It has been over three months since the first XRP ETF launched, but the demand seems to have evaporated.

It has been another week of underwhelming XRP ETF performance, with the funds attracting little to no actual net inflows.

At the same time, the underlying asset has struggled to maintain the price resurgance from last week, and now trades over 10% lower.

Where Did the Ripple ETF Demand Go?

Canary Capital’s XRPC was met by investors with open arms, breaking the 2025 debut-day trading volume record on November 13. Four more products tracking the altcoin followed suit, and the total inflows quickly skyrocketed to over $1 billion. However, it has been mostly plateauing since then, and even some weeks deep in the red.

For example, investors pulled out $40.64 million during the week that ended on January 23, and another $52.26 million the following week. The next one was more positive, with $39.04 million in net inflows. The trend changed then: the interest and demand are nowhere to be found.

Two weeks ago – on February 11 – the ETFs had no reportable daily flows, with SoSoValue showing a clear “$0.00” for the first time since the products’ inception. This behavior worsened last week when there were two such days – February 17 and February 20. Even the other two showed little interest: $2.21 million in net outflows on February 18 and $4.05 million in net inflows on February 19.

Since Monday was a national holiday in the US and the markets were closed, this meant that half of the business days had no actual trading volume to report. As such, it’s no surprise that the cumulative net inflows have remained flat at $1.23 billion.

XRP Price Falls

Somewhat unexpectedly, Ripple’s native cross-border token jumped hard by double digits last weekend, going to a multi-week peak of over $1.65 despite the lack of ETF action. However, this sporadic price pump was short-lived, and the asset quickly lost traction. It returned to $1.40 mid-week and even dipped below that level on a couple of occasions.

You may also like:

It has managed to defend that support as of press time, but it’s still more than 10% down weekly. Aside from ETF investors who had displayed a serious lack of interest in the asset, data shared by popular analyst CW shows that short traders continue to dominate the XRP landscape.

Nevertheless, a recent report by Santiment suggested that XRP could be slightly undervalued at the moment, according to the 30-day MVRV ratio. Moreover, the skyrocketing amount of realized losses could lead to a significant price rebound for Ripple’s token, as it has happened in the past. In fact, it led to a 114% surge back in 2022 when such losses were last observed.

Bitcoin price has traded mostly flat over the past 24 hours near $68,000, reflecting continued indecision. The broader seven-day trend still shows a mild decline, highlighting the lack of strong bullish momentum. Yet one prediction market’s positioning is telling a far more optimistic story.

On Polymarket, the single largest February outcome, at 17%, expects Bitcoin to cross $75,000. This makes it the most popular directional bet as the month approaches its final week. However, market structure, on-chain activity, and whale positioning suggest reality may not align with this bullish expectation.

Prediction Markets Favor $75,000 — But Hidden Bearish Divergence Signals Trouble

Prediction market data shows ‘above $75,000’ remains the most favored February target despite weakening sentiment. Polymarket volumes, for this bet, exceed $88 million, with millions in active liquidity.

However, the probability of the $75,000 outcome has already declined by more than 50%, reflecting fading confidence.

At the same time, the next most likely outcome sits at ‘under $60,000’ with a 12% probability. This positioning reveals a growing split in expectations. While many traders still hope for upside, a large portion of the market is increasingly preparing for a deeper correction instead.

This growing caution aligns closely with Bitcoin’s technical structure.

On the daily chart, Bitcoin formed a lower high between November 15 and February 16. This means price failed to fully recover during its latest rally attempt.

Meanwhile, the Relative Strength Index (RSI), which measures momentum strength, formed a higher high during the same period.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

Because Bitcoin was already in a downtrend, this creates a hidden bearish divergence. This pattern usually signals continuation of the existing downtrend rather than a bullish reversal. It shows that even though momentum improved briefly, the broader selling pressure remains intact.

Since this divergence appeared, Bitcoin has already corrected nearly 6%. As long as this signal remains active, the probability of reaching the prediction market’s $75,000 target remains limited.

Long-Term Holders Have Slowed Selling, But Have Not Started Buying

Long-term holder activity helps explain why prediction markets still retain some optimism, even as risks increase. These investors may have held Bitcoin for more than 1 year. Their buying and selling patterns often determine whether Bitcoin enters a sustained rally or correction.

On February 5, long-term holders reduced their holdings by 244,919 BTC (30-day rolling change), a sign of extremely heavy selling. By February 21, this number improved to 81,019 BTC. This marks a roughly 67% reduction in selling pressure.

This sharp slowdown in selling helps stabilize Bitcoin’s price and explains why some traders still expect upside.

However, long-term holders are still net sellers overall. They have not yet transitioned into accumulation. Their activity has improved, but they are not yet providing the strong buying support needed to push Bitcoin toward new highs.

This creates a neutral balance. Bitcoin may avoid immediate collapse, but it also lacks the strength needed for a major breakout to push it close to $75,000.

Whale Behavior Is Split

Whale positioning further reflects uncertainty.

The largest Bitcoin whales, holding between 100,000 and 1 million BTC, increased their holdings from 676,540 BTC to 690,000 BTC. This represents an accumulation of about 13,460 BTC, signaling cautious buying.

However, smaller whales holding between 10,000 and 100,000 BTC reduced their holdings from 2.27 million BTC to 2.26 million BTC. This means roughly 10,000 BTC were sold during the same period.

This opposing behavior shows a lack of unified conviction, even though the net balance slightly tilts towards accumulation. Some whales are preparing for a rebound, while others remain defensive.

At the same time, cost basis distribution data reveals a major resistance cluster between $72,600 and $73,200. Around 149,000 BTC were accumulated in this range. These levels also appear clearly on the price chart as a major resistance zone just below $75,000.

When Bitcoin approaches this area, many holders may sell to exit at breakeven. And the whale accumulation strength, as seen, isn’t strong enough to absorb the supply yet. This selling pressure creates a strong barrier that prediction markets may be underestimating.

Bitcoin Price Structure Shows BTC May Remain Trapped Between Key Levels

Bitcoin’s price structure closely aligns with these on-chain cost basis clusters.

To reach the $75,000 prediction target, Bitcoin must first break above $72,200. This level represents both technical resistance and is close to one of the largest cost basis clusters on the chart. Breaking this zone would require a rally of more than 6% from current levels.

However, failure to break this resistance increases the likelihood of continued range-bound movement. On the downside, strong support exists between $64,300 and $63,800, where approximately 150,000 BTC were accumulated.

On the Bitcoin price chart, the key support level resembling the zone is $63,300, breaking which would also mean the supply cluster break. Breaking under $63,300 can make the $60,000 zone, the 12% probability bet on Polymarket, come to fruition.

As a result, Bitcoin is currently trapped between two major cost basis zones. Resistance near $72,200 limits upside, while support near $63,300 prevents immediate collapse.

This range-bound structure suggests that prediction markets may be overestimating the probability of a breakout toward $75,000 while underestimating the growing risk of continued consolidation or a correction.

Open-source AI agent framework OpenClaw has drawn attention not only for its code but for governance choices. The project, created by Peter Steinberger, recently enforced a hard rule: no discussions of cryptocurrency on its primary community channels. The ban surfaced after a user on X reported being blocked from OpenClaw’s Discord for referencing a block height as a timing mechanism in a benchmark for autonomous agents. Steinberger publicly backed the moderation, saying the community operates under strict server rules, including a crypto-free policy. In a later clarification, he offered to restore the user after receiving a username via email, signaling a cautious but reversible approach to enforcement.

Key takeaways

• OpenClaw enforces a strict no-crypto policy on its Discord server, publicly backing the ban after a user referenced a blockchain timing mechanism in a multi-agent benchmark.
• The founder confirmed the action and later offered to reinstate the user upon receiving the account details, illustrating a degree of administrative flexibility within the rules.
• A separate rebrand episode involved a fake token tied to the project, which briefly soared to a multi-million dollar market cap before collapsing sharply amid questions of authenticity and attribution.
• OpenClaw’s rapid growth, including surpassing 200,000 GitHub stars, has drawn significant attention from developers and crypto practitioners alike.
• Industry players are increasingly discussing crypto rails for AI workflows, with major moves from Circle and Coinbase signaling a broader push toward stablecoins and on-chain automation for AI agents.
• Security researchers have flagged widespread exposure of OpenClaw instances and a wave of malicious plug-ins targeting crypto traders, underscoring ongoing risk in open-source AI ecosystems.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The case sits at the crossroads of AI agent development and crypto infrastructure, illustrating how research tooling and digital assets increasingly intersect while questions about safety and governance remain unresolved.

Why it matters

The OpenClaw episode highlights a broader tension within the crypto-AI frontier: as autonomous agents gain traction, the communities building and using these tools must decide how crypto interacts with software governance. A no-crypto rule, such as the one OpenClaw instituted, can reflect an intent to keep research environments clean of financial incentives or external manipulation, but it may also constrain collaborations that rely on token-based incentives or payments within AI experiments.

From a user perspective, the incident underscores two practical concerns. First, moderation policies on open-source AI projects can directly affect access and collaboration, potentially slowing innovation if critical contributors are blocked for what could be perceived as benign references. Second, the CLAWD episode—where a token tied to the project briefly surged to a multi-million-dollar market cap and then cratered—serves as a cautionary tale about token fraud risk around high-profile projects. Even when a founder denies affiliation, the rapid market realization of a token can draw unintended attention and speculation, attracting bad actors before the project can respond effectively.

For the broader crypto ecosystem, the narrative sits alongside a wave of enterprise-grade AI developments that are increasingly being paired with native crypto rails. Circle’s commentary about billions of AI agents relying on stablecoins in the near future and Coinbase’s Agentic Wallets initiative point to a future where on-chain payments, wallet management, and autonomous trading become routine for software agents. This trend could drive demand for reliable on-chain infrastructure, but it will also elevate the importance of governance, security, and clear delineation between project development and speculative token activity.

What to watch next

• OpenClaw’s official stance on moderation and any updates to its crypto-free policy, including whether moderation rules will be clarified or revised.
• Any new information about the CLAWD token incident, including whether other developers or communities confirm or debunk ties to OpenClaw.
• Ongoing security research into OpenClaw deployments and the emergence of malicious plug-ins tied to crypto-trading activities.
• Progress on crypto-enabled AI workflows, such as new implementations of AgentKit-like tooling or on-chain automation features from major platforms.

Sources & verification

• OpenClaw Discord moderation actions and related X posts documenting the ban and subsequent reinstatement offer.
• The GitHub repository for OpenClaw, illustrating the project’s rapid growth and community engagement.
• Security research on the CLAWD token incident, including SlowMist’s threat intelligence analysis and linked investigations.
• Coinbase’s coverage of AI agents and on-chain wallet capabilities through Agentic Wallets, and related developer tooling.

OpenClaw’s crypto ban underscores tensions at the AI-crypto frontier

OpenClaw’s moderation decision, explicitly banning crypto mentions on its Discord, marks a notable stance within an ecosystem that increasingly blurs the line between research code and financial instruments. The initial online clash began when a user referenced a Bitcoin block height as a timing mechanism for a multi-agent benchmark, triggering a response from Steinberger that the server’s rules do not permit crypto references. The conversation quickly escalated to a formal acknowledgment: the policy existed, discussions about it were ongoing, and access could be suspended for non-compliance. The question now is how this policy will affect collaboration with external researchers who leverage on-chain data or token-based incentives to drive experiments in autonomous agents.

The claim that the ban would be lifted for a user once a username was provided by email signals a measured approach to governance. It suggests that OpenClaw is balancing its enforcement with a path to reinstatement, rather than pursuing permanent exclusion. This approach could reflect a broader trend: as AI research communities grow, moderators may increasingly grapple with how to handle financial instruments that—while tangential to the project’s technical objectives—are integral to the broader crypto economy. The tension lies in preserving a focused, safe development environment while not stifling legitimate cross-pollination between AI experimentation and crypto-enabled incentives or payments.

The bitcoin reference also triggers a deeper look at how crypto assets influence perception of open-source AI projects. When a project emphasizes transparency and collaboration but draws a line at crypto mentions, it raises questions about the boundaries between research collaboration and financial speculation. The event did not occur in isolation. In a separate, high-profile moment in the same period, a rebranding effort associated with OpenClaw preceded the appearance of a fake token, branded to resemble the project. The token, branded as $CLAWD, quickly attracted attention and reached a reported market capitalization of around $16 million within hours before a dramatic decline—more than 90%—after Steinberger publicly distanced the project from the token’s creation. Early buyers alleged that the token was a marketing ploy or a misattribution, highlighting the persistent risk of fraud in fast-moving crypto ecosystems tied to AI tooling.

Steinberger’s public statements at the time contained a clear warning: he would never launch a cryptocurrency, and any token claiming association with him or the project was fraudulent. Security researchers later documented widespread exposure of OpenClaw instances and a variety of malicious plug-ins aimed at crypto traders, underscoring the vulnerability of rapidly scaled, open-source AI platforms to exploitation. The experience is a reminder that, as AI agents become more capable and more deeply integrated with blockchain-enabled economics, the infrastructure around those agents must be rigorously secured, and governance policies must be transparent and enforceable.

Despite these controversies, OpenClaw has continued to grow, attracting a broad developer audience. By late January, the project had already surpassed significant milestones in community engagement, including more than 200,000 GitHub stars—a metric that signals intense interest in autonomous-agent architectures and their potential applications across finance, data processing, and decentralized marketplaces. The momentum around the project coincides with a broader industry push to integrate crypto rails with AI workflows. Circle’s public forecasts and Coinbase’s Agentic Wallets initiative illustrate that major players believe crypto-enabled automation will become a staple of the AI ecosystem, from simple payments to complex, automated trading strategies and compute settlements.

In this context, the OpenClaw episode raises important questions for builders, investors, and users. Governance rules that restrict crypto discussions may help maintain focus and reduce immediate risk, but they also necessitate careful communication to avoid misinterpretation or unintended exclusivity. As AI agents begin to touch more sectors of the real economy, the industry will likely see new forms of collaboration that respect safety standards while enabling legitimate experimentation with on-chain incentives and settlements. For developers, the key takeaway is to design governance that is as robust as the code itself—clear, auditable, and adaptable—as communities navigate the evolving terrain where autonomous agents and crypto intersect.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) remains a touchpoint in discussions about crypto-enabled automation, and the broader trajectory of stablecoins and crypto wallets in AI workflows suggests that these technologies will coexist with varying degrees of integration and caution. The OpenClaw episode, with its bans, token episodes, and security concerns, provides a concrete case study in how quickly the AI-crypto nexus can surface governance questions, reputational risk, and the need for strong verification and safety measures as new software agents begin to operate in decentralized ecosystems.

https://cdn.example.com/analytics.js

Here’s who has been buying and who has been selling throughout BTC’s most recent retracement.

Bitcoin’s price movements since early October can safely be categorized as bearish, given the fact that the asset shed over 50% of its value from its all-time high to its multi-year low of $60,000 marked on February 6.

Although it has recovered some ground since then, the cryptocurrency is deep in the red even on a year-to-date scale. Santiment investigated which investor group sold off during the months-long correction, and which increased their positions.

Who’s Selling and Buying?

The post from the analytics company reveals an interesting pattern. It reads that wallets holding between 10 and 10,000 bitcoins have reduced their positions by 0.8% since the October peak. In contrast, micro investors, those with 0.1 BTC or less, have increased their holdings by 2.5% within the same timeframe.

The analysis reads that this behavior from both groups does not suggest an upcoming price reversal.

“Optimally, we begin to see these two Bitcoin groups begin to reverse course. Without key stakeholder support, any spark of a rally will tend to be slightly limited due to the lack of large capital,” Santiment said, before indicating that retail investors have remained undeterred, currently holding the highest amount in nearly two years.

ETF Investors Flock

Unlike the small discrepancy between the two investor groups examined by Santiment, those who gain exposure to the largest cryptocurrency through ETFs have shown a clear and painful trend. In the two weeks leading to the asset’s all-time high of over $126,000, they poured in over $6 billion into the funds.

Since then, red has dominated almost every week, with multiple $1 billion or more net outflow examples. In three consecutive weeks in early November, they withdrew more than $3.5 billion. This behavior continued into the new year, and the spot Bitcoin ETFs are currently on a massive red streak of five weeks in a row in the red.

Data from SoSoValue shows that these investors pulled out $1.33 billion during the week that ended on January 23. Another $1.49 billion followed, but the silver lining is that the net inflows have decreased to under $360 million in the past three weeks. Nevertheless, the total net inflows into the spot BTC ETFs have declined from $62.77 billion in early October to $54 billion last Friday.

You may also like:

The developer behind the fast-growing open-source AI agent framework OpenClaw has confirmed that any mention of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies on its Discord server can lead to removal.

In a Saturday post on X, a user revealed that they were blocked from OpenClaw’s Discord simply for referencing Bitcoin block height as a timing mechanism in a multi-agent benchmark.

In response, OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger confirmed the action, writing that members had accepted “strict server rules” upon joining and that the community maintains a “no crypto mention whatsoever” policy.

Steinberger later agreed to re-add the user, asking them to email their username so he could restore their access to the server.

Related: Ethereum’s Trustless Agents standard is the missing link for AI payments

OpenClaw’s crypto problem began with a fake token

Trouble began during a rebrand after Steinberger received a trademark notice related to the project’s original name. In the short window between releasing old social accounts and claiming new ones, scammers seized the abandoned handles and promoted a Solana-based token called $CLAWD.

The token surged to roughly $16 million in market capitalization within hours before collapsing more than 90% after Steinberger publicly denied involvement. Early buyers accused the developer.

Steinberger responded at the time by warning users he would never launch a cryptocurrency and that any token claiming association with him was fraudulent. Security researchers later identified hundreds of exposed OpenClaw instances online and dozens of malicious plug-ins, many designed to target crypto traders.

OpenClaw has expanded rapidly since launching in late January, surpassing 200,000 GitHub stars within weeks and attracting a wide developer audience interested in autonomous agents.

Related: Deel taps MoonPay to roll out stablecoin salary payouts in UK, EU

Crypto firms bullish on AI agents

Industry leaders increasingly see crypto as the default payment rail for AI. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire predicted that billions of agents will use stablecoins for routine payments within a few years