Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Nvidia (NVDA) Shares Fall to a Year-to-Date Low

Published

on

Nvidia (NVDA) Shares Fall to a Year-to-Date Low

As the Nvidia (NVDA) share price chart shows, the stock fell below $177 during yesterday’s session, marking its lowest level since the start of 2026.

Negative market sentiment is largely driven by uncertainty surrounding supplies to China. According to the Financial Times, Nvidia’s sales of H200 chips to China are still awaiting final approval from US authorities.

Yesterday’s statement from AMD, noting that the scale of its own shipments to China remains uncertain, reinforced these concerns and added further pressure to Nvidia shares. Previously, NVDA had been supported by expectations that deliveries of H200 chips to Chinese partners would begin in early 2026.

In addition, some media reports suggest that the stock is facing extra pressure from news of delayed investment in OpenAI, which is reportedly exploring alternative suppliers.

Advertisement

Technical Analysis of the Nvidia (NVDA) Chart

On 23 December, when analysing NVDA price action, we:

→ reaffirmed the long-term ascending channel, which remains intact;
→ suggested that bulls might attempt to break out of the corrective pattern (shown in red) in order to reach the channel median.

As expected (indicated by the black arrow), the price reached this target. However, January’s price behaviour offers little evidence that the uptrend has resumed with renewed strength.

Moreover, the red arrows highlight several bearish signals:

→ the median acted as clear resistance;
→ the 30 January peak (the highest level since the start of the year) formed with a long upper shadow, resulting in a false break of the previous high — a classic “bull trap”.

Advertisement

While bearish momentum appears to be in control, it is worth noting that:

→ the break below the 20 January low could also prove to be false;
→ the lower boundary of the channel, which has acted as key support for many months, is nearby.

Taking all of this into account, it is reasonable to assume that NVDA may find a period of consolidation in the lower quarter of the channel. A potential catalyst for the next major move could be the company’s earnings release scheduled for 25 February.

Buy and sell stocks of the world’s biggest publicly-listed companies with CFDs on FXOpen’s trading platform. Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading share CFDs with FXOpen.

Advertisement

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Charles Hoskinson: Bitcoin Quantum Upgrade Cannot Save Coins

Published

on

Brian Armstrong's Bold Prediction: AI Agents Will Soon Dominate Global Financial

TLDR

  • Charles Hoskinson said Bitcoin’s quantum proposal would require a hard fork instead of a soft fork.
  • He argued that the plan would invalidate existing signature schemes used by current Bitcoin users.
  • Hoskinson stated that the proposal cannot recover about 1.7 million early mined bitcoin.
  • He said roughly 1.1 million of those coins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto.
  • The proposal suggests users could reclaim frozen funds through zero-knowledge proofs tied to BIP-39 seed phrases.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson challenged a new Bitcoin proposal that targets quantum threats. He said the plan would require a hard fork rather than a soft fork. He also argued that the change cannot recover early coins linked to Satoshi Nakamoto.

Bitcoin’s Quantum Proposal Faces Hard Fork Dispute

Bitcoin developers proposed BIP-361 to freeze addresses vulnerable to future quantum computers. They said the change would phase out old signature schemes and protect dormant funds. However, Hoskinson rejected the claim that the plan qualifies as a soft fork.

He stated, “To actually do this, you need a hard fork,” in a YouTube video. He argued that the proposal invalidates signature rules that users still rely on. Therefore, he said old software would stop working unless every participant upgrades.

Developers described BIP-361 as a rule tightening that older nodes could accept. In contrast, Hoskinson said the measure changes core validation standards. He added that Bitcoin culture has long opposed hard forks because they alter network history.

Advertisement

BIP-361 co-author Jameson Lopp addressed the debate on X this week. He wrote that he does not like the proposal and hopes adoption never becomes necessary. He called it “a rough idea for a contingency plan” rather than a final plan.

Satoshi-era Holdings Remain Beyond Recovery

Hoskinson said the plan cannot protect about 1.7 million early bitcoin. He stated that around 1.1 million of those coins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto. He argued that those holdings predate modern wallet standards.

BIP-361 suggests that users could reclaim frozen funds through zero-knowledge proofs. The proof would tie ownership to a BIP-39 seed phrase used in newer wallets. However, Hoskinson said early wallets did not use seed phrases.

He explained that the original Bitcoin software relied on a local key pool. That system generated private keys without a deterministic seed phrase. Therefore, he said no proof based on BIP-39 can verify those older coins.

Advertisement

He said, “1.7 million coins can’t do that. It’s not possible.” He added that migration would require cryptographic proof that early holders cannot produce. As a result, those coins would remain frozen under the proposal.

Lopp estimated that 5.6 million bitcoin sit dormant across the network. He argued that freezing them would prove safer than letting quantum attackers unlock them. He presented the freeze as a protective option rather than a finalized policy.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

After Kalshi Appeal, Prediction Markets Fight Could Head to Supreme Court

Published

on

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets

An appellate court is expected to reach a decision after hearing arguments from Kalshi and lawyers representing the state of Nevada.

Some legal experts speculated that the state vs. federal jurisdiction battle over regulating prediction markets companies could soon be headed to the United States Supreme Court.

On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments from lawyers representing prediction markets platform Kalshi and Nevada authorities over the state’s ban on the prediction markets’ event contracts. The appeal was over a lower court decision preventing Kalshi from offering certain event-based contracts in Nevada, based on claims that the company needed a gaming license.

Advertisement
Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets
Thursday oral arguments by Kalshi and the State of Nevada. Source: US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The appellate judge overseeing Thursday’s oral arguments and the lawyer for Kalshi acknowledged that there had been several state-level enforcement actions against the company and other prediction market platforms, including criminal charges filed in Arizona. However, last week a federal court blocked Arizona authorities from enforcing the state’s gambling laws on Kalshi’s event contracts.

“I think the body of case law does demonstrate that what we really need to avoid here is having a state and a federal court considering exactly the same issue at exactly the same time and potentially reaching different outcomes,” said Colleen Sinzdak, representing Kalshi.

Related: CFTC probes oil futures trades tied to Trump’s moves in Iran: Report

Central to Kalshi’s argument was that the platform’s event contracts were “swaps” falling under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than state gaming authorities. CFTC Chair Michael Selig has backed this position in the case of Crypto.com’s prediction markets against Nevada authorities.

The appellate court did not immediately announce a decision following oral arguments. Any ruling could affect how state courts treat prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket as policymakers come to terms with the growing market, expected to reach $1 trillion by 2030.

Advertisement

Coinbase’s top lawyer weighs in on prediction market arguments

Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal, whose company was not a party to the Kalshi proceedings but has a stake in the prediction markets fight, speculated that the case could go the US Supreme Court.

“The questions at oral argument are an unreliable signal in predicting the leanings of a court,” said Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal in a Thursday X post following the oral arguments. “Either way, I stand by my longstanding prediction— the Supreme Court will resolve whether sports [contracts] on [Designated Contract Markets] are swaps subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.”

The US Supreme Court gave states the authority to regulate sports gambling in its 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Advertisement

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?