Crypto World
Peter Thiel-Backed Stock Crashes 50% After ‘Superhuman Sports’ Dream Collapsed
Shares of Enhanced Group (ENHA), the company behind the Peter Thiel-backed Enhanced Games, fell by as much as half on Tuesday after a six-hour Las Vegas debut produced only one unofficial world record.
The startup went public this month at a $1.2 billion valuation and has now shed hundreds of millions in market value over the past three weeks.
Vegas Debut Delivers One Record
The Enhanced Games held a single-night competition on May 24 at Resorts World Las Vegas, paying out a $25 million purse.
Roughly 42 athletes competed, with the company’s own monitoring data showing 91% used testosterone, 79% used human growth hormone, and 62% used stimulants like Adderall & modafinil ahead of the event.
“Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr. spent millions to create a steroid Olympics. They promised to “redefine human limits” and put up $25M in prize money…the whole pitch was that drugs would shatter the limits of clean sport. Instead, they proved the gap between juiced and clean…the only thing they actually proved was how good the clean athletes already are. You think the Enhanced Games exposed anything or just embarrassed themselves?” one researcher posed.
Only one unofficial world record fell. Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev clocked 20.81 seconds in the men’s 50-meter freestyle, beating Cameron McEvoy’s 20.88-second mark and earning a $1 million bonus.
Sprinter Fred Kerley, who had predicted Usain Bolt’s 9.58-second 100-meter mark would be “destroyed,” won in 9.97 seconds, a time that would not have qualified for the Paris Olympics final.
Clean athletes, including Olympic gold medalist Hunter Armstrong, took three events outright.
Silicon Valley Loses to Biology
After closing at $5.36 on Friday, ENHA opened near $2.67 on Tuesday, a roughly 50% intraday slide that wiped out close to $800 million in market value.
Market cap has fallen from $981 million on May 7 to roughly $655 million.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The setup echoes another recent venture-backed spectacle. A week earlier, Figure AI staged a 10-hour “Man vs. Machine” contest in which a human intern beat its F.03 humanoid robot 12,924 packages to 12,732.
When a single live-streamed proof point misses, the equity story tends to unravel in hours, not quarters.
With backers like tech investor Peter Thiel historically quick to rotate out of stalling bets, ENHA’s path to a second event now depends on public-market patience.
The post Peter Thiel-Backed Stock Crashes 50% After ‘Superhuman Sports’ Dream Collapsed appeared first on BeInCrypto.
The bill is on the calendar, the House has promised to move fast, and the committee fight is over. Everything now comes down to a single number: whether Senate leadership can find seven Democratic votes before the August recess. Here is the math that decides crypto’s biggest law.
Summary
- The CLARITY Act is now eligible for a Senate floor vote without further committee action.
- The House has signaled it will move quickly if the Senate passes the bill before recess.
- The bill needs at least seven Democratic votes to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
- The August recess is the deadline that could decide whether the bill passes or stalls.
As of mid-June 2026, the CLARITY Act, the most comprehensive crypto market-structure bill ever to advance in the United States, has reached the stage where only one thing stands between it and becoming law: votes. On June 1, the bill was formally placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar as Calendar No. 423, making it eligible for a full floor vote without any further committee action.
A vote can now happen at any time the Senate’s leadership chooses to schedule one. On June 18, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee’s digital-assets subcommittee, Dusty Johnson, signaled that the House would act swiftly to pass the bill if the Senate takes it up before the August recess, removing the other procedural uncertainty.
The committee fights are over. Its text is on the floor. The House is ready to move. What remains is arithmetic.
That arithmetic is specific and unforgiving. The CLARITY Act needs 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster, Republicans hold roughly 53 seats, and only two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, are on record supporting it from the May committee vote.
Both Democrats gave explicit warnings that their committee support did not guarantee a vote for final passage. That leaves a gap of at least seven Democratic votes that Senate leadership must find before the recess, and finding them is now the entire story.
This piece lays out how the bill reached this point, exactly what the vote math requires, where the seven Democrats might come from and what they want, why the August recess is a hard deadline, and what the whole thing means for a crypto market that has waited all year on this single bill. Everything now turns on seven votes.
How the bill got here
To understand why the math is all that is left, it helps to see how much has already been cleared, because the bill has traveled a long road to reach the floor.
The bill began in the House, which passed its version in July 2025 by a decisive bipartisan margin of 294 to 134, drawing more than 70 Democratic votes and the most comprehensive crypto regulatory framework ever to clear a chamber of Congress. That House passage handed the Senate a finished framework for dividing crypto oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The Senate, as it tends to do, declined to simply take the House text and began building its own version through 2025, with discussion drafts and committee work stretching across the year. That process was slow and contentious, reflecting the genuine disagreements over how to regulate a new asset class, but it moved steadily toward a Senate bill.
The decisive committee moment landed on May 14, 2026, when the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill by a vote of 15 to 9, with all thirteen Republicans joined by two Democrats, Gallego and Alsobrooks. Markets celebrated, with Bitcoin rallying toward $82,000 and XRP breaking above $1.50 on the news.
Then the qualification in the vote sank in: both Democratic supporters stated openly that their committee votes should not be read as commitments to support final passage on the Senate floor. On June 1, the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar as Calendar No. 423, formally eligible for a floor vote without further committee action.
Every committee stage, markup, and text-merging is now behind the bill. That is why the remaining question is no longer about process but about whether the votes exist on the floor.
The vote math, exactly
Now the arithmetic itself, because it is the whole game, and it is worth stating with precision instead of in the vague terms most coverage uses.
Like most significant legislation, the bill must overcome a filibuster to pass the Senate, which requires 60 votes, not a simple majority of 51. Republicans hold roughly 53 seats, so even with every Republican voting yes, the bill falls short of 60 by about seven votes, which must come from Democrats.
From the May committee vote, exactly two Democrats are publicly on record in favor, Gallego and Alsobrooks, and both attached explicit caveats that their committee support was not a promise of a floor vote for final passage. So the math is stark: starting from the two known Democratic supporters, Senate leadership needs to find at least seven more Democratic votes, and may need to first reconfirm the two it thinks it has, to reach the 60-vote threshold.
Every analysis of the bill’s prospects reduces to this question of whether those seven-plus Democratic votes can be assembled.
This is why the situation is best understood as pure vote-counting, not as a question of momentum or process. Its procedural path is clear, the House is committed to moving quickly, and the Republican votes are essentially in hand, which strips away every variable except the one that matters: the Democratic vote count.
A bill that needs seven crossover votes in a polarized Senate is neither doomed nor assured. It sits in the deeply uncertain middle where the outcome depends on negotiation, on what the wavering Democrats can be offered, and on whether leadership can hold a coalition together through a floor vote.
That bicameral commitment from the House, the promise to act swiftly if the Senate delivers, means the House will compress its own timeline to nothing. The only remaining constraint on the bill becoming law before the recess is whether Senate leadership can produce those seven or more Democratic votes.
The whole thing has narrowed to that single number.
Where the seven votes come from, and what they want
Those seven votes are not abstract; they are specific senators with specific concerns, and understanding what they want explains both why the votes are gettable and why they are hard.
Democrats who might provide the needed votes are, broadly, the more moderate and crypto-open members of the caucus, including some of the twelve Democrats who published their own crypto framework in 2025, signaling a willingness to legislate on the issue if their conditions were met. These are not implacable opponents.
They are senators who want a market-structure bill but want it on terms they can defend, which means their votes are available at a price, and the negotiation is about what that price is. Their central sticking points have been consistent: conflict-of-interest and ethics language, provisions addressing the previous administration’s crypto dealings, rules on stablecoin yield, illicit-finance and anti-money-laundering provisions, and protections for decentralized finance.
A Democrat is far more likely to vote yes if the bill addresses the ethics concerns and the consumer and illicit-finance safeguards they have emphasized. They are far less likely if it does not.
This is where the path to seven votes runs through specific amendments. The most-discussed route to Democratic support has been adding ethics and conflict-of-interest language by amendment on the floor, which several Democrats have signaled would move them toward yes, along with satisfactory resolution of the stablecoin-yield and illicit-finance questions.
That is why the provisions blocking Democratic votes matter so much. The bill is not stuck because members cannot describe the problem; it is stuck because each fix can alienate a different part of the coalition.
The challenge is that amendments that win Democratic votes can cost Republican ones, and the bill has to thread a version that holds essentially all 53 Republicans while adding seven Democrats. That balance is real and difficult because the two sides want different things.
Some provisions have already been fought over and trimmed in committee, leaving them in the awkward position of being too weak for one side and too strong for the other. The seven votes exist in principle, among the moderate Democrats who want a bill, but assembling them requires a negotiated text that satisfies their conditions without losing the Republican base.
That negotiation is the hard, uncertain work now underway on the floor.
Why the August recess is a hard deadline
Its timing is not arbitrary, and the August recess functions as a genuine cliff that shapes everything, which is why the next several weeks matter so much.
The Senate runs on a calendar with limited floor time, and the August recess is a hard break that removes weeks of legislative days. The White House set a target of signing the bill on or around July 4, and while that specific date is ambitious, the broader deadline is the recess.
If the Senate does not pass the bill before it leaves for August, the realistic path narrows considerably. This is partly a matter of momentum, since a bill that misses its window can lose the political energy that carries it, and partly a matter of the calendar beyond the recess, which is where the deeper danger lies.
After the summer comes the runway toward the November midterm elections, and legislating becomes harder as an election approaches. Both parties become less willing to hand the other a win and more focused on campaigning than on compromise.
What makes the recess deadline consequential is the midterm dimension, which makes the recess deadline more than merely inconvenient. If the bill slips past August and into the fall, it collides with the midterm calendar, and a crypto market-structure bill that does not pass before the election faces the risk of stalling entirely.
That could force the bill to confront a potentially less favorable Congress in 2027, depending on how the elections reshape the chamber. A delay, in other words, is not just a delay; it is a step toward the bill possibly dying and having to restart in a new and uncertain political environment.
That is the downside if the votes fall short. The period between now and the August recess is the decisive window, and the seven-vote math has to be solved in weeks rather than months.
The bill is closer to law than any market-structure bill in American history. It is also, if it misses this window, closer to a familiar death, and the recess is the line between those two outcomes.
What it means for crypto and XRP
Its fate matters enormously for the crypto market, and for XRP in particular, because CLARITY would resolve the single biggest overhang on the asset class.
For crypto broadly, CLARITY would provide the federal framework that the industry has wanted for years, defining how digital assets are regulated, dividing oversight between the SEC and CFTC, and replacing regulatory uncertainty with statutory clarity. That certainty is the precondition for the deeper institutional adoption that has been held back by the lack of clear rules, because large institutions managing fiduciary money need defined legal treatment before they commit at scale.
For XRP specifically, the stakes are even sharper, because CLARITY would codify XRP’s status as a digital commodity into federal law, a classification that, unlike an agency-level determination, cannot be reversed by a future administration with a memo. That permanence is what institutions have been waiting for.
It is also what passage would do for XRP. Analysts at Standard Chartered and JPMorgan have projected that XRP exchange-traded funds could draw $4 billion to $8 billion in inflows if the bill passes, several times what they have attracted so far.
The bill also matters beyond the ETF channel. It speaks directly to the utility waiting on the law, including tokenized settlement and institutional infrastructure that can only scale when the legal framework is clear enough for large firms to use.
This is why the seven-vote math is not just a legislative curiosity but a direct input into the crypto market’s near-term path. A passage before the recess would remove the overhang, codify XRP’s status permanently, and potentially unlock the institutional inflows that have waited on legal certainty, a clearly bullish outcome for XRP and the broader market.
A failure to pass before the recess, with the midterm risk that follows, would leave the uncertainty in place, disappoint a market that has priced in significant odds of passage, and potentially trigger the sell-the-delay reaction that catalysts denied tend to produce.
The market has been pricing meaningful odds of 2026 passage, around 70% by some prediction-market measures, which means a meaningful disappointment is possible if the votes do not materialize. Everything the crypto market is hoping for from CLARITY now depends on whether seven Democrats can be found before August.
That makes the vote math the most important variable in the asset class right now.
What it means for investors
For anyone watching crypto or XRP, the situation translates into a clear framework for what to track and how to think about the binary ahead.
The key variable to watch is no longer whether the bill advances procedurally, which it has, but whether the Democratic votes materialize. That means the signals that matter are reports of negotiations over the ethics, stablecoin-yield, and illicit-finance provisions, statements from moderate Democrats about their willingness to support the bill, and any move by Senate leadership to actually schedule a floor vote.
The August recess is the deadline that frames the whole thing, so the calendar matters as much as the content. The closer the recess approaches without a vote, the more the downside scenario gains weight.
An investor following XRP or the broader market should read the bill’s prospects through this lens, watching the vote count and the calendar instead of the procedural milestones that are already behind it. They should also watch the supply setup into the vote, because XRP’s ability to respond to a legislative catalyst depends not only on the headline, but on whether flows are strong enough to overcome supply pressure.
The realistic framing is that the outcome is starkly binary and deeply uncertain, sitting in the middle range where seven crossover votes in a polarized Senate could go either way. Passage before the recess would be a major positive catalyst, particularly for XRP given the permanence it would grant.
A miss, and the midterm risk that follows, would be a real disappointment for a market that has priced in significant passage odds. An investor should size any position tied to this catalyst to the reality that it is a coin-flip-adjacent legislative bet, not a near-certainty.
They should be wary both of assuming passage and of assuming failure, because the seven-vote math is truly unresolved. None of this is investment advice; it is a frame for the single most important legislative variable in crypto, reduced now to whether a handful of senators can be brought to yes before summer ends.
Seven votes from history
The CLARITY Act stands closer to becoming law than any crypto market-structure bill ever has. The House passed it, the Senate Banking Committee advanced it, it sits on the Senate floor calendar eligible for a vote, and the House has promised to move swiftly the moment the Senate acts.
Every procedural obstacle that can be cleared has been cleared. That is why the bill’s fate no longer turns on process or momentum but on a single, specific number: the seven-plus Democratic votes that Senate leadership must find to reach 60 and break a filibuster, beyond the two committee supporters who have warned their support is not yet a promise.
Those votes exist in principle, among the moderate Democrats who want a market-structure bill on terms they can defend. But assembling them requires a negotiated text that adds ethics and consumer protections enough to win seven Democrats without losing any of the 53 Republicans, a balance that is real work and deeply uncertain.
The August recess is the deadline, with the midterm calendar beyond it threatening to turn any delay into a possible death and a 2027 restart before a less favorable Congress. For crypto and especially for XRP, whose commodity status CLARITY would permanently codify and whose ETF inflows could multiply on passage, everything now rides on this arithmetic.
The bill is one good negotiation from a historic law and one missed window from a familiar grave. The difference between those outcomes is seven votes.
That is all that is left, and it is everything.
Frequently asked questions
What is the current status of the CLARITY Act?
As of mid-June 2026, the CLARITY Act has cleared the Senate Banking Committee, 15-9 on May 14, and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar as Calendar No. 423 on June 1. That makes it eligible for a full Senate floor vote at any time without further committee action. The House passed its version in July 2025 and, per a June 18 signal from a House Agriculture subcommittee chairman, would move swiftly to finalize the bill if the Senate passes it before the August recess.
Why does the CLARITY Act need seven Democratic votes?
The bill must overcome a Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes. Republicans hold roughly 53 seats, so even with all of them voting yes, the bill falls about seven votes short and must draw them from Democrats. Only two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, are on record supporting it from the committee vote, and both warned that their committee support did not guarantee a floor vote. So leadership must find at least seven more Democratic votes.
What do the wavering Democrats want in the bill?
The main sticking points are conflict-of-interest and ethics language, including provisions on the prior administration’s crypto dealings, rules on stablecoin yield, illicit-finance and anti-money-laundering provisions, and protections for decentralized finance. Moderate Democrats who want a bill are more likely to vote yes if these concerns are addressed by amendment. The difficulty is that amendments winning Democratic votes can cost Republican ones, so the text must satisfy seven Democrats without losing the Republican base.
Why is the August recess a hard deadline?
The Senate has limited floor time, and the August recess removes weeks of legislative days. The White House targeted a July 4 signing, but the real deadline is the recess: if the bill does not pass before it, the path narrows sharply. Beyond the recess looms the November midterm calendar, which makes legislating harder and risks stalling the bill entirely, potentially forcing a restart before a less favorable Congress in 2027. A delay is a step toward possible death.
What would CLARITY mean for XRP?
CLARITY would codify XRP’s status as a digital commodity into federal law, a classification that, unlike an agency determination, cannot be reversed by a future administration. That permanence is what institutions have waited for before committing at scale. Analysts at Standard Chartered and JPMorgan have projected XRP ETFs could draw $4 billion to $8 billion in inflows if the bill passes, several times what they have attracted so far, making passage a potentially major catalyst for XRP.
How likely is the CLARITY Act to pass in 2026?
It is deeply uncertain. Prediction markets have priced 2026 passage around 70%, but the outcome reduces to whether seven-plus Democratic votes can be assembled before the August recess, a coin-flip-adjacent question in a polarized Senate. The bill is closer to law than any market-structure bill in history, with every procedural step cleared, but seven crossover votes are neither assured nor doomed. The result depends on floor negotiations over ethics and consumer provisions in the coming weeks.
As of June 19, 2026. Legislative situations change rapidly; verify the current status before relying on this analysis. This article is information, not investment or legal advice.
XRP traded near $1.12 on June 19 after sellers pushed the token below the $1.15 support level.
Summary
- XRP fell near $1.12 after losing $1.15 support and facing another trendline rejection this week.
- Whale selling and weaker active addresses add pressure, while ETF inflows remain the main support.
- Analysts say XRP must defend $1.10 before bulls can target $1.25 and higher levels.
According to crypto.news price data, XRP fell more than 4% over 24 hours, with daily volume near $1.97 billion.
The token moved between $1.12 and $1.18 during the session. Its market cap stood near $69.8 billion, keeping XRP in sixth place among crypto assets by market value.
The latest decline erased more of last week’s rebound. XRP had moved above $1.20 earlier, but sellers rejected the advance before the token could break the descending trendline that has capped recovery attempts for months.
The market is now watching the $1.10 area. That level has acted as the lower edge of recent support. A clear break below it could expose deeper support near $1.05 and then the $1.00 zone.
XRP whale selling adds pressure
The price drop came as whale behavior turned weaker. Crypto analyst Ali Martinez said more than 30 million XRP had been distributed by whales in the past five days. That suggests large holders reduced exposure while the price remained under pressure.
Ali also said XRP network activity has dropped by nearly 50% in two weeks. Active addresses fell from around 50,000 to nearly 25,000, according to the analyst.
That drop matters because weaker address activity can show lower demand for network use. It does not always lead directly to price losses, but it can weaken the case for a fast rebound.
The whale data also changes the short-term tone. Earlier crypto.news coverage noted that whale flows had helped support XRP near $1.20. The latest distribution suggests that support has become less steady.
XRP ETF inflows remain a bright spot
Institutional demand remains the main positive factor for XRP. According to SoSoValue data, XRP products recorded $2.55 million in daily net inflows on June 18, after a flat day on June 17.
Cumulative total net inflows rose to about $1.45 billion by June 18. That shows ETF demand has continued even as the spot price dropped.
As previously reported by crypto.news, XRP-linked products had already outpaced Bitcoin and Ethereum funds for five straight weeks. Recent fund-flow data showed XRP products added $10.68 million in the week ended June 12, bringing cumulative inflows near $1.44 billion.
Still, ETF inflows have not been enough to reverse the downtrend. Crypto.news earlier reported that XRP’s price has lagged even as Ripple-related adoption and institutional access improved.
Analysts watch the macro triangle
The technical picture remains mixed. XRP is still trading inside a long-running symmetrical triangle, with support near $1.10 and resistance around $1.25. That range has compressed price action for months.
EGRAG CRYPTO said the two-month XRP chart still shows an ascending triangle structure. The analyst described the current zone as “E is the battlefield,” meaning XRP may be testing a final macro support area before a larger move.
The analyst also said targets are “not active yet.” XRP must hold rising macro support, reclaim key moving averages, and break the $2.00 to $2.10 resistance area before larger targets come into play.
That view keeps the bullish case conditional. It does not remove the risk of a deeper reset if XRP loses the $1.10 area with strong volume.
XRP price faces key levels
The next short-term test is simple. XRP needs to hold $1.10 and reclaim $1.15 to reduce pressure. A move above $1.18 would place $1.20 back in focus.
A stronger recovery would need a clean break above $1.25. That level has blocked several rebounds and remains the main near-term resistance zone.
On the downside, losing $1.10 could bring the $1.05 area into view. A move below $1.00 would weaken the current structure and shift attention toward deeper support near $0.90.
For now, XRP remains caught between two forces. Whale selling and weaker network activity support the bearish case. ETF inflows and long-term technical support keep the rebound case alive.
The next move may depend on whether buyers defend $1.10 with strong volume. Without that defense, XRP could stay under pressure despite positive fund flows.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Bitcoin has fallen to around $62,400 after a combination of options-expiry volatility, long liquidations, and renewed concerns over corporate Bitcoin selling weighed on sentiment across the crypto market.
Summary
- Bitcoin fell to around $62,400 as options expiry, long liquidations, and Strategy sale concerns weighed on sentiment.
- Nearly $136 million in BTC positions were liquidated, with long traders accounting for roughly $122 million of losses.
- Analysts are closely watching the $61K-$62K support zone, with a break below potentially exposing a move toward $59K.
According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) fell nearly 3% over the previous 24 hours to an intraday low near $62,300 on June 19. The decline extended losses after roughly $2.13 billion in Bitcoin and Ethereum options contracts expired.
Investors also digested reports that Strategy could potentially sell between $3 billion and $4 billion worth of Bitcoin to support its STRC preferred stock, which recently traded below its $100 par value.
Further, CoinGlass data showed nearly $136 million worth of Bitcoin positions were liquidated over the past 24 hours, with about $122 million coming from long positions. The concentration of bullish liquidations added selling pressure as leveraged traders were forced out of positions during the drop below $63,000.
Outside crypto, investors faced another restrictive macro backdrop. The market continued to assess the implications of Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh’s first policy meeting, where policymakers reinforced expectations that interest rates could remain elevated for longer. The stronger U.S. dollar that followed added pressure to risk assets, including cryptocurrencies.
Energy markets offered little relief. Crude oil rebounded from roughly $75 to above $77 per barrel after planned U.S.-Iran talks in Switzerland were canceled and Israel continued strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. Even so, oil remained on track for a weekly decline as traders continued to price in improved shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz following the interim U.S.-Iran peace arrangement.
Another source of pressure emerged from the mining sector. Institutional analytics showed Bitcoin has spent five consecutive months below an estimated network production cost of approximately $78,000. The prolonged gap has reportedly forced some mining operators to liquidate holdings to cover operating expenses and debt obligations.
Bitcoin tests critical Fibonacci and moving-average support
Technical indicators show BTC trading at a key inflection point. On the four-hour chart, price has fallen to the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement level near $62,410, measured from the June low around $59,176 to the recent recovery high near $74,288. A break below that level would leave the June bottom as the next major support zone.
Momentum indicators remain weak. The four-hour RSI has dropped to roughly 35 while the MACD remains below its signal line with expanding negative histogram bars.
On the daily chart, Bitcoin continues to hold above a former descending resistance trendline that has now turned into support. Maintaining that structure remains important for bulls as the asset’s price approaches the $61,000-$62,000 support zone. The daily RSI sits near 34, while the Aroon indicator shows bearish dominance with the downtrend reading above 70 and the uptrend near zero.
Commenting on the setup, crypto analyst Daan Crypto Trades noted that Bitcoin is attempting to hold a major support region.
“Bulls need to hold that $61K-$62K region otherwise things get ugly real quick I think.”
Liquidity data highlights why that zone matters. CoinGlass heatmaps show dense liquidation clusters between $63,500 and $65,000, while another concentration of liquidity sits near $62,100. A recovery into the upper band could trigger short liquidations, whereas a move lower would expose fresh downside liquidity pockets.
According to crypto analyst Lennaert Snyder, Bitcoin’s drop to roughly $62,300 fulfilled a key liquidity target. He noted that $60,500 represents the first area where a bounce could emerge, while a deeper move below $59,000 would provide a more attractive setup for a sustained reversal.
Failure to reclaim $65K could expose lower support zones
The primary risk for bulls remains Bitcoin’s inability to reclaim overhead resistance. The 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level sits near $64,950, while the midpoint of the recent range is located around $66,700. Those levels coincide with significant liquidation clusters identified on derivatives exchanges.
Another concern comes from institutional positioning. Recent ETF outflows and continued capital rotation toward technology and artificial-intelligence equities have reduced demand for Bitcoin during a period of heightened macro uncertainty.
Should BTC lose the $61,000-$62,000 support area, traders may shift attention toward the June low near $59,000. A decisive break below that level would strengthen the case for a deeper correction and place longer-term support zones in the mid-$40,000 region back into focus.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
For the first time on Venus, tokenized stock positions can be used as collateral while maintaining exposure to stock price movements.
Venus Protocol today launched the first tokenized stocks collateral market on BNB Chain, integrating Binance tokenized stocks (bStocks) into Venus Core Pool. The launch marks a meaningful expansion of what on-chain lending markets can support: tokenized stocks are no longer limited to passive holding, they can now serve as collateral within DeFi.
What You Can Do with bStocks on Venus
Eligible users can supply bStocks to Venus Core Pool as collateral, maintaining exposure to price movements of tokenised stock instruments while unlocking borrowing power on-chain. Those positions can be used to borrow any supported asset in Venus Core Pool, including stablecoins such as USDT, USDC, and U, as well as other listed tokens without requiring a sale.
Venus Core Pool is the largest decentralized lending market on BNB Chain. With bStocks listed alongside BTC, ETH, BNB, and major stablecoins, tokenized stocks now participate in the same shared liquidity infrastructure that supports billions in active on-chain lending, part of the core financial stack, not a standalone product.
The addition of bStocks follows growing adoption of tokenized assets on Venus. Earlier tokenized commodity markets, including XAUm, demonstrated demand for using real-world asset exposure within DeFi. With bStocks, Venus extends that model from commodities to equities, broadening the range of tokenized assets that can participate in on-chain collateral markets.
Built Across the BNB Chain Ecosystem
This launch reflects close collaboration across the BNB Chain ecosystem, with Venus serving as the lending layer at the center.
Binance provides the tokenization infrastructure: users can convert existing Direct Stock holdings into bStocks at no fee, or purchase them directly on Binance Spot. PancakeSwap and Trust Wallet provide access to on-chain secondary market liquidity. Once held in a self-custody wallet, bStocks can be supplied to Venus or deployed as collateral, completing the path from tokenized stock exposure to active DeFi participation.
“Tokenized assets are becoming a real bridge between traditional finance and on-chain infrastructure, not just a concept, but a working product. By letting users access liquidity against their tokenized stock positions without selling, Venus Protocol is expanding what collateral looks like on BNB Chain.” — Leon, Head of BD, Venus Protocol
A Phased Rollout
The initial rollout supports a limited set of assets under conservative risk parameters set through Venus governance. Any expansion to additional tokenized stocks or related markets would be determined through Venus governance.
Important Risk Information
Capital is at risk.
Tokenized stocks represent exposure to underlying stock markets and may be affected by market volatility, trading hours, corporate actions, and other factors related to the underlying asset. Their value also depends on third-party issuers, market makers, available liquidity, and on-chain price feeds.
Borrowing positions may be liquidated automatically and without notice if collateral values fall below applicable thresholds.
Participation is subject to eligibility requirements, geographic restrictions, onboarding procedures, and applicable Terms of Use. Rights associated with tokenized stocks may differ from those associated with direct ownership of the underlying stock.
This material is for information only and is not investment advice. Users should carefully review all relevant disclosures and market documentation before participating.
About Venus Protocol
Venus is the leading decentralized lending protocol on BNB Chain. Founded in 2020 as the first lending protocol on the network, Venus supports over 30 assets and reached $2.8 billion in TVL in 2025. The protocol offers two products: Venus Core, the flagship product for participants seeking deep liquidity and broad asset coverage, and Venus Flux, a product built for enhanced capital efficiency.
Security is foundational to Venus’s development practice. Every smart contract change undergoes an independent audit before deployment — resulting in over 80 completed audits across leading firms, among the most extensive audit records in DeFi.
The post Venus Protocol Launches Tokenized Stocks as Collateral on BNB Chain appeared first on BeInCrypto.
The two assets the world buys to protect against uncertainty and debasement are the only two losing money this year, while stocks of every kind climb. It has never happened before. Untangling why reveals what is actually driving markets in 2026, and what it means for the stories crypto tells about itself.
Summary
- Bitcoin and gold are the only major asset classes in the red for 2026.
- The weakness is driven by rotation, mean reversion, a stronger dollar, and higher real yields.
- Bitcoin’s digital-gold thesis is being stress-tested, not fully disproven.
- The lesson is that short-term safe-haven claims are weaker than long-term store-of-value claims.
Something has happened in 2026 that has never happened before. Bitcoin and gold, the two assets most commonly held as protection against uncertainty and the debasement of money, are the only two major asset classes in the red for the year, with Bitcoin down roughly 27% and gold down about 3%, according to market analyst Charlie Bilello.
Meanwhile almost everything else is up: the S&P 500 has gained around 9%, small-cap stocks have risen about 19%, value stocks are up roughly 15%, and emerging-market equities are outperforming. The two assets people buy when they fear chaos are falling while the assets people buy when they feel confident are climbing.
According to 15 years of Bilello’s data, Bitcoin and gold have never before finished a calendar year together as the two worst performers among the majors.
This is truly strange, and it is worth sitting with rather than explaining away, because the explanation reveals what is actually driving markets in 2026 and forces a hard question about the stories crypto tells about itself. Bitcoin’s bull narrative has long leaned on two ideas: that it is digital gold, an uncorrelated store of value, and that it is a hedge against monetary debasement and uncertainty.
A year in which both Bitcoin and gold fall while every flavor of stock rises puts both ideas under stress at once. This piece works through why the two safe havens are the only losers, what the rotation into equities is really about, why the Fed and the dollar matter so much, what it does and does not mean for the digital-gold thesis, and how to read a divergence this unusual without overreacting to it.
The numbers, and why they are so strange
The strangeness is in the pattern, not just the losses, so it is worth laying out clearly before explaining it.
Through this point in 2026, Bitcoin is down about 27% and gold is down about 3%, and they are the only two major asset classes in negative territory for the year. Set against them, the breadth of the gains everywhere else is striking: the S&P 500 up around 9%, small-cap stocks up roughly 19%, value stocks up about 15%, and emerging-market and international equities outperforming as well.
This is not a case of a weak market dragging everything down, where safe havens falling might make sense as part of a general decline. It is close to the opposite: a broadly strong market for risk assets in which the two classic safe havens are the conspicuous exceptions, falling while nearly everything else rises.
That combination is what makes the year unprecedented in Bilello’s 15-year record, because Bitcoin and gold falling together to the bottom of the table has simply not happened before.
The contrast with recent history sharpens the oddity. Gold gained more than 63% in 2025 and about 27% in 2024, an extraordinary two-year run, and Bitcoin returned 121% in 2024 during one of its strongest periods.
These are assets coming off enormous gains, not assets in long structural decline, which is part of what makes their simultaneous 2026 weakness so notable. They are not failing assets; they are former leaders that have abruptly become the year’s laggards while the rest of the market does the opposite of what they are doing.
Bitcoin in particular is suffering its longest and deepest drawdown since 2022, a decline stretching beyond 200 days and exceeding 50% from its peak, having given back the gains it made after the 2024 election on the expectation of a crypto-friendly administration. The puzzle is not that two assets fell; it is that these two assets, with these histories, fell together and alone while everything else climbed.
The rotation: where the money went
The first and largest part of the explanation is rotation, the movement of capital from one part of the market to another, and 2026 has been a year of dramatic rotation.
Capital does not vanish when it leaves an asset; it goes somewhere else, and in 2026 it has rotated out of the assets that led in prior years and into the ones that lagged. Bilello has described the year as a “reversal of everything,” in which the patterns of recent years inverted.
Emerging and international stocks are beating the S&P 500, value stocks are beating growth, small and mid-caps are beating large caps, and even the dominant technology megacaps that led the market for years have struggled. The so-called Magnificent Seven are in the red for the period.
This is a wholesale rotation away from the recent winners and into the recent laggards. Bitcoin and gold, having been among the biggest winners of 2024 and 2025, are natural sources of the capital flowing out and natural targets of the profit-taking that rotation produces.
Money that sat in gold and Bitcoin after their huge runs has been moving into the cheaper, previously-unloved corners of the equity market. That is one reason capital rotating out of crypto matters: crypto exposure is no longer isolated from public-market rotation, especially as more crypto-linked stories enter traditional portfolios.
Part of this is simple mean reversion, the tendency of assets that have risen far above their averages to pull back toward them. Gold up 63% in a year and Bitcoin up 121% the year before are assets that ran far and fast, and some of their 2026 weakness is the natural give-back after extraordinary gains.
The market is taking profits in the leaders and redeploying into laggards that look cheap by comparison. Bilello has attributed the safe-haven weakness specifically to a combination of mean reversion, a stronger dollar, and higher nominal and real interest rates.
Those three forces together explain much of why gold and Bitcoin have struggled while equities have thrived. The rotation is the visible flow; mean reversion, the dollar, and rates are the deeper currents driving it.
The short version is that capital rotated out of the crowded safe-haven trade and into the rest of the market, and the assets it left behind are the ones now in the red.
The dollar and real yields: the deeper force
Underneath the rotation sits a macro force that hits gold and Bitcoin with particular precision, and it explains why these two assets specifically are the ones falling.
Gold and Bitcoin share a defining feature that makes them uniquely sensitive to interest rates: neither pays a yield. Gold generates no interest or dividend, and neither does Bitcoin, so the entire return from holding either comes from price appreciation.
The cost of holding them is the yield you forgo by not putting that money into something that pays. When interest rates are low, that forgone yield is small and holding a non-yielding asset costs little, which is part of why gold and Bitcoin thrived in the low-rate years.
When real interest rates, rates adjusted for inflation, rise, the calculus flips. Holding a non-yielding asset means giving up a meaningful, safe return available elsewhere, which makes gold and Bitcoin less attractive and pressures their prices.
Rising real yields are a specific, mechanical headwind for exactly the two assets that are falling, because they are the two major assets that pay nothing to hold. That is why the Fed turn behind the move matters so much.
The dollar compounds the effect. Gold and Bitcoin are both priced in dollars and both function, in part, as alternatives to the dollar as a store of value, so when the dollar strengthens, they tend to weaken.
That happens both mechanically, because a stronger dollar buys more of a dollar-priced asset, and thematically, because a strong dollar undercuts the case for holding alternatives to it. The dollar index has been strong in 2026 and, by some readings, on the verge of a major breakout, and a rising dollar is a direct headwind for both safe havens at once.
Put the pieces together and the picture is coherent: a hawkish Fed keeps rates high and the dollar strong, high rates raise real yields, high real yields and a strong dollar both pressure non-yielding dollar-alternative assets, and gold and Bitcoin are precisely those assets. The macro environment of 2026, higher real rates and a stronger dollar, is almost custom-built to pressure the two assets that are in the red.
That is also the energy-inflation backdrop, where oil, inflation, and Fed policy feed directly into the rates and dollar setup hurting safe havens.
What it means for the digital-gold thesis
Now the uncomfortable question for crypto specifically, because a year like this puts Bitcoin’s core narrative under direct stress, and the honest reading is more nuanced than either the bulls or the bears would have it.
Bitcoin’s bull case has long rested partly on two related claims: that it is “digital gold,” an uncorrelated store of value that holds up when other assets fall, and that it is a hedge against monetary debasement and uncertainty. A year in which Bitcoin falls 27% while equities rise complicates the uncorrelated-store-of-value claim.
An uncorrelated safe haven is supposed to hold its value when risk assets are volatile, not fall while they climb, and Bitcoin’s deep drawdown amid a strong equity market looks more like a risk asset selling off than a safe haven doing its job. And the fact that gold, the original safe haven, is also falling does not rescue the digital-gold comparison so much as extend the problem.
If Bitcoin is digital gold, then it is tracking gold straight to the bottom of the table, which is not the behavior the safe-haven thesis promises in a strong-market year. That is why crypto’s correlation with risk assets remains one of the hardest questions for the thesis.
But the nuance matters, and it cuts in Bitcoin’s favor too. The fact that Bitcoin and gold are falling together is itself evidence that they are responding to the same macro forces, higher real yields and a stronger dollar, which is exactly what you would expect of two non-yielding stores of value.
In that sense, Bitcoin is behaving like digital gold, just digital gold in a year when gold itself is out of favor. The thesis was never that gold or Bitcoin rises every year; it is that they serve a particular role over long horizons.
A single year of rotation-driven, rate-driven weakness after two years of enormous gains does not refute a multi-year store-of-value case any more than gold’s frequent down years refuted its role over centuries. The honest synthesis is that 2026 is a real stress test of the digital-gold narrative.
It exposes that Bitcoin still trades with significant risk-asset sensitivity and does not reliably act as a safe haven in the short run. It also shows Bitcoin moving in sympathy with gold under shared macro pressure, which is at least consistent with the longer-term comparison.
The year challenges the thesis without settling it.
How to read a divergence this unusual
A pattern this rare invites overreaction in both directions, so the discipline is to read it for what it is without forcing it into a story it does not support.
The bearish overreaction is to declare the safe-haven and digital-gold theses dead, to treat one unusual year as proof that Bitcoin and gold have lost their roles permanently. This goes too far, because a single year of rotation and rate-driven weakness, following two years of exceptional gains, is well within the normal range of how these assets behave over time.
Both have long histories of significant down years that did not end their long-run roles. Gold has been a store of value across centuries punctuated by frequent declines, and Bitcoin’s longer record, despite this drawdown, remains one of extraordinary cumulative returns.
One strange year is a data point, not a verdict, and reading it as a verdict is the kind of narrative-following-price that markets punish.
The bullish overreaction is the mirror image: to dismiss the year entirely as noise and insist nothing has changed, ignoring what the divergence reveals. That also goes too far, because the year does carry a real lesson.
Bitcoin still behaves with meaningful risk-asset sensitivity and does not reliably provide safe-haven protection in the short term, which is clearly relevant for anyone holding it for that purpose. The measured reading sits between the overreactions.
2026 shows that the macro environment of higher real yields and a stronger dollar can pressure Bitcoin and gold together, that Bitcoin’s safe-haven behavior is unreliable over short horizons, and that the rotation out of recent winners can hit even the strongest prior performers. None of that refutes the long-term store-of-value case or proves the assets have lost their roles.
The right response to an unusual year is to update toward humility about short-term safe-haven claims without abandoning the longer-term thesis, holding both the lesson and its limits at once.
What it means for investors
For anyone holding or considering Bitcoin or gold, the 2026 divergence offers a concrete and useful lesson about what these assets are and are not.
The lesson is that Bitcoin, and to a lesser degree gold, do not reliably function as short-term safe havens or uncorrelated hedges, and that in a macro environment of higher real yields and a stronger dollar they can fall even as risk assets rise. An investor holding Bitcoin specifically for downside protection or non-correlation should weigh this year as evidence that those properties are unreliable on short horizons, and should not assume Bitcoin will hold up when they most want it to.
At the same time, the year does not invalidate the long-term case for either asset. An investor with a multi-year horizon who holds Bitcoin or gold as a long-run store of value can reasonably view 2026 as a rotation-and-rates-driven drawdown rather than a structural break, especially given both assets’ histories of recovering from down years.
The horizon matters enormously. The short-term safe-haven claim looks weak this year, while the long-term store-of-value claim remains a separate question this year does not settle.
The practical discipline is to hold these assets for the role they actually play over your horizon rather than the role the narrative promises in every environment. If you want short-term, reliable downside protection, 2026 is a reminder that Bitcoin does not consistently provide it, and that other tools may suit that purpose better.
If you hold Bitcoin or gold as a long-term store of value and can tolerate years like this one, the divergence is a stress test passed or failed only over time, not in a single year. Watching the macro forces driving the divergence, real yields and the dollar, gives a clearer sense of when the pressure on these assets might ease than any narrative about safe havens can.
This is the bigger drawdown question: whether this is a cyclical reset inside a longer thesis, or the beginning of a deeper reassessment of crypto’s role in portfolios.
None of this is investment advice; it is a frame for reading an unusual year accurately, without the overreactions that an unprecedented pattern tends to provoke.
The safe havens that were not, this year
The defining oddity of 2026 is that the two assets the world holds to protect against uncertainty and debasement, Bitcoin and gold, are the only two major asset classes losing money, while stocks of every kind, large and small, value and emerging, climb around them.
It has never happened before in 15 years of data, and it is truly strange, but it is not inexplicable. Capital rotated out of the crowded safe-haven trade after two years of enormous gains, mean reversion pulled the former leaders back, and a hawkish Fed delivered higher real yields and a stronger dollar that fall with particular force on exactly the two non-yielding, dollar-alternative assets now in the red.
The pattern is unusual; the forces behind it are not mysterious.
What it means is more nuanced than either the death of the safe-haven thesis or business as usual. The year is a real stress test, showing that Bitcoin still trades with significant risk-asset sensitivity and does not reliably protect on short horizons, and that even the strongest prior performers can become a rotation’s casualties.
It also shows Bitcoin moving in sympathy with gold under shared macro pressure, which is at least consistent with the digital-gold comparison, just in a year when gold itself is out of favor. The measured reading updates toward humility about short-term safe-haven claims while leaving the long-term store-of-value case unsettled, a question only years can answer.
Bitcoin and gold being the only assets red in 2026 is a striking fact and a genuine lesson about what they are in the short run. But it is one unusual year, and the assets that have been left behind by this rotation have been left behind before, and have not always stayed there.
Frequently asked questions
Are Bitcoin and gold really the only major assets down in 2026?
Yes. According to market analyst Charlie Bilello, Bitcoin and gold are the only two major asset classes in the red for 2026, with Bitcoin down roughly 27% and gold down about 3%, while the S&P 500 is up around 9%, small-cap stocks up about 19%, and value stocks up roughly 15%.
Per Bilello’s 15-year data, Bitcoin and gold have never before finished a year together as the two worst-performing major assets.
Why are the two safe-haven assets falling while stocks rise?
Mainly rotation and macro forces. Capital has rotated out of the recent winners, including gold and Bitcoin after two years of huge gains, and into previously lagging areas like small-caps, value, and emerging markets, a shift Bilello calls the “reversal of everything.”
Underneath, a stronger dollar and higher real interest rates pressure gold and Bitcoin specifically because both are non-yielding, dollar-priced assets, making them less attractive when safe yields rise and the dollar strengthens.
Does this disprove that Bitcoin is digital gold?
Not exactly. A year where Bitcoin falls while stocks rise does complicate its claim to be an uncorrelated safe haven, showing it still trades with real risk-asset sensitivity.
But the fact that Bitcoin and gold are falling together suggests both are responding to the same macro forces, which is consistent with the digital-gold comparison, just in a year when gold itself is out of favor. The year stress-tests the thesis without settling the long-term store-of-value case.
Why do higher interest rates hurt Bitcoin and gold specifically?
Because neither pays a yield. The entire return from holding gold or Bitcoin comes from price appreciation, and the cost of holding them is the yield you give up elsewhere.
When real interest rates rise, that forgone yield becomes significant, a safe return you sacrifice to hold a non-yielding asset, which makes both less attractive and pressures their prices. This is why rising real yields are a precise headwind for exactly the two assets that are falling.
Is the drop in Bitcoin and gold a sign they have lost their role?
Probably not, though it is a real stress test. A single year of rotation-driven, rate-driven weakness, following two years of exceptional gains, is within the normal range of how these assets behave, and both have long histories of down years that did not end their long-run roles.
Declaring the safe-haven thesis dead over one unusual year overreaches. But the year does carry a genuine lesson that Bitcoin’s short-term safe-haven behavior is unreliable.
What should investors take from this divergence?
That Bitcoin, and to a lesser extent gold, do not reliably function as short-term safe havens, and can fall even as risk assets rise in a high-real-yield, strong-dollar environment. Investors holding Bitcoin for short-term downside protection should weigh that those properties are unreliable on short horizons.
Those holding it as a long-term store of value can view 2026 as a rotation-and-rates drawdown rather than a structural break. The horizon matters: the short-term claim looks weak this year; the long-term question remains open.
As of June 19, 2026. Markets are volatile and figures change quickly; verify current data before relying on this analysis. This article is information, not investment advice.
Hyperliquid has retreated more than 13% from its record high after a wave of profit-taking hit HYPE, while traders assess whether a newly formed double-top pattern could trigger a deeper correction.
Summary
- HYPE has dropped more than 12% from its $76.70 all-time high as profit-taking accelerates.
- A double-top pattern on the 4-hour chart puts key support levels near $65 and $62 in focus.
- Liquidation clusters between $70 and $72 could fuel volatility as traders battle for direction.
According to data from crypto.news, Hyperliquid (HYPE) price fell to an intraday low near $65.7 on June 19, extending losses from its June 16 all-time high of $76.70.
The pullback followed one of the strongest rallies in crypto this month, fueled by heavy derivatives activity, a short squeeze, and enthusiasm surrounding tokenized SpaceX exposure on the Hyperliquid ecosystem.
The decline has unfolded alongside a risk-off move across digital assets after Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh reinforced a hawkish policy stance during his first meeting at the helm of the U.S. central bank. Higher-for-longer rate expectations strengthened the dollar and pressured speculative assets, prompting traders to reduce exposure across altcoins.
Additional pressure came from Hyperliquid’s recent token unlock. Earlier this month, roughly 9.9 million HYPE tokens entered circulation as part of a scheduled vesting event worth about $700 million at prevailing prices. Although Hyperliquid’s fee-funded buyback mechanism helped absorb much of that supply during the rally, the market has become more sensitive to any slowdown in trading activity.
Network activity remains elevated by historical standards, but perpetual trading volume has eased from the peak levels recorded during HYPE’s surge toward $77. With fewer buyback-driven purchases entering the market, short-term traders have become more willing to lock in gains after the token’s rapid ascent.
Double-top pattern puts key support levels in focus
The four-hour chart shows HYPE carving out a clear double top near the $76.70-$77 region, a pattern that often appears near local market peaks. HYPE has already broken below the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement level around $67.7 and is testing support between $64.8 and $65.
A decisive break beneath the $64.8 neckline area would strengthen the bearish setup and increase the probability of a move toward the next Fibonacci support near $62, followed by the $58.4 region. The measured target derived from the double-top structure also aligns with a potential decline toward the upper-$50 range.
Momentum indicators have weakened. On the four-hour chart, the MACD has crossed lower and remains below its signal line, while Chaikin Money Flow has slipped into negative territory at approximately -0.06, suggesting capital has been leaving the asset during the recent selloff.
The daily chart presents a mixed picture. HYPE continues to trade above major support near $56.5, but price remains below the daily Supertrend resistance at roughly $74.3. Bulls would need to reclaim the $70-$72 zone to invalidate the immediate bearish structure and reopen the path toward the recent highs.
Liquidation clusters create battleground between $70 and $72
CoinGlass liquidation heatmap data shows a dense concentration of leveraged positions between $69.5 and $72. Strong liquidation bands are clustered around $70 and $71.8, creating a magnet zone if buyers regain control.
Meanwhile, sizeable liquidity pockets have formed below the market around $65 and $64. A breakdown into those levels could trigger another round of long liquidations and accelerate downside volatility.
According to analyst Lennaert Snyder, Bitcoin recently swept liquidity around $62,300 and may seek lower levels before establishing a durable bottom. While Snyder’s comments focused on Bitcoin, continued weakness in the market leader could add pressure across high-beta assets such as HYPE.
“$BTC swept 62.3K liquidity and hit our target,” Snyder wrote, adding that he would prefer to see fresh lows below $59,000 before considering a more durable reversal.
A recovery in crypto sentiment, renewed derivatives activity, and a move back above $70 would improve HYPE’s outlook. Until then, traders remain focused on whether the double-top breakdown extends toward the mid-$50 support zone or stabilizes before a larger trend reversal develops.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Bitcoin mined an empty block at height 954,352, according to Mempool data.
Summary
- SpiderPool mined Bitcoin block 954,352 with only the coinbase transaction and no user transactions included.
- The 62-second gap points to fast miner template timing, not a clear network problem today.
- Empty Bitcoin blocks have happened before, but repeated cases would draw closer miner behavior scrutiny.
The block contained only the coinbase transaction, meaning it carried the miner reward but no regular user transactions.
The block was mined by SpiderPool. Mempool data showed a timestamp of 2026-06-19 04:27 and a block weight of 1.16 kWU.
Short block gap draws attention
The empty block came about 62 seconds after the previous Bitcoin block. That short gap is the main reason traders and network watchers flagged the event.
A fast block gap can leave miners working with a coinbase-only template before a fuller transaction template reaches mining hardware. That can produce a valid empty block.
Meanwhile, empty Bitcoin blocks are not new. In June 2024, Mempool Research noted that empty blocks have appeared throughout Bitcoin’s history, though they are now rare.
The research explains that mining pools may send empty templates because they are smaller and faster to transmit. The tradeoff is that the miner gives up transaction fees from that block.
Repeated behavior would matter more
A single empty block does not show a Bitcoin network issue. It does not halt settlement, reverse transactions, or break consensus rules.
The event would matter more if empty blocks appeared repeatedly. That could raise fresh questions about miner timing choices and whether some pools are prioritizing speed over fee revenue.
As previously reported by crypto.news, miner timing incentives have been discussed in research around selfish mining risks. This empty Bitcoin block is not the same as selfish mining, but it adds another data point for analysts watching miner behavior.
Moreover, as crypto.news covered in 2022, Bitcoin SV faced empty-block issues, though that case involved a different network and a more severe pattern. For Bitcoin, block 954,352 is best read as a rare but known mining event unless the pattern continues.
The S token, the native utility asset behind the Sonic blockchain, fell 5% on Friday after Sonic Labs, formerly known as the Fantom Foundation, announced the resignation of three former executives from its board.
The S token fell to 0.031 on Friday, down 5% over 24 hours. The resignations include Michael Kong, a former CEO of the Fantom Foundation and director at Sonic Labs; David Richardson, who served as executive chairman of Sonic Labs; and Andre Cronje, who previously served as its chief technology officer.
Statement from Andre Cronje about his resignation from the board. Source: Andre Cronje
“These are the people who built what Sonic is today. They remain invested in Sonic’s success and are handing off their responsibilities the right way, in full. From here, they will no longer make business decisions for the organization,” Sonic Labs said as it announced Matt Visser as its new CEO and Kosta Kourkoumelis as chief operating officer.
Sonic Labs is overhauling its leadership and governance structure as it attempts to address growing community dissatisfaction and a prolonged decline in its S token, which has fallen 97% since launching in January 2025 as part of a network upgrade.
“We are not going to open with a victory lap. The token is down. Community sentiment is down. We see both clearly, we are not spinning it, and we are not asking anyone to pretend otherwise,” said Sonic Labs.
Related: Ethereum faces core development funding crisis, former contributor warns
Sonic Labs, the research and development organization behind the Sonic EVM-compatible layer-1 blockchain, is the successor to the Fantom Foundation, which was founded in 2018.
The blockchain is focused on speed, claiming to provide 10,000 transactions per second and subsecond finality. Its rebrand from Fantom to Sonic introduced a major structural and technical upgrade to the network as it replaced its legacy Fantom Opera network.
Sonic Labs said the leadership change will also come with a commitment to more transparent governance, clear communication about project updates, and the creation of a dedicated risk and compliance committee.
The leadership shuffle comes just days after Ethereum Foundation co-executive director Hsiao-Wei Wang announced that she had stepped down on Thursday, adding to a list of 19 layoffs and departures from the foundation this year.
Magazine: The end of anon? AI could unmask crypto’s hidden identities
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
As football fans celebrate the World Cup journey, CoinEx highlights the shared values of perseverance, growth, and long-term commitment in crypto.
Summary
- CoinEx links World Cup ambition with crypto growth, celebrating belief, resilience, and long-term progress.
- Inspired by football’s road to glory, CoinEx highlights persistence, user focus, and blockchain opportunity.
- CoinEx marks the World Cup season with a campaign honoring believers, contenders, and champions in crypto.
Every four years, the world comes together to witness football’s greatest stage. On the pitch, glory is never achieved overnight. Behind every victory lies years of preparation, discipline, setbacks, and perseverance. Long before champions lift the trophy, they begin with a simple belief — that their effort can lead to something greater.
The same spirit exists beyond football. In crypto, every user is a challenger navigating uncertainty, opportunity, and constant change. Success is never defined by a single moment. It is built through persistence, learning, and the willingness to move forward through every cycle.
As the world celebrates the pursuit of glory on the pitch, CoinEx celebrates the same spirit shared by millions across the global blockchain community.
Every champion starts as a believer
Before victories, recognition, or defining moments, there is always a first step. For football players, it is the belief that years of training can lead to the world’s biggest stage. For crypto users, it is the belief that blockchain can unlock new possibilities and global opportunities.
Belief is the beginning of every journey. It gives people the courage to embrace uncertainty, explore new paths, and pursue undefined goals.
Since its founding in 2017, CoinEx has shared this belief. Guided by its mission: “Via blockchain, make the world a better place”, CoinEx has enabled more people to participate in the blockchain economy. What began as a belief has grown into a global platform serving users across regions, languages, and market cycles.
Great challenges create great contenders
No World Cup campaign is won in a single match, and no meaningful progress in crypto is achieved through a single trade. Every journey is shaped by uncertainty and resilience.
Over the past decade, the blockchain industry has gone through multiple cycles of transformation. Through every phase, users have continued to learn and adapt through real participation.
CoinEx has moved through these cycles alongside its users. From a trading platform to a broader ecosystem — including CoinEx Wallet, CoinEx Vault, CoinEx Smart Chain, CoinEx Explorer, and CoinEx Charity — CoinEx has grown around one core principle: User Centric.
Every decision and product iteration is guided by one commitment: understanding user needs and supporting their journey. Because every contender deserves a platform that stands with them through every challenge.
Expertise is earned through every cycle
In football, experience builds trust. The most respected teams are defined not by a single victory, but by consistent performance over time. Their reputation is proven, not declared.
The same is true in crypto. “Being your crypto trading expert” is not about predicting every market move, but about remaining reliable across conditions and helping users navigate uncertainty with clarity and confidence.
It is about understanding users, responding to their needs, and continuously improving the trading experience.
CoinEx has spent nearly a decade building a secure, accessible, and reliable trading environment. Across changing market conditions, one principle has remained unchanged: putting users first.
Glory belongs to those who keep moving forward
Champions are not defined solely by the trophies they lift. They are defined by the persistence that carries them through uncertainty, setbacks, and moments of doubt.
This World Cup season, CoinEx celebrates every challenger pursuing their own version of success. To bring this spirit into action, CoinEx has launched three core World Cup experiences:
The limited-edition CoinEx × ViaBTC World Cup jerseys, each representing a stage on the road to glory:
- The BELIEVER — the courage to begin
- The CONTENDER — the drive to compete through challenges
- The CHAMPION — the moment persistence becomes achievement
More than designs, they represent a shared journey from belief to glory.
At the same time, CoinEx opens the All In The Glory Futures PnL Ranking, where users enter a global competitive arena and compete for a share of the 15,000 USDT prize pool. Every trade becomes part of a real-time contest of skill, discipline, and performance.
For those just beginning their journey, the Newcomer Exclusive Reward Program provides a structured first step into the arena:
- Deposit & ≥ 40 USDT → 40 USDT fee rebate
- Spot trading & ≥ 50 USDT → 30 USDT fee rebate
- Futures trading & ≥ 300 USDT → 30 USDT fee rebate
- Up to 100 USDT total rewards for new users
Every journey begins with a first step. And every step deserves recognition.
All In The Glory
- Every champion starts as a believer.
- Every contender is shaped through challenges. Every expert is earned through every cycle.
- And every moment of glory is achieved through perseverance.
This World Cup season, CoinEx salutes every challenger continuing their journey toward something greater.
The Believer. The Contender. The Champion.
ALL IN THE GLORY.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
Ethereum is facing an urgent funding squeeze for its core development work, according to a warning from a former Ethereum Foundation contributor. Trenton Van Epps said the network’s funding apparatus could be pushed into a “slow-burning funding crisis” within the next three to nine months as key Foundation spending cuts and program expirations reduce the pool of ecosystem support.
The concern arrives amid a broader period of organizational churn at the Ethereum Foundation. Cointelegraph reported a continuing wave of leadership exits, including co-executive director Hsiao-Wei Wang announcing Thursday that she would step down—bringing departures and layoffs at the Foundation to 19 so far this year, according to the report.
Key takeaways
- Former Ethereum Foundation contributor Trenton Van Epps warns that the Ethereum ecosystem may need about $30 million annually to sustain core development.
- He links the risk to the Foundation’s spending reduction and the expiration of the Client Incentive Program in April.
- Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin previously argued the Foundation has limited resources and framed its remaining ETH holdings as supporting “longevity over breadth.”
- Earlier treasury actions—un-staking and sales of ETH—suggest the Foundation has been adjusting its strategy to raise funds for protocol work.
A looming gap in core development support
In a blog post published Thursday, Van Epps said he is drawing his assessment from discussions with core development contributors. His central claim is that Ethereum’s core development ecosystem currently requires roughly $30 million in annual funding to function effectively.
Van Epps attributed the funding pressure to two concrete developments: the Ethereum Foundation’s reduction in spending and the expiration of the Client Incentive Program in April. Those changes, he argues, reduce recurring support for the teams and contributors that help keep Ethereum’s core clients and infrastructure moving.
“Slow-burning” is the key phrase here—rather than an immediate collapse, Van Epps suggests the situation may worsen gradually as funding for ongoing engineering efforts becomes harder to maintain. For readers, the practical takeaway is that ecosystem reliability and delivery timelines could become increasingly sensitive to how quickly new or replacement funding streams are established.
Treasury strategy shifts: “sell less ETH” and fund development
The funding debate is closely tied to how the Ethereum Foundation manages its ETH holdings. In a May 24 X post, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin described the Foundation’s resources as limited, noting that it holds about 0.16% of Ether’s total supply—far below the share held by some other networks’ foundations.
Buterin said the Ethereum Foundation was originally designed for a narrower scope: advancing Ethereum’s core software and helping the network reach major roadmap milestones. He argued that many of those milestones were largely completed by 2022, which frames a strategic shift toward what he described as longevity-focused use of remaining resources.
“And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH),” Buterin wrote.
According to Cointelegraph coverage, the Foundation has already taken steps that adjust its ETH exposure and liquidity. It reportedly un-staked 17,000 ETH in late April and then un-staked another 21,270 ETH in early May, after nearly surpassing 70,000 ETH staked earlier in the year. Cointelegraph also reported that the Foundation sold 10,000 ETH to Bitmine in an OTC deal on May 1.
Blockchain analytics platform Arkham suggested the un-staking may have been tied to the Foundation’s need for funds to continue developing the network. While Arkham’s explanation is not a formal confirmation of intent, it aligns with the broader pattern: if development funding needs remain, the treasury will face pressure to provide capital without destabilizing its longer-term strategy.
Policy update attempts to balance staking and sell pressure
The Foundation’s stance on treasury management has also evolved in response to community reaction. Cointelegraph reported that the Ethereum Foundation published a June 2025 policy update stating that increasing its staking participation could help fund protocol development while limiting future ETH sales after backlash over earlier disposals.
That approach matters because it highlights a tension investors and builders may be watching closely: the Foundation needs enough liquidity to support core work, but it also faces political and reputational costs when selling ETH is perceived as excessive. The reported mix of un-staking, OTC sales, and a subsequent policy pivot toward staking suggests the Foundation is trying to thread a needle—raising funds while reducing the rate of direct ETH disposals.
At the same time, Van Epps’ warning raises a different question: even if treasury mechanics are tweaked, is the resulting funding level sufficient and stable enough to cover the ecosystem’s real-world costs?
Why the funding crisis risk is now more than theoretical
The reason this story is likely to matter beyond internal governance debates is that “core development” is not a static category. Client teams, security research, protocol maintenance, and infrastructure improvements are continuous efforts. If funding drops abruptly—especially through the expiration of a program like the Client Incentive Program in April—then the ecosystem may need time to reallocate responsibilities or secure replacement support.
Van Epps’ estimate of an approximately $30 million annual requirement provides a concrete yardstick for measuring whether proposed changes—whether treasury adjustments, new funding mechanisms, or redesigned incentives—can offset the gap created by earlier spending reductions. If the gap persists, the most likely consequences are slower delivery, fewer funded contributors, or increased reliance on volunteers and short-term grants.
Layered on top of this are the leadership changes highlighted by Cointelegraph, including Hsiao-Wei Wang stepping down. Organizational transitions don’t automatically determine engineering outcomes, but they can affect how quickly decisions get made and how funding priorities are implemented—particularly during a period already flagged as vulnerable.
For now, readers should watch whether the Ethereum Foundation’s funding strategy adjustments translate into sustained support at the ecosystem level—especially once the next funding cycles approach. The open uncertainty is whether treasury policy changes and ETH management actions can fully cover the annual core development needs Van Epps outlined, or whether Ethereum will need genuinely new funding sources sooner than expected.
Logitech G515 Kamisato Ayaka Edition Turns Genshin Inspiration Into a Desk Showpiece
Oscu – Money (Official Video)
five reasons why Victorian houses are cooler than modern buildings
-
Business5 days agoNo Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
-
Crypto World5 days agoZimbabwe Requires Crypto Businesses to Register Annually Under New FIU Regulations
-
Crypto World7 days agoBitget enters Argentina’s regulated crypto market through PSAV registration
-
Entertainment5 days agoMatt Damon’s Viral Sci-Fi Thriller Has Taken Over HBO Max
-
Business5 days agoAnthropic staff to meet White House officials next week, Axios reports
-
Fashion8 hours agoWeekend Open Thread: Miami – Corporette.com
-
Tech5 days agoAs AI companies race to go public, who else is along for the ride?
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin could crash to $48,000, if this historical pattern is triggered
-
NewsBeat5 days agoWarning of disruption as Cardiff Crossrail works to start
-
Politics5 days ago“Israel’s” ban on ICRC visits ruled illegal, but Knesset moves to stop them permanently
-
News Videos5 days agoFinancial Accounting | Last Day Revision Strategy and Booster | CMA Inter – June 2026
-
NewsBeat5 days agoTributes to former deputy head teacher at Cambridge school among death and funeral notices
-
Entertainment6 days agoDeion Sanders Shares Powerful Post After Viral Advice To Deiondra
-
NewsBeat5 days agowhat doctors are seeing in ebike crashes
-
Entertainment5 days agoKate Middleton Glare Goes Viral After Kids Booed At Royal Event
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP ETFs Outperform As Bitcoin And Ethereum Funds Extend Outflow Trend
-
Crypto World5 days agoMarket Preview: SpaceX (SPCX) IPO Record, Federal Reserve Meeting, and Iran Nuclear Agreement
-
Tech5 days agoOver 400 Arch Linux packages compromised to push rootkit, infostealer
-
Business5 days agoInvesco Quality Income Fund Q1 2026 Commentary
-
Entertainment7 days ago44 Years Later, This Is the Greatest Star Trek Quote in Sci-Fi History
You must be logged in to post a comment Login