Bitcoin price is bleeding, and, as neutral as it seems, many angles suggest the prediction is bearish. BTC trades just north of $66,000 Thursday, down almost 6% in a week, and on-chain data confirming a staggering $598.7 billion in unrealized losses across the holder base. The worst may not be over as Glassnode’s latest Week On-Chain report draws a structural parallel that no long-term holder wants to hear.

Around 8.8 million BTC are now held at a loss, a direct consequence of Bitcoin’s 47% drawdown from its October 2025 all-time high of $126,000. Glassnode explicitly flags a “structural resemblance to conditions observed in Q2 2022,” a period that preceded further capitulation before recovery.

Long-term holders (those holding more than 155 days) are realizing $200 million in daily losses, confirming active capitulation is underway. Meanwhile, Capriole Investments’ Apparent Demand metric sits at -1,623 BTC, deep in contraction territory, signaling that bears remain in control.

The macro picture also compounds the pressure. BTC is 24% below its 2026 yearly open of $87,500, the U.S. dollar is strengthening, and negative Coinbase Premium persists. These could only mean that U.S. institutional buyers have not returned at scale.

Discover: The best crypto to diversify your portfolio with

Bitcoin Price Prediction: Recover to $71,500 Is a Must, or a New Low Might Come?

At $66,000, Bitcoin sits at a technically fragile level. The ETF holder’s average cost basis of $83,408 looms as significant overhead resistance, a ceiling that any sustained rally must crack to confirm trend reversal.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs did record $1.32 billion in inflows during March 2026, reversing four consecutive months of outflows, but that institutional re-entry hasn’t yet translated into price recovery. Encouraging signal, deeply inadequate follow-through.

Whale behavior adds another bearish data point: large holders reduced positions by 188,000 BTC over the past year, consistent with broader distribution-phase dynamics. And just today, Nakamoto Inc. sold 384 BTC, incurring a $20 million loss.

The invalidation level is simple: a close above $71,500 with sustained volume shifts the narrative. Below $64,000, the bear case accelerates.

Discover: The best pre-launch token sales

Bitcoin Hyper Eyes Early Positioning as BTC Tests Structural Support

When Bitcoin bleeds 47% from its high and $600 billion in unrealized losses pile up, the conversation naturally shifts: Where does the next asymmetric opportunity sit? Spot BTC at these levels carries overhead resistance all the way to $83,000. A long climb back to breakeven for top buyers.

Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning itself at the infrastructure layer where Bitcoin’s limitations have always lived: slow transactions, high fees, and zero programmability. The project will be the first Bitcoin Layer 2 with Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) integration, targeting faster smart contract execution than Solana, without abandoning Bitcoin’s security and trust model.

Its Decentralized Canonical Bridge enables native BTC transfers, while sub-second finality addresses the throughput bottleneck that has kept Bitcoin sidelined from DeFi at scale.

The presale has raised $32 million at a current price of $0.0136, with 36% APY staking rewards bonus for early participants.

For those researching the space, the Bitcoin Hyper presale details are available here.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments are highly volatile. Always conduct your own research before investing.

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Holders to Lose $600B as Value Slides to $66K appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Key Takeaways

• SOL declined 5.4% and broke beneath the $80 threshold as geopolitical uncertainty surrounding Iran escalated following Trump’s warnings
• Critical overhead resistance lies in the $82.22–$85.94 range; losing $78 support could trigger a descent toward $67
• Over $20 million in long positions were liquidated within a 24-hour window, indicating intensifying downward pressure
• The daily Relative Strength Index has fallen under 40, signaling strengthening bearish sentiment
• Technical analysts identify the $50–$60 zone as the next significant demand area should present support crumble

---

Solana (SOL) experienced a significant downturn during the last 24 hours, declining 5.4% and slipping beneath the $80 level as wider market sentiment deteriorated. The price decline was primarily fueled by escalating geopolitical concerns, particularly President Donald Trump’s statement threatening to strike Iran “extremely hard” in the upcoming weeks.

Oil prices surged toward $110 in response to the announcement. This increase heightened worries about inflationary pressures and prompted market analysts to adjust their forecasts regarding Federal Reserve interest rate reductions in 2026. When expectations for rate cuts diminish, speculative assets such as cryptocurrencies typically face selling pressure.

Immediate overhead resistance is positioned between $82.22 and $85.94. This area encompasses multiple Fibonacci retracement levels including 23.6%, 38.2%, and 50.0%. Any attempt to rally into this zone may encounter renewed selling pressure without substantial buyer support.

Trading Volume Surge and Liquidation Data Point to Heavy Selling

Solana’s trading volume surged by 30% during the past 24 hours, climbing to approximately $6 billion, which represents roughly 13% of the token’s circulating market capitalization. This dramatic increase suggests substantial selling activity in the market.

Liquidations of long positions surpassed $20 million during this timeframe. Should this figure exceed $25 million, it would mark one of the most challenging sessions for Solana bulls since early February, when SOL tumbled from $100 down to $78.

The daily chart’s Relative Strength Index has dropped below the 40 threshold, a technical indicator that generally confirms strengthening bearish momentum. Additionally, three consecutive sell signals have emerged on the 4-hour timeframe, suggesting that institutional participants are actively reducing positions.

Advertisement

A breach of the $78 support threshold could pave the way for a move down to $67, which would represent approximately a 13% decline from present price levels.

Long-Term Technical Structure Suggests Further Downside

Examining the extended timeframe, analyst James Easton presented a 14-day chart illustrating SOL trading within a contracting descending channel. The technical pattern reveals a series of lower highs and lower lows since reaching its peak during late 2024 through early 2025.

Solana had maintained robust support within the $110 to $120 range. However, that zone has now converted into resistance territory. Market analysts indicate that inability to recapture the $100–$110 region maintains downside vulnerability, with $60 followed by $50 marked as the subsequent major accumulation zones.

Each rebound attempt has thus far been unable to disrupt the pattern of declining highs. With SOL long liquidations surpassing $20 million in just the past 24 hours, short sellers hold a tactical advantage should the $78 level fail to provide support.

Advertisement

Source link

Riot Platforms (RIOT), a leading Bitcoin (BTC) mining and digital infrastructure company, revealed that it sold 3,778 Bitcoin during the first quarter of 2026.

According to the firm’s production and operations update, the move generated  $289.5 million in net proceeds at an average price of $76,626 per coin.

Miners and Firms Dump Bitcoin Holdings

The sale reduced the miner’s total holdings to 15,680 BTC as of March 31, down 18% from 19,223 BTC a year earlier. Notably, according to the blockchain intelligence platform Arkham, Riot sold another 500 BTC in early April, further reducing its holdings.

Meanwhile, in Q1, the miner also produced 1,473 BTC. This represented a 4% decline from the same period in 2025.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

Riot’s liquidation is not an isolated event. MARA Holdings sold 15,133 BTC for around $1.1 billion. 

Genius Group liquidated its entire 84.15 BTC treasury on April 1, while Nakamoto Holdings trimmed its reserves by approximately 284 BTC in March for about $20 million.

Bitcoin Demand Shrinks, But Buying Has Not Stopped

On-chain data reflects mounting pressure across the broader market. Analytics firm CryptoQuant reported that Bitcoin’s apparent demand fell to negative 63,000 coins as of late March.

However, buying has not disappeared entirely. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) purchased 44,377 BTC in March alone, representing 94% of all public-company acquisitions that month. 

Meanwhile, Tokyo-listed Metaplanet acquired 5,075 BTC for approximately $398 million during Q1. The acquisition pushed its total holdings to 40,177 BTC.

The gap between aggressive institutional accumulators and firms liquidating under pressure highlights a market where demand is not absent but increasingly concentrated in fewer hands.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights

The post Riot Platforms Follows MARA to the Exit, Sells 3,778 BTC in Q1 2026 appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Source link

A small group of collections has moved beyond crypto-native speculation and into consumer-facing brands. Pudgy Penguins has continued to present itself as a broader IP business, with recent CoinDesk Research describing more than $13 million in retail sales and over 2 million units sold, while Doodles now frames itself less as a pure collection and more as a creative platform built around content, AI, and brand expansion.

Indeed, the NFT sector has become more selective, with utility-led and gaming-linked activity holding up better than the broad speculative frenzy that defined the earlier cycle.

While a handful of projects are trying to build durable intellectual property, the long tail of profile-picture collections continues to fade.

BeInCrypto asked three industry experts how the NFT market is restructuring, and what will determine which projects survive.

Brand Equity vs. On-Chain Scarcity

The divide now sits at the center of the NFT market’s recovery: whether value can be sustained through real-world brand equity, or whether it still depends on on-chain scarcity.

Federico Variola, CEO of Phemex, is skeptical that most projects can successfully make that transition.

“There are still some difficulties in tying the value of NFTs to brand equity in the physical world when there isn’t a clear revenue or distribution funnel.”

In his view, the core issue is that many NFT brands have yet to prove they generate meaningful business outcomes outside of crypto.

“Because of that, I think the real value of NFTs has always been rooted in on-chain scarcity.”

As market sentiment around scarcity weakened, projects began searching for alternative narratives, from media expansion to merchandise, but often without a clear product-market fit.

“As a result, many of these brands are now stuck trying to pivot from on-chain scarcity toward real-world positioning without having a product-market fit.”

That helps explain why a large share of collections remain significantly below their peak valuations.

Fernando Lillo Aranda, Marketing Director at Zoomex, takes the opposite view. For him, the market has already moved past scarcity as a primary driver of value.

“Most NFTs won’t recover – and they probably shouldn’t. Scarcity alone was never a sustainable value proposition.”

He argues that verification on-chain does not create demand on its own.

“The market learned the hard way that being ‘on-chain’ doesn’t make something valuable – it just makes it verifiable. And verification without demand is irrelevant.”

Instead, he sees the surviving projects as those building real businesses around their IP.

“The only NFTs that have a real future are the ones evolving into actual businesses and IP engines.”

“If your project can’t live outside of crypto, in retail, media, gaming, or culture, then it’s not an asset, it’s a speculation artifact from the last cycle.”

The disagreement relates to execution. The move toward IP-driven value is already underway.

The open question is how many NFT projects can operate as real businesses rather than speculative assets.

Gaming’s Reset: From Play-to-Earn to Play-to-Own

The failure of early NFT gaming models made the speculation versus sustainability debate impossible to ignore.

Play-to-Earn was built to reward users with tokens for activity. In practice, it depended on constant inflows of new players to support token prices. Once growth slowed, the model began to break down. Rewards turned into emissions, emissions turned into sell pressure, and in-game economies collapsed under their own weight.

The recent migration is toward what many describe as Play-to-Own – a model that treats NFTs less as yield-generating assets and more as ownership layers within a game.

Anton Efimenko, co-founder at 8Blocks, sees this as a necessary correction in how value is structured.

“The core issue with Play-to-Earn was that it tried to financialize gameplay too early. When rewards are driven by token emissions rather than real demand, the system becomes inherently unstable.”

Instead of promising returns, newer models focus on utility and persistence. Assets are meant to retain relevance inside the game environment, rather than function as extractive instruments.

“Play-to-Own shifts the focus from extracting value to owning something that has utility within a functioning ecosystem. That reduces sell pressure and aligns players more closely with the long-term health of the game.”

This does not eliminate speculation, but it changes where it sits. Value is no longer tied to how quickly rewards can be realized, but to whether the underlying game can sustain engagement without relying on constant token incentives.

Gaming has become one of the clearest testing grounds for this transition. If NFT-based ownership can hold value without emissions-driven rewards, it may offer a path forward. If not, the same issues are likely to resurface under a different name.

Tokenizing IP: Liquidity vs. Loyalty

As projects search for new ways to unlock value, one emerging direction is the tokenization of NFT IP itself.

In theory, that can broaden access, increase liquidity, and give communities a more direct stake in the commercial upside of a brand. But it also raises harder questions about governance, alignment, and loyalty.

Efimenko says the structure can create opportunities, but it also changes the incentives around ownership.

“The moment NFT IP becomes more liquid, you invite a different class of participant. Some will care about the brand, but many will care mainly about price exposure and short-term upside.”

Of course, communities built around identity and culture do not function like ordinary token markets. The more tradable the asset becomes, the more likely decision-making is to shift toward actors with weaker long-term attachment to the project.

“Liquidity can help expand participation, but it can also fragment governance. If too much influence moves to holders who are financially motivated but not operationally aligned, brand direction becomes harder to manage.”

This leaves NFT projects in a difficult position. Broader financial access may strengthen the balance sheet, but it can also dilute the kind of committed holder base that many successful brands rely on.

Ultimately, a highly liquid community asset may be easier to trade, yet harder to build around over time.

Fixing Crypto-Native Gaming

Our analysis so far leaves one more question hanging: whether blockchain mechanics can restore trust in crypto-native gaming and gambling after years of broken incentives, opaque systems, and user fatigue.

This is potentially where blockchain still offers a real advantage. Game logic, reward flows, and outcomes can be made transparent in ways that traditional platforms often cannot match. Provably fair mechanics give users a way to verify that systems are functioning as claimed, rather than simply trusting the operator.

But transparency alone is not enough to rebuild confidence.

As Lillo Aranda puts it:

“The market learned the hard way that being ‘on-chain’ doesn’t make something valuable – it just makes it verifiable. And verification without demand is irrelevant.”

The same logic applies to gaming. Verifiable mechanics can help solve the trust problem, especially in areas like crypto gambling or reward distribution, but they do not solve the product problem. If the game is weak, the economy is extractive, or the user experience feels designed around monetization rather than entertainment, transparency will not save it.

The sector’s next phase may well be a test of whether crypto products can combine fair mechanics with actual player retention. In that sense, blockchain may help restore trust, but only if the game itself is worth trusting.

Final Thoughts

The NFT market is being forced into a more selective phase, where value has to come from something more durable than hype alone.

Variola’s comments point to the limits of the current pivot. Many projects are trying to move from scarcity-led speculation into real-world branding without a clear business model or product-market fit.

Lillo Aranda furthers the argument, suggesting that only the collections capable of operating as actual IP businesses are likely to retain relevance over time.

Efimenko, meanwhile, highlights the challenge underneath both views: ownership design, token incentives, and governance all shape whether a project can remain stable as it grows.

NFTs are not disappearing, but they are becoming harder to justify as pure collectibles. The projects that endure are more likely to be the ones that can build beyond the chain, sustain user demand, and give digital ownership a function that lasts longer than a speculative cycle.

The post NFTs After the Hype: IP, Utility and the Fight to Stay Relevant appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Circle announced cirBTC on April 2, 2026, a wrapped Bitcoin (BTC) token backed 1:1 by native BTC with real-time onchain reserve verification, marking the firm’s first expansion beyond stablecoins into tokenized BTC infrastructure.

The announcement puts Circle in direct competition with its largest distribution partner at a commercially sensitive moment.

A Trust Problem Worth $1.7 Trillion

Circle, the issuer of USDC stablecoin, frames cirBTC as a neutral, institution-grade alternative to existing wrapped BTC products. It is built on the same compliance and issuance foundations that support USDC and EURC.

“Bitcoin is sitting on the sidelines of DeFi. Not because people don’t want yield or liquidity — it’s because they don’t trust the wrapper,” said Circle VP of Product Rachel Mayer, identifying the core market thesis behind cirBTC.

The wrapped BTC sector has faced sustained credibility issues. In August 2024, BitGo’s Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) drew criticism after its custodian partnered with BiT Global, a firm linked to Tron founder Justin Sun.

Coinbase launched cbBTC (Coinbase Wrapped BTC) shortly after, and currently holds roughly $6 billion in circulating supply according to CoinGecko data.

Circle is positioning cirBTC as a more transparent option. Reserves will be independently verifiable onchain in real time, with no reliance on third-party attestations.

The token launches first on Ethereum and Arc, Circle’s Layer-1 blockchain, with multichain support planned. Target users include OTC desks, market makers, lending protocols, and derivatives platforms.

Partnership Tension Ahead of August Renewal

The timing carries weight beyond product competition. Circle and Coinbase operate under a revenue-sharing agreement tied to USDC reserve income, up for renewal in August 2026.

Under the current deal, Coinbase receives 100% of interest on USDC held on its platform and a 50/50 split on off-platform holdings.

Analysts estimate that Coinbase collects over $900 million annually from this arrangement.

Crypto analyst Omar flagged the competitive signal directly, noting that Circle targeting cbBTC “feels like a direct shot” at Coinbase ahead of that renewal.

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire described cirBTC as infrastructure rather than rivalry, saying the product extends the same foundations supporting USDC to “the largest digital asset.”

“cirBTC is coming. We are bringing the same infra that supports USDC, EURC, and USYC to the largest digital asset, creating a neutral infrastructure for new applications for onchain BTC,” wrote Allaire.

Still, no launch date has been confirmed, and the product page notes that availability depends on regulatory approvals.

Whether cirBTC gains institutional traction before cbBTC further entrenches its $6 billion lead may shape how much leverage Circle holds when the two companies return to the negotiating table in August.

The post Circle’s cirBTC Takes Aim at Coinbase’s $6 Billion cbBTC Months Before Key Deal Renewal appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

The price that underpins real-world oil cargo transactions surged to its highest level since 2008. Dated Brent hit $141.37 per barrel, reaching an 18-year high.

Meanwhile, Brent crude futures traded near $107, still below 2022 levels. Thus, it’s clear that the benchmark for actual crude cargoes now trades more than $34 above Brent futures.

“The last time Dated Brent touched such heights was 18 years ago, when the global financial crisis that had been brewing for months was on the cusp of puncturing a historic crude rally,” Bloomberg wrote. “The surge is a sign of the growing disconnect between futures contracts and various pockets of physical markets that are pricing increasingly scarce supplies.”

This isn’t just a price difference. It’s a stress signal. The physical oil market is under acute strain, with immediate demand far outpacing available supply.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

Recently, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth warned that futures are not reflecting the true scale of the oil supply disruption. He stated that the market is trading on “scant information” and “perception.” According to him,

“There are very real, physical manifestations of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that are working their way around the world and through the system that I don’t think are fully priced into the futures curves on oil.”

Energy Aspects founder Amrita Sen also told CNBC that the futures market is obscuring the real stress. 

“You are seeing it, but the financial market is almost masking the true tightness that everywhere else is showing up,” Sen remarked.

Trump’s Shifting Stance Deepens Uncertainty

The Strait of Hormuz, which handles roughly one-fifth of global crude flows, has been closed for over a month. Gulf producers have cut output by at least 10 million barrels per day, as tanker traffic has dropped by 95%.

President Trump has sent conflicting messages on the Strait. In a prime-time address on April 2, he declared Iran “essentially decimated” and said the waterway would reopen “naturally” once the conflict ends.

Meanwhile, he told other nations they should “grab it and cherish it.” However, his shifting timelines and statements have layered uncertainity onto an already fractured supply picture.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights

The post Paper vs. Physical: The $34 Gap Exposing the True Cost of the Iran Oil Shock appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Source link

Source link

A whale accumulated more than 2,000 Bitcoin (BTC) put contracts overnight, targeting a move below $66,000, just as over $2.15 billion in Bitcoin and Ethereum (ETH) options settle on Deribit today, April 3.

The back-to-back repositioning signals that at least one large player sees downside risk in BTC’s current price range, even as call open interest still outnumbers puts across both assets.

Why the Whale Trade Matters

Options analytics platform Greeks.live flagged the position shift on April 2, noting the same whale had closed a profitable long trade hours earlier before pivoting bearish.

Per the analysts, the whale entered a long position at $66,000 and exited above $68,000, booking a confirmed profit.

Within hours, a trader of comparable size began accumulating put contracts, this time betting on a move lower.

The rapid reversal is notable. A whale exiting a winning trade and immediately loading the opposite direction suggests a view that the $66,000–$68,000 zone is a resistance ceiling, not a launchpad.

With BTC trading at $66,575 and its max pain level set at $68,000, the spot price sits $1,425 below the level where options sellers profit most. If BTC fails to close that gap before settlement at 08:00 UTC, the bearish whale’s puts gain value.

The Expiry Data

Bitcoin accounts for $1.84 billion of today’s total notional value, with 27,590 contracts outstanding. Call open interest stands at 17,930 against 9,600 puts, giving a put-to-call ratio of 0.54.

The call skew still leans bullish in aggregate, but the whale’s 2,000-contract put position adds concentrated downside weight near the $66,000 strike.

Ethereum’s expiry is smaller but similarly structured. With $319.9 million in notional value and 156,083 total contracts, ETH trades at $2,052 against a max pain level of $2,075. Its put-to-call ratio of 0.72 points to heavier downside hedging than BTC’s.

“Yesterday, the whale closed out the two positions on the right side… The whale entered the position at 66K and closed it out above 68K — this trade was a resounding success. Starting late last night, a whale of similar size began buying put options again, with over 2,000 contracts expiring today, targeting a price below 66K,” the analysts stated.

What Comes Next

Options settle at 08:00 UTC on Deribit. The hours leading up to that window typically generate the sharpest gamma hedging activity, pulling prices toward max pain.

For BTC, that means a potential drift toward $68,000 if bulls hold ground, or a break below $66,000 if the whale’s put bet plays out.

The post Whale Turns Bearish Ahead of $2 Billion Bitcoin and Ethereum Options Expiry appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link