Key takeaways:

• The Spot Ether ETF outflows overwhelmed BitMine’s ETH accumulation, raising the chance of a drop below the $1,500 support.
• Falling DApps revenue and weak staking yields highlight limited ecosystem incentives despite tokenization potential.

Ether (ETH) has failed to sustain prices above $1,600 since Thursday, following the broader cryptocurrency market’s downtrend. Lower oil prices created a positive tone that fueled investors’ hopes for more expansionist monetary policy. That setup favors stocks and pushes bond yields higher.

Traders now fear that ETH will not hold the $1,500 support level for long. Spot Ether ETF outflows void the impact of accumulation from Ether treasury companies.

ETH/USD (orange) vs. Total crypto market cap (blue). Source: TradingView

Ether price has declined 31% since May and underperformed the total cryptocurrency market capitalization by 8% over that period. US-listed Ether ETFs saw $345 million in net outflows since June 17, which more than offset the $182 million in ETH accumulation from BitMine Immersion (BMNR US) and Sharplink (SBET US) during the same period.

Regulatory setbacks, AI competition and weak Ethereum onchain metrics

Several factors appear to have held back investor appetite, including regulatory uncertainty in the United States. Meanwhile, the stock market continues to draw attention thanks to strong earnings and lower inflation expectations.

The Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act has awaited a Senate vote since May 15. The bill ends regulation-by-enforcement and clarifies which tokens count as securities. Yet it has faced pushback from lawmakers over provisions regarding stablecoin yields and anti-money-laundering standards.

Democratic lawmakers voiced ethical concerns about the Trump family’s ties to crypto and its role in the World Liberty Financial platform. Most view the CLARITY Act as a positive catalyst for the decentralized finance (DeFi) sector. So ongoing uncertainty around approval hurts institutional demand for ETH.

The artificial intelligence sector now competes with blockchain for data processing as cloud providers deliver services through agentic architectures. Enterprise software leader SAP (SAP DE) has integrated autonomous, modular AI agents natively across multi-vendor clouds, enabling peer-to-peer collaboration.

Ether investors also feel disappointment from stagnant Ethereum network fees and decentralized applications (DApps) revenues. As a result, ETH supply becomes inflationary, staking yields remain limited, and fewer incentives exist for ecosystem growth, since part of DApps’ revenue flows back to users.

Ethereum monthly network chain fees vs. DApps revenue, USD. Source: DefiLlama

Ethereum network fees reached only $10.7 million in June, down from $24.4 million in April. DApps revenue hit $51.7 million in June, down from $64.8 million two months earlier. Top contributors included Sky (formerly Maker) at $12.7 million, Titan Builder at $7.2 million, and Chainlink at $4.6 million.

Ethereum supporters argue that tokenization remains in its early innings. The long-term growth potential should create enough blockchain demand to support a much higher ETH valuation.

Related: Ether treasury Sharplink bought $62.4M ETH last week

Ethereum real world assets (RWA) active market capitalization, USD. Source: DefiLlama

While real world assets (RWA) show real promise, the $14.5 billion in tokenized market cap on Ethereum has yet to spark meaningful DeFi activity. With a 2.7% staking yield and weak onchain metrics, the odds of ETH breaking below $1,500 remain in play.

Prediction markets platform Kalshi’s legal battle against Massachusetts will continue after a judge ruled that state authorities could add allegations against the company over sports betting.

In a Tuesday filing in Suffolk County Superior Court, associate justice Peter Krupp allowed state authorities to file a 71-page amended complaint, building on a filing alleging that Kalshi engaged in sports wagering in violation of state laws. 

The amended complaint included allegations that Kalshi “targets those under 21 years of age and does little to stop them from using its platform,” citing the company’s marketing to university campuses and presenting images in ads of people who “appear to be younger than 21 years old.”  

“Kalshi allows anyone who is at least 18 years old to create an account and wager on sports events by purchasing event contracts,” alleged Massachusetts authorities.

Source: Massachusetts Superior Court

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced the lawsuit against Kalshi in September 2025, alleging that the company needed to be licensed by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to comply with state laws on online sports wagers. In January, a judge granted a preliminary injunction barring Kalshi from offering sports event contracts as the case was under review.

Related: US senators push to end CFTC ‘assault’ on state oversight of prediction markets

The Massachusetts case is just one of many involving state-level authorities and prediction markets companies like Kalshi and Polymarket, who offer users the ability to trade using event contracts on a variety of outcomes related to sports, politics and current events. 

While Kalshi has been blocked from offering sports bets in some jurisdictions, it also has support from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which in April filed a brief in Massachusetts arguing the agency had “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. The CFTC, under Chair Michael Selig, has claimed that event contracts on the platforms amount to “swaps” covered by the Commodity Exchange Act and were not subject to state regulation.

“Congress has entrusted the CFTC with the sole authority to regulate commodity derivatives markets, including prediction markets,” said Selig. “To any state that seeks to nullify federal law and seize authority over these markets, I say again: we will see you in court.”

Cointelegraph reached out to Kalshi for comment but did not receive an immediate response. Following the initial complaint in September, a spokesperson said that the company was “ready to defend” itself in court.

Gaming organizations look to CLARITY Act for clarity on prediction markets

While one of the cases between a prediction markets platform and US state authority could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court given the arguments over federal and state laws, some groups are looking to Congress for solutions.

Earlier this month, national gaming and tribal organizations and labor groups called on US senators to add language “that explicitly prohibits event contracts tied to sports and casino-style gaming” to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. The bill, under consideration in the Senate, is expected to give the CFTC more regulatory authority over digital assets.

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

With Bitcoin plunging below $60,000 and Strategy’s share price down by more than 70% from the high, some crypto investors are questioning if Strategy could become this cycle’s Terra/LUNA — a highly leveraged bet on crypto market structure that explodes under stress.

The company’s response? A new capital framework released on Monday aimed at addressing investors’ fears.

The package includes up to $1 billion in buybacks for MSTR, up to $1 billion in buybacks for STRC and related securities, an increase in STRC’s dividend to roughly 12%, and a cash buffer expansion to $2.55 billion.

Of particular note for a company famed for its maximalist approach to Bitcoin, Strategy also said it may sell up to $1.25 billion in BTC holdings if required to meet dividend or debt obligations.

Markets responded positively to the news, with both STRC and MSTR shares rallying more than 12% in after-hours trading. STRC is currently trading at $84.86, a significant improvement on the $72.06 it was trading at on June 26.

STRC share price rallied by over 12% in after-hours trading. Source: Yahoo Finance.

But is the plan enough to assuage fears that STRC’s structure — famously cooked up by CEO Michael Saylor with the help of an LLM — could expose Strategy to a “death spiral” of reflexive funding risks during periods of market stress?

What is STRC and why is it controversial?

STRC is part of Strategy’s capital structure linked to its broader Bitcoin treasury strategy. It sits between traditional equity and debt-like instruments, offering investors yield while maintaining exposure to the company’s Bitcoin holdings.

Related: Strategy’s MSTR may plunge 80% if it repeats this dot-com-era fractal

Strategy describes STRC as a perpetual preferred stock paying a 12% annual dividend on a $100 par value, funded from its cash reserve and Bitcoin-linked capital framework.

While the structure is designed to provide financing flexibility without issuing traditional debt, analysts have questioned whether its stability depends on continued investor demand in secondary markets, particularly during periods of Bitcoin volatility or tighter liquidity conditions.

By contrast, Strategy’s common stock is called MSTR and it represents an equity ownership stake in Strategy along with voting rights. The fate of the two securities is closely aligned, but they are different. Similarly, Strategy’s position as the largest buyer of Bitcoin (and perhaps in future as a seller) means its fate is closely intertwined with the price of Bitcoin at present.

Perpetual goldbug and Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has repeatedly called out Strategy’s model, pointing out that it “can’t sell Bitcoin without crashing the price of Bitcoin. Even if Strategy merely stops buying Bitcoin, that change alone would crush the market.”

Strategy describes STRC as a short-duration, high-yield credit. Source: Strategy

Yet Taran Dhillon, head of digital assets at Kula, told Cointelegraph that “Bitcoin volatility alone is unlikely to break a structure like Strategy’s.”

He said that a more meaningful test is “whether Bitcoin remains under pressure while access to capital becomes progressively more expensive or difficult.”

The Bear case: feedback loops and liquidity dependency

Some argue that Strategy’s entire fundraising and equity model is inherently reflexive, compounding both upside and downside cycles. The same flywheel that amplifies gains in bull markets can accelerate losses during the bear, when falling Bitcoin and share prices collide with weaker demand.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse made that exact point on CNBC this week. “Financial engineering does not drive long term value,” he said.

Kyle Rodda, senior analyst at Capital.com, told Cointelegraph that Strategy effectively operates as a momentum-driven Bitcoin accumulation vehicle, in which capital raises funds for Bitcoin purchases that, in turn, support the company’s valuation. However, he warned that the dynamic can reverse under stress.

“Strategy’s business definitely compounds momentum in both directions,” Rodda said, adding that in weaker conditions, rising funding costs and declining investor appetite can reinforce downward pressure.

Related: Grayscale’s Pandl says Strategy should sell $3B Bitcoin to restore confidence

He also argued that secondary market liquidity is a structural dependency, meaning large-scale selling or refinancing pressures could have wider spillovers into Bitcoin markets themselves.

Among Bitcoiners, Charles Edwards, the founder of Capriole Investments, is one of Strategy’s most hawkish commentators of late.

He compared stressed conditions in digital asset treasury companies to broader crypto deleveraging events, warning that feedback loops can accelerate losses when leverage and sentiment deteriorate.

“Anyone else getting LUNA 2022 vibes on MicroStrategy?” he posted on June 26.

Comparing Strategy to Terra/LUNA. Source: Charles Edwards

The neutral view: the real risk is funding markets, not Bitcoin

While the bearish sentiment around Strategy piles up on X, Dhillon told Cointelegraph that stress would likely first appear in funding conditions, pointing to widening discounts, higher yields, and reduced issuance capacity as early warning signals.

In his view, Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings are less relevant than whether the company can continue refinancing or rolling capital efficiently during periods of market stress.

And while failure of STRC to maintain its “peg” of $100 has caused much consternation, STRC isn’t pegged to $100 in the way a stablecoin is pegged to the value of $1. The yield simply gets more attractive the further the price falls under $100, which in theory, should see buyers push the price back to $100 at some point.

A Bitfire Research report shared with Cointelegraph said that STRC’s recent price dislocations should not be interpreted as structural failure.

The firm argued that de-pegging events are largely driven by sentiment and liquidity conditions rather than changes to Strategy’s underlying fundamentals or solvency profile.

“Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) faces no near-term insolvency risk,” the firm wrote.

Bull case: stress is not insolvency

Strategy supporter Adam Livingston, a Bitcoin advocate and author, ran what he described as a “three-year MSTR stress test” under extreme conditions, including a 55% Bitcoin drawdown, closed capital markets, and sustained cash burn requiring large Bitcoin sales to meet obligations.

Related: CryptoQuant warns on Strategy’s dividend coverage as cash reserve falls 38%

In his model, Strategy’s senior claims expand sharply in Bitcoin terms, while the company’s “common equity Bitcoin exposure” (CEBE) compresses significantly. He described this as “CEBE getting annihilated”, falling from 138,161 sats per share to 7,884 sats per share at the trough of the simulation.

Death spiral? This model says no. Source: Adam Livingston

The model assumes no new Bitcoin purchases or equity issuance during the downturn, with approximately 115,727 BTC sold over the three years to service obligations before stabilization conditions return.

Despite the severity of the drawdown, Livingston’s model ultimately shows Strategy surviving the cycle, ending with over 700,000 BTC remaining on its balance sheet and a recovering net asset structure once market conditions normalize.

What Strategy actually changed

The new framework represents the most explicit attempt yet by Strategy to address concerns around liquidity and reflexivity risk.

Key components of Strategy’s June 29 8-K filing that aim to restore confidence in the company, include buybacks for MSTR shares and STRC and a big focus on expanding cash reserves to pay dividends. The nuclear option of selling up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin holdings to pay dividends is included partly as a way to assure markets Bitcoin maximalist Michael Saylor will reluctantly sell assets if he’s forced to.

Related: Bitcoin price is down over 40% since STRC launched: Is Strategy ‘fine’?

Strategy’s 8-K filing, June 29. Source: US Securities and Exchange Commission

Dhillon said the framework “meaningfully improves” transparency around how Strategy would respond under stress, with the expanded $2.55 billion reserve and clearer Bitcoin monetization plan helping strengthen investor confidence.

But Schiff pointed out that the current market cap of MSTR is $30 billion, while the current value of its Bitcoin is $50 billion. “Until MSTR’s market cap rises above the value of its Bitcoin, any Bitcoin bought by issuing MSTR shares creates a negative Bitcoin yield,” he said.

A stronger toolkit, same core bet

While the framework strengthens Strategy’s ability to manage short-term stress, it does not eliminate its reliance on capital markets to sustain its broader Bitcoin accumulation strategy.

As Dhillon told Cointelegraph, the key test will be whether funding conditions remain accessible during periods of market stress, rather than Bitcoin price action alone.

He added that the update clarifies Strategy’s capital allocation playbook, and gives management a more defined order of operations, which makes its overall strategy more credible.

For critics like Rodda, the underlying concern persists. Strategy’s structure remains exposed to feedback loops if liquidity tightens across both equity and credit markets.

While Strategy’s move introduces clearer liquidity buffers, buybacks, and contingency options, including potential Bitcoin sales, the debate over structural reflexivity has not yet been fully resolved.

The question now is not whether STRC is inherently fragile in theory, but whether Strategy’s expanded toolkit can withstand a prolonged period of capital market stress, and whether investors still want exposure to a vehicle that amplifies Bitcoin’s cycles and adds risk, rather than simply tracking them.

Magazine: Bitcoin will not hit $1M by 2030, says veteran trader Peter Brandt

The U.S. Commerce Department would have more authority to shield domestic artificial intelligence technology from the supply chains of foreign adversaries in a bill introduced Tuesday by two Republican senators who’ve been at the center of crypto legislation in this congressional session: Tim Scott and Bill Hagerty.

The new bill would give Commerce the ability to block “transactions involving technology designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned, controlled, or directed by foreign adversary countries.” But it’s being pushed by the two Republicans as this session of Congress is winding toward the summer break and midterm elections, leaving it little opportunity to advance unless it’s later latched onto a must-move bill.

“Americans should not have to worry that China or Russia can use the technology in our cars, phones, or networks against us,” said Scott, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who worked with Hagerty to pass last year’s Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act.

Strategy’s recently updated capital framework—allowing the company to raise funds through potential Bitcoin sales—has drawn support from parts of Wall Street even as prominent industry figures questioned whether the change truly strengthens Strategy’s long-term Bitcoin thesis.

On Monday, Benchmark Equity Research reiterated a Buy rating on Strategy’s Class A shares (MSTR) and kept a $570 12-month price target, according to a report reviewed by Cointelegraph. Strategy’s MSTR stock rose about 12.6% to roughly $92.70, while its STRC preferred shares climbed around 12.2% to about $83.70, based on figures cited by TradingView and Yahoo Finance. In Tuesday’s premarket trading, however, both names slipped as skepticism persisted about the durability and implications of the new framework.

Key takeaways

• Benchmark reaffirmed a Buy rating for Strategy’s MSTR and maintained a $570 12-month price target after the company disclosed a revised capital framework.
• Under the update, Strategy authorized potential Bitcoin sales of up to $1.25 billion to raise capital rather than relying solely on equity or debt.
• The approved sale capacity is estimated at about 21,082 BTC, roughly 2.5% of Strategy’s stated 847,363 BTC holdings, according to CoinGecko-linked figures in the reporting.
• Supporters view the shift as a move toward active balance-sheet management; critics argue it may not resolve a perceived market “overhang” and could undermine long-term credibility.
• Strategy has sold Bitcoin before, including a small 2026 sale and a larger 2022 sale tied to a tax-related transaction strategy that was later followed by repurchases.

How Strategy’s capital framework shifted

The core change is the authorization of potential Bitcoin (BTC) sales of up to $1.25 billion. Rather than depending exclusively on issuing additional stock or taking on debt, Strategy can use sales as one capital-raising lever, according to the company’s update referenced by Cointelegraph in earlier coverage: Strategy capital framework preserves Bitcoin exposure.

CoinGecko-linked calculations cited in the reporting place the $1.25 billion ceiling at approximately 21,082 BTC at current prices. That amount is described as about 2.5% of Strategy’s total holdings of 847,363 BTC, based on figures referenced alongside Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting: Strategy’s reserve and BTC accumulation coverage.

Support: more flexibility, less “one-way” exposure

Benchmark’s assessment emphasized that the update addresses concerns investors had raised during a period of heightened volatility. In the firm’s view, the changes provide more flexibility in how Strategy manages its capital structure.

Benchmark’s analysts characterized the shift as transforming Strategy from a “one-way” accumulation vehicle into an active manager that can adjust both sides of its balance sheet—something they called a meaningful positive for shareholders. Benchmark’s report, reviewed by Cointelegraph, argues that the framework gives investors a clearer view of how the company can respond as market conditions evolve.

That interpretation resonated with at least some individual market participants. Investor Simon Dedic suggested the move could represent a local bottom in sentiment around Strategy, implying that earlier fears about the company’s structure may have been overstated. Dedic also proposed that some selling pressure may have been linked to expectations that Strategy was preparing liquidity ahead of the framework update.

What skeptics fear: credibility and market “overhang”

Not all reactions were positive. Trader and investor Scott Melker said the framework appears aligned with what investors have pushed for—such as building a larger cash reserve and adopting a more flexible capital plan—but he cautioned that only time will tell whether the changes genuinely restore confidence.

Melker’s point reflects a key tension in the Strategy debate: even if flexibility reduces the risk of abrupt financial constraints, investors may still worry about whether flexibility translates into sustained belief that Strategy remains primarily a long-term Bitcoin accumulator. The concern is particularly sharp because Strategy has been one of the market’s major Bitcoin buyers.

Arca chief investment officer Jeff Dorman framed the issue differently, arguing that Strategy may need to sell roughly $2 billion to $3 billion worth of Bitcoin to remove a “constant overhang” he associates with the company’s market presence. In other words, the authorization threshold may not be enough—if investors perceive that selling must be large and sustained enough to meaningfully change market dynamics.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse added another layer to the criticism, saying that “financial engineering doesn’t drive long-term value.” In remarks shared in his public commentary and on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street,” Garlinghouse argued that Michael Saylor’s team was not focused on what he considers the “right stuff” and that the strategy had hurt the broader market.

Strategy has sold Bitcoin before—so what’s actually new?

The debate is complicated by the fact that Strategy is not new to Bitcoin sales. The reporting points to a small sale in May 2026—selling 32 BTC for $2.5 million—and to an earlier transaction in 2022 in which the company sold 704 BTC as part of a tax-related transaction strategy before later repurchasing a similar amount of Bitcoin, according to an SEC filing cited in the original text: SEC archive.

What appears new in this latest framework is not the fact of potential sales, but the explicit scale and authorization of BTC sales up to $1.25 billion as a capital tool. That distinction matters for traders and long-term holders because the size and repeatability of potential sales affect expectations—whether Strategy is merely managing isolated liquidity needs or signaling a more systematic willingness to monetize Bitcoin under certain circumstances.

Where investors should look next

What will determine whether the framework strengthens Strategy’s case is how the company actually uses (or avoids using) the authorized sale capacity, and whether market participants update their expectations for how much Bitcoin supply could reach the market if conditions deteriorate. Until there’s clearer evidence from subsequent capital actions, skepticism and support are likely to remain split along the same fault line: flexibility versus the durability of a “long-term buyer” narrative.

Bitcoin (BTC) is fast approaching a buying level that analysts describe as a top “investment opportunity.”

Key points:

• Bitcoin only needs to dip another $5,000 to hit a buy-in level that has always marked the bear-market bottom zone.
• This “best” area to invest is now on the radar of traders and analysts alike.
• PlanB describes a return below the level as “likely” during the 2026 bear market.

BTC price nears a classic bear-market buy-in zone

Data from onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant shows that BTC/USD is less than 10% away from its aggregate realized price.

Realized price is the average price at which the BTC supply last moved onchain, and currently sits at around $53,300. BTC/USD has not traded below it since the end of its last bear market in 2022, according to data from TradingView.

“Looking back, every recurring bear market has brought a bleak period when Bitcoin fell below its realized price, and that has been the best Bitcoin investment opportunity,” CryptoQuant contributor Crypto Sunmoon commented.

BTC/USD one-week chart with realized price data. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Realized price comes in various iterations, reflecting the aggregate cost basis of various Bitcoin investor cohorts.

Market participants, however, are eagerly awaiting the return of the broader cost basis, given its role as a potential bear-market bottom marker.

“If that moment comes again, where price falls below the realized price, invest for the new cycle,” CryptoQuant suggested.

Bitcoin will “likely” fall under realized price

In recent months, PlanB, the pseudonymous creator of the Stock-to-Flow BTC price models, has listed a drop below the realized price as one of two key conditions that must be met to secure a trend reversal.

Related: Bitcoin price risks drop below $58K as US dollar hits 40-year high against yen

The other, closing candles below the 200-week moving average (WMA), began several weeks ago.

“Market is 50/50 on if February $60k was the bottom, or the bear will continue,” he wrote in an X post at the start of June. 

“IMO data is telling us that we have not seen bottom formation yet, and that there is a >50% probablility that we go lower (below 200wma $61k or realized price $53k).”

Bitcoin realized price data. Source: PlanB/X

In a later post, PlanB added that Bitcoin would “likely bottom below” the realized price.

Continuing on realized price, commentator Aaron Bennett said that a drop to the key level was still possible despite the presence of institutional holders who were absent from previous bear markets.

“I’d be surprised if we don’t touch this, or go below it for a few weeks,” he told X followers last week.