investors: a bottom signal can appear before prices fully recover, and it does not rule out additional volatility.

Still, broader sentiment gauges show signs of stabilization. The “Fear and Greed” index has risen cautiously over the past 10 days, according to the index page on Alternative.me. During the same window, Bitcoin has climbed more than 7% after falling to a near two-year low of about $58,190 on June 25, as reflected in prior reporting by Cointelegraph.

In other words, the on-chain data and the sentiment recovery are moving in the same direction, even if they don’t provide a precise “day of the bottom” forecast.

Strategy’s STRC episode and the leverage unwind narrative

A significant part of the discussion around the latest selloff centers on corporate Bitcoin exposure. Cointelegraph previously reported that analysts attributed much of the recent weakness to Strategy—the largest corporate Bitcoin holder—after its top perpetual preferred stock offering, Stretch (STRC), deviated from its $100 par value. The move reportedly pushed STRC below $75, raising concerns that Strategy’s dividend model may have been strained.

On Thursday, Cointelegraph noted that Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan said the STRC incident likely helped “squeeze out excess leverage” and could be pushing the market closer to a bottom as participants work through the fallout.

For traders and long-term holders alike, this matters because leveraged positioning can magnify moves on the way down. If leverage is truly being unwound—whether through forced deleveraging, hedging adjustments, or repricing of capital-market products—then the market may become less mechanically vulnerable to sudden liquidations. What remains unclear is how much of that unwind is complete and whether new risk reappears as prices rise.

Why some analysts say buying before the “bottom” may be rational

Not all commentary is framed around waiting for confirmation. Swan Bitcoin analyst Adam Livingston pointed to how close Bitcoin is currently trading relative to its realized price—the network’s aggregate cost basis, which often acts as a reference point in on-chain analysis.

According to Livingston, Bitcoin is trading about 16% above the realized price. He argued that this historically aligns with strong forward returns, citing research showing 41% gains over six months and 81% gains over 12 months following similar discount conditions.

Livingston acknowledged that buying at this stage “feels awful,” but he argued the psychological discomfort is part of why the opportunity can appear. In his view, waiting for a “bottom” is flawed because bottoms rarely announce themselves in a way that’s reliable enough to time entries perfectly.

While that argument is not a guarantee, it reframes the debate: rather than trying to predict the exact turn, investors may focus on whether market-wide indicators—on-chain loss concentration, realized valuation levels, and sentiment—suggest that downside pressure is fading.

What to watch next

For the near term, traders and investors will likely keep comparing this realized P&L trough with subsequent price action: if Bitcoin continues to stabilize while sentiment improves and leverage unwinds, the market may be shifting from capitulation toward consolidation. The key uncertainty is whether the current signals mark a decisive bottoming phase—or simply another stage in a volatile transition.

Bitcoin’s realized profit and loss ratio has fallen to a 43-month low of -0.35, a figure that signals extreme market-wide loss conditions but has historically coincided with market bottoms, blockchain analytics platform CryptoQuant said.

The Bitcoin realized P&L ratio — which measures the net percentage of Bitcoin (BTC) in profit or loss relative to total supply — hasn’t fallen this low since December 2022, shortly after FTX shockingly collapsed and sent Bitcoin below $16,000.

“Historically the indicator has marked BTC bottoms with extreme precision,” CryptoQuant said on Thursday. In 2015 and 2019 the Bitcoin realized P&L ratio also fell below -0.35 before price rallies followed. 

Change in Bitcoin’s P/L ratio since 2012. The data was taken when Bitcoin was trading at $59,000. Source: CryptoQuant

The data could lift market sentiment, which has repeatedly fallen to near-record lows during the course of Bitcoin’s latest 50% drawdown from $126,080, set in October. Market sentiment has risen cautiously over the last 10 days, with Bitcoin up more than 7% since tanking to a near two-year low of $58,190 on June 25.

Many analysts blamed that drop on Strategy — the largest corporate Bitcoin holder — after its top perpetual preferred stock offering, Stretch (STRC), broke from its $100 par value to below $75, raising fears that its dividend model was unsustainable.

Related: Crypto Biz: Bitcoin maximalism meets the realities of capital markets 

On Thursday, Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan said the STRC incident squeezed out excess leverage and likely moved the market one step closer to a bottom.

“As the market continues to sort things out, I’m convinced the bottom is closer than ever — and that we will enter a new bull market in the fall.”

Don’t wait for the bottom, analyst says

Swan Bitcoin analyst Adam Livingston noted that Bitcoin is currently trading only 16% above the realized price — the network’s aggregate on-chain cost basis — a level that has historically coincided with strong forward returns of 41% at six months and 81% at 12 months.

Livingston acknowledged that buying Bitcoin right now “feels awful,” but that’s precisely why it’s trading at a discount, he argued.

“Waiting for ‘the bottom’ is a wonderful plan with one flaw. The bottom never announces itself,” Livingston said, recommending investors buy now rather than overpay at the top.

Magazine: Bitcoin slides to $58K, XRP hits $1 but onchain data promising: Market Moves 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a leading US lawmaker involved in negotiations on digital-asset market regulation, has proposed a new ethics rule aimed at preventing elected officials—and the president and their spouse—from issuing or backing their own tokens. The push comes as renewed scrutiny continues around conflicts of interest in the crypto space.

In a notice released on Friday, Gillibrand said Congress should consider legislation that would bar elected officials and their spouses from “issuing or sponsoring their own digital assets.” Her proposal specifically covers the US president and their spouse, while not clarifying whether the restriction would also apply to other family members or, for example, the vice president’s office.

Key takeaways

• Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is calling for a ban on elected officials and their spouses issuing or sponsoring their own digital assets.
• The draft she outlined would cover the president and the president’s spouse, according to her Friday statement.
• The proposal targets concerns about self-dealing and insider influence in crypto-related policy.
• Gillibrand’s ethics push ties into broader legislative negotiations around the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, where ethics issues have contributed to delays.
• The new restriction does not explicitly extend to other relatives, even as other criticisms have focused on family involvement in crypto-linked activities.

A targeted ethics rule aimed at token issuance

Gillibrand framed her proposal as a practical safeguard for a sector still working toward consistent federal rules. In her comments, she argued that officials and their spouses should not be able to issue memecoins, emphasizing the risk that personal financial incentives could undermine consumer protections and efforts to combat illicit activity.

Her statement links the ethics concern directly to conflicts of interest: she said “self-dealing” should not be allowed to weaken the policy work required to strengthen safeguards and expand financial access. Gillibrand also pointed to the broader public interest in ensuring enforcement and rulemaking are not distorted by insider advantages.

The senator’s notice also suggested that any workable solution must be broad enough to address the integrity of the legislative process, particularly when lawmakers have influence over market structure and consumer-facing rules.

How this connects to the CLARITY Act negotiations

Gillibrand is not introducing the idea in isolation. She is also among the lawmakers negotiating the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act in the Senate—a bill that has reportedly faced delays linked to ethics concerns, tokenization questions, and how stablecoin incentives would be handled.

According to earlier reporting, Gillibrand expected the chamber to vote on the CLARITY Act by the Senate’s August state work period, but said no one would support the bill without addressing ethics concerns. Her reasoning centered on the possibility that elected officials could “get rich” from crypto markets due to their insider status.

That legislative backdrop helps explain why a narrower proposal about memecoin issuance by officials and spouses could still be politically important: it would target a concrete scenario—token sponsorship or issuance by those with rulemaking power—rather than leaving ethics questions as a vague debate.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that lawmakers were wrestling with ethical and structural concerns in the broader package, including issues related to tokenization and stablecoin-linked rewards.

GENIUS Act history and memecoin conflict concerns

Gillibrand’s latest proposal also aligns with a moment in the development of stablecoin regulation. During consideration of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) in 2025, she said that senators had removed provisions specifically targeting Trump’s connections to the crypto industry, including the president’s memecoin Official Trump.

At the time, Gillibrand said the memecoin was likely “illegal based on current law,” but she acknowledged that fully addressing Trump’s ethics problems would require a “very long and detailed bill.” Trump later signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025.

That history highlights a recurring tension in Washington’s approach to crypto ethics: even when lawmakers see potential conflicts, crafting a solution that both clears legal scrutiny and achieves political consensus can be difficult. Gillibrand’s new initiative appears designed to shorten that distance by creating a rule that directly restricts token issuance or sponsorship by officials and their spouses.

Trump’s response and the wider conflict-of-interest debate

The proposal arrives amid continued debate over whether crypto profits by political figures create improper influence. This week, Cointelegraph reported that Trump said he earned about $1.4 billion from crypto ventures in 2025, the same year he took office.

According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, Trump also asserted there was “nothing illegal” and “nothing wrong” with profiting from investments as president, while not directly answering questions about perceived conflicts of interest. The underlying concern for critics is not only whether transactions are legally permissible, but whether they erode trust in policymaking when an official’s financial exposure is tied to the regulatory outcomes.

Gillibrand’s proposal also stops short of explicitly extending the ban to all relatives. While she focused on elected officials and spouses, other criticisms have targeted the role of Trump’s sons in crypto-adjacent ventures, including World Liberty Financial and American Bitcoin, as reported in the article’s discussion of prior controversy.

That gap may matter for supporters of stricter rules: if spouses and officials are barred, critics may still ask how regulators should treat token sponsorship that is effectively enabled through broader family involvement, especially where family-linked businesses or holdings can influence perception—even if not always statutory ethics triggers.

As the CLARITY and stablecoin-related policy agendas continue to evolve, the key question for investors, builders, and market participants is whether ethics restrictions become part of a final legislative package—or remain a recurring obstacle that slows major crypto bills. Watch closely for whether Gillibrand’s proposal gains bipartisan traction, and whether negotiators are willing to translate ethics objections into enforceable rules rather than leaving them to case-by-case scrutiny.

Irish authorities have recovered another 500 BTC from wallets tied to convicted drug trafficker Clifton Collins. 

The Criminal Assets Bureau said in a Facebook statement that the latest seizure was made with support from Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre.

The latest recovery brings CAB’s total in the Collins case to 1,500 BTC. The bureau said the Bitcoin was identified as proceeds of crime. It marks the third 500 BTC recovery from the same wider wallet cluster this year, after earlier seizures in March and May.

Case traces back to lost private keys

The Collins case became known because the Bitcoin was long believed to be out of reach. The Irish Times reported in 2020 that Collins bought most of the coins in late 2011 and early 2012 using proceeds from cannabis sales. He later split more than 6,000 BTC across 12 wallets, with 500 BTC in each wallet.

According to that report, Collins printed the private keys on paper and hid them in the aluminum cap of a fishing rod case at a rented home in County Galway. The property was later cleared after his arrest, and the fishing gear was believed to have been taken to a dump. The keys were then viewed as lost.

Europol support remains central

Europol has helped Irish investigators in the wallet recovery work. The Irish Times reported in March that CAB accessed the first 500 BTC wallet with support from Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre. Garda Headquarters said at the time that Europol provided “highly complex technical expertise and decryption resources” for the operation.

As previously reported, Irish authorities first accessed a lost Bitcoin wallet tied to Collins in March. That wallet held 500 BTC and was part of the same 6,000 BTC stash. The recovery was notable because the funds had been viewed as locked for years.

Dormant wallets still hold large value

As crypto.news reported in May, the seizure later reached 1,000 BTC after CAB and Europol secured a second 500 BTC wallet. At the time, Arkham said another 500 BTC had moved from the Collins-linked entity after years of inactivity.

The latest move raises the total known recovery to 1,500 BTC. Onchain data from Arkham still tags wallets linked to Collins and shows remaining activity tied to the entity. Lookonchain also said in a July 2 post on X that another 500 BTC had been deposited to Coinbase Prime, while about 4,500 BTC remained in wallets linked to the case.

Recovery keeps case under scrutiny

The Collins case remains one of Ireland’s best-known crypto crime recoveries because the funds were tied to old private-key storage and years of inactivity. Each wallet recovery reduces the amount still considered dormant, but a large balance remains under watch by onchain analysts.

The case also shows how law enforcement agencies are using technical support and blockchain tracking in asset recovery. CAB has not fully explained how investigators gained access to the latest wallet. For now, the confirmed recoveries show that Bitcoin once viewed as lost may still be reachable when agencies combine legal seizures, cybercrime support, and onchain tracing.